Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Justice questions, and in the light of some of the discourse on social media over the past week on matters relating to criminal justice, I would like to remind Members that the way we treat each other, and the judgments we make, are important to set the tone for national debate. I therefore ask Members to consider carefully what is in good taste and in bad taste. As was set out in the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, we
“encourage everyone to engage positively in the political process, with courtesy and respect in discussions, and grace and understanding towards those with whom they disagree.”
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Mr Speaker, the whole House will know that I shall be making a statement shortly after this Question Time.
The Government are committed to human rights at home and abroad, but in order to retain public confidence, the European convention on human rights and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. Domestically, we will clarify how convention rights operate in immigration cases, and I am engaging across Europe on wider reform.
Bob Blackman
The public are clearly frustrated that foreign criminals and people who come here illegally are not deported because human rights laws are used to prevent that from happening. I understand that the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor, the present Home Secretary, is considering changing those laws, which might happen, but if that is the case, could the Lord Chancellor not accept the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Lord Chancellor and put it into law so that we can get on with the job of deporting people who should not be here?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right; people are claiming the article 8 right in particular and using domestic law to thwart removal to their countries. That is why it is important for us to deal with that domestically, through legislation. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that this Government are deporting more foreign criminals than have ever been deported before—over 5,000 just in our first year in office. We are taking this seriously and we are acting.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Because of our proud history and our commitment to the rule of law, the UK is a global leader in legal services, with our courts garnering respect across the world. What does the Lord Chancellor think would be the impact on our reputation should we begin ripping up our international agreements and our commitments to the very rule of law that we as a nation helped to shape?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that legal services, the rule of law and the importance of this jurisdiction for companies and individuals seeking recourse brings £47 billion a year into our economy. It is right for us to seek common cause with countries such as Denmark and Italy, which are, like us, exercised about how the European convention on human rights is being thwarted; but we do that in a steady, progressive way, and we certainly recognise the importance of the ECHR.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I serve on the Council of Europe, which is a perfectly worthwhile assembly. The convention was framed shortly after the second world war and was designed to counter Nazism—it was not designed to protect illegal migrants entering a country. We all know that this crisis is sapping belief in government. Why does the very reasonable Justice Secretary not work with the even more reasonable shadow Justice Secretary, come before the House and say that we will get a temporary derogation from the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, and that we will detain and deport anyone who enters this country illegally? That would solve the crisis.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman, who is hugely experienced, will know that it is important that we do not do anything that might, for example, undermine the Good Friday agreement, in respect of which the ECHR is fundamentally important. He rightly mentioned the refugee convention, which sits with the United Nations. I will be going to Strasbourg shortly, where I will be taking up many of these issues.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. There are perhaps other unforeseen consequences of leaving the ECHR, including for the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that either the Opposition parties wishing to leave the ECHR have not considered the impact of leaving on Cornish national minority status, or they have but they just do not care about the Cornish?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will know that, in relation to the debate that we had on exiting the European Union, all sorts of things were promised by many colleagues now on the Opposition Benches, but they were not delivered. It feels a little bit like we are on repeat in relation to this. There are areas of immigration where we have to do things domestically, and there are areas where we want to work with European colleagues—who are also concerned at the way that laws are being thwarted—but please let us not undermine a fundamental that was instituted by one of the heroes of this Parliament, Winston Churchill.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Fuad Awale is an extremist and double murderer who later took a prison officer hostage and demanded the release of the radical cleric Abu Qatada. He is the definition of evil. Yet the Justice Secretary’s Department is now set to pay him compensation as his ECHR rights have apparently been infringed, because he could not associate with monsters like those who killed Lee Rigby. Will the Justice Secretary ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money is handed over to this man? If he will not, and he puts our membership of the ECHR above the interests of the British people, will he put his money where his mouth is and pay any so-called compensation himself?
Mr Lammy
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always keen to get headlines, but he knows that the consequences of judgments—their impacts on Government and any payments made—have been an issue for successive Governments for the entire time that he and I have been on the planet. He knows that we are committed to the ECHR—offering asylum to those who are genuinely fleeing torture and execution—but he knows, too, that we are seeking to work domestically and with European colleagues on the issues that I referred to earlier, and article 8 in particular. This is not the time to start revising decisions that have effectively been made by our courts.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
In line with our Welsh language scheme, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service offers prisoners, people on probation and members of the public the right to choose whether to use English or Welsh in their dealings with us. We recognise that enabling prisoners to use their preferred language is a matter of good practice —not a concession—as prisoners can express their views and needs better in their preferred language.
Liz Saville Roberts
Diolch yn fawr. The Welsh Language Act 1993 places a duty on public bodies to treat the English and Welsh languages as equal in Wales. The Minister mentioned the HMPPS Welsh language scheme, which is a new scheme that commits to publishing an annual report on its progress. I have already contacted the Ministry of Justice about that and about adherence to the Act. However, considering that the previous iteration of the scheme failed in that respect—publishing only a single report, and that only following a complaint under the 1993 Act—what assurances can the Minister give that the new scheme will have any real effect?
Jake Richards
I thank the right hon. Member for her vital question. She is absolutely right. I will follow up on the correspondence that she sent to the Ministry of Justice—I have not seen that myself. As I set out before, the policy implemented by the MOJ is one that values the Welsh language and will continue to do so.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We are determined to back our hard-working probation staff by investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review and investing an initial £8 million in new technologies to reduce administrative burdens. We will also recruit 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025-26, in addition to the more than 1,000 we recruited last year.
Ian Sollom
In July 2024, inspectors rated Cambridgeshire and Peterborough probation service inadequate, with major leadership failures and child safeguarding assessed as adequate in just 28% of cases. The action plan committed to increasing probation officer staffing by 87% by March 2026, but the National Audit Office has now revealed that the Probation Service has underestimated staffing requirements by 34%, which implies that the service in Cambridgeshire has been operating with only half the staff needed. Given that miscalculation, will the Secretary of State commit to revised, accurate staffing targets for Cambridgeshire, and reassure my constituents that child safeguarding will not be compromised as the service tries to manage with inadequate resources?
Mr Lammy
Cambridgeshire is a part of the country that I know well, having spent seven years of my life in Peterborough. I will look closely at this issue, and I will ask the Prisons Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we move forward.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Probation Service plays a vital role in our justice system, and is integral to ensuring that community sentences are effective and that our communities are kept safe. The Conservatives’ part-privatisation reforms were disastrous for our Probation Service. What are this Government doing to ensure that our probation officers are properly supported in carrying out their vital jobs?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The decisions that were made under the last Government by the then Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, were catastrophic for a wonderful service, and we are now in the business of rebuilding the Probation Service. I have been very pleased to visit probation workers in Chatham, Kent, and in Islington recently, and one of the things they raise is their caseload. In Kent they were trialling our transformation fund money, which is introducing artificial intelligence that can help them do what they want to do: provide face-to-face contact and reduce their caseloads. I want to see that rolled out across the country.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Currently, if a child sex offender is released from prison, the police and the Probation Service can track them on the sex offenders register, but if a child abuser is released from prison, the authorities have no register to track them with. There is a glaring gap in the system. Paula Hudgell has been fighting to fix the law after her adopted son Tony was abused so badly that he lost his legs. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer, and she says this campaign is the fire in her belly. Paula is truly inspirational, and we are backing her campaign. Will the Secretary of State take our amendment or bring forward his own, and get this change over the line for Paula, for Tony and to protect children now and into the future?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I can tell him that the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), met Paula today and we are keen to support her campaign.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Like much of the justice system, the Probation Service is buckling under the strain after a decade of being undervalued by the previous Government. The injection of £700 million by 2028 was welcomed last year, but it has yet to be felt on the frontline of probation, which is estimated to be 10,000 staff members short. Given that the Sentencing Bill and a presumption against short sentences are bound to put additional pressure on the Probation Service, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the service can work efficiently to properly manage offenders in the community?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. It was important that we exceeded our target of 1,000 officers last year, and we have to get those 1,300 officers in place. The £700 million must be spent by the end of the spending review. It is important that we bear down on getting AI across the service and that we introduce new technology, because it is only by doing so that probation officers can do what they want to do: get back to face-to-face and personalised care.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Sentencing Bill will create new powers to apply tougher restrictions on offenders’ movements, including the creation of restriction zones and new restrictive licence conditions for probation. This will mean being able to curtail offenders’ freedom on licence, and measures for the courts to use as requirements on community sentences.
Bradley Thomas
Residents living in villages across north Worcestershire in my constituency of Bromsgrove are often victims of crime that originates from urban areas, including Birmingham. What message would the Minister send to my constituents who want a reassurance that the Probation Service is being strengthened in order that repeat offenders who evade supervision by crossing jurisdictions do not fall through the cracks as a result of the police not sharing data?
Jake Richards
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. It is absolutely vital that, across jurisdictions and different areas, there is better information sharing from probation services and the police. As the Justice Secretary has just said, the Probation Service is in need of investment. That is why we are investing £750 million— a 45% increase—and we will continue to invest in our Probation Service to ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are reassured in the future.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hard-working police officers and Probation Service workers in my constituency of Harlow, which, as Members will be aware, is on the Essex-Hertfordshire border, so I recognise some of the issues that the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) just mentioned. What work is the Minister doing with probation services in areas, such as Harlow, that suffer from this problem to address this issue readily and ensure that everybody is treated fairly, no matter their geographical location?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those in our Probation Service do an outstanding job day in, day out. They are often the hidden heroes of our public services and they deserve great credit.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Legal aid can be a lifeline and should be available to those who need it, wherever they happen to live. This Government have made substantial new investment in legal aid—both in criminal legal aid, with an additional £92 million a year, and in civil legal aid, where we are investing an additional £20 million a year.
Ben Maguire
I thank the Minister for that response. Would she please join me in congratulating Coodes Solicitors, which provides a weekly pro bono surgery to my constituents in Bodmin? Firms such as Coodes face, in its own words, so much unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through when providing legal aid. As the Minister highlights, I understand that the Government have made some progress towards making the financial investment in the system that is needed, but is she aware of the incredible burden of this needless bureaucracy and will she please commit to simplifying public funding contracts?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I commend all lawyers who provide pro bono support to their clients, which is incredibly commendable. However, it is ultimately a sticking-plaster and no substitute for a well-functioning legal aid system. That is why, as well as increasing fees, we are investing in the transformation of the IT digital platform to enable providers to cut through some of that red tape.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government are committed to access to justice, and that involves supporting people from every social background to uphold their rights. As I said earlier, we are investing in civil legal aid. We have introduced the greatest expansion in a decade of legal aid through the Hillsborough law, and we continue to provide financial support for law centres and Citizens Advice so that people—wherever they come from, whatever their background—can access legal support.
Ian Lavery
The Labour Government’s investment in legal aid and legal services is hugely welcome. However, expert analysis has shown categorically that young people from more deprived backgrounds find it extremely difficult to access justice. Many people from constituencies such as mine are very much unaware of what might be available to them when they most need it. Can the Minister assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that our people are acutely aware of what is available to them to access the justice they so rightly deserve and, in many cases, they urgently require?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. If people do not know their rights, they cannot enforce their rights, so raising awareness is incredibly important. It is important that we expand access to legal support where people are living their lives, and the online service where people, especially young people, can access digital legal advice is a vital component of that.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I was interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the previous question, but true access to justice must include those still imprisoned under legal tests since ruled wrong, including many young people from marginalised communities convicted under joint enterprise. Will the Government consider adopting the review mechanism in my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which would create a statutory process for a review of convictions so that they, too, can access justice?
Sarah Sackman
The review of criminal law in this area is incredibly delicate, and we need to look at it in line with common law and case law, but we are keeping it under review.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Behind the backlogs in our courts, and behind each and every one of those case statistics, there is a human story, and there is no doubt that the delays in our criminal courts are taking their toll on victims and all participants in the criminal justice system. However, we are gripping the situation by investing in a greater number of Crown court sitting days, making additional investment in criminal legal aid and commissioning the review from Sir Brian Leveson. What is required is a once-in-a-generation reform of our criminal justice system, and we will be providing our response to that review in due course.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her answer. The situation she describes is similar to one that I am about to describe. A constituent of mine got in touch about a case of historical sexual abuse, which they bravely reported in 2018. After years of waiting, a trial date was set for this May, only for it to be put back again until July 2027—nine years after first reporting the case. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you can imagine the toll that has taken on my constituent’s mental health and wellbeing. I urge the Minister to progress at speed with her reform of the Courts Service and, in particular, address the problems in Shropshire where there are significant issues with the Crown court and magistrates court service.
Sarah Sackman
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience and I reiterate my sympathies. She articulates, with that case, precisely why it is vital that we pursue reform. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness and the state’s obligation is to deliver fair trials. That is why we will do whatever it takes to bear down on the backlog as we bring forward our response to Sir Brian Leveson’s review.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Minister for her answer. I have heard, from several constituents who are victims of domestic abuse, how the delays in the family court that were inherited from the previous Government, particularly for financial settlement orders, have compounded the traumatic experience and included ongoing financial harm and detriment. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to reduce those delays and, in particular, to support victims of domestic abuse through our courts system?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are committed to improving timeliness not just in criminal courts but in family courts too, and to providing better support to victims of domestic abuse, who we know make up many of the participants in that litigation. The Pathfinder model is working. It resolves cases faster and offers specialist domestic abuse support. We have expanded the Pathfinder model to five additional court areas and we are continuing that expansion into 2026. He will be happy to know that that includes Hampshire, where I understand his constituency is based.
Mr Speaker
That could also help with the reopening of Chorley court, Minister.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
It is right that the IPP sentence was abolished. The number of unreleased IPP prisoners fell to 946, as of 30 September 2025—a reduction of 14% compared with the previous year. Legislative changes that we implemented have reduced the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community to around two thirds.
Mr Brash
My constituent, Terry Rowley, received an IPP sentence on 8 February 2008. His minimum tariff was set at one year and 126 days. That was 6,486 days ago—almost 18 years—and he remains in prison. No one disputes the seriousness of his offences, but the issue for Terry and his family is one of equal justice. Someone sentenced to the same crime today would not receive an IPP. Does the Secretary of State accept that this raises fundamental concerns about fairness and equality before the law for those serving under the IPP regime, and what steps will he take to fix it?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the challenges for Terry and his family. We are determined to support those in prison to progress towards safe and sustainable releases, but understandably that cannot be in a way that undermines public protection. We are not giving up on any individual serving an IPP sentence. We will ensure that each one gets the support and access to the risk education and risk reduction work that they need. I will ensure that Terry is receiving all the support he needs.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
What is the Government’s assessment of the current protocols regarding the comprehensive risk assessments, and can the public be assured that the existing policies on IPP sentences are safeguarding the community effectively?
Mr Lammy
That is why we have to put public protection first and there has to be a robust risk assessment. We require the Parole Board in particular to make very sensitive assessments. People cannot leave prison unless we are confident that they will not go on to commit further crimes. That is the assessment we ask the Parole Board and others in the prison system to make.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government recognise that pension age is an important issue for frontline staff and our recognised trade unions that represent the views of their members. Officials met POA representatives earlier in the autumn to discuss pension age and will continue to engage with them on this important issue.
Mary Kelly Foy
The prison officers association recently launched its “68 is Too Late” pensions report, based on the largest member survey in POA history. The report is a heartbreaking read: prison officers describe how unrealistic and, frankly, cruel it is to expect them to walk the landings until they are almost 70 years old and the effect that it has on morale. There are three prisons in Durham, so I often hear support for this important campaign. Does the Minister accept that at the heart of the prisons crisis, there is a crisis in how prison staff are treated by the state, and that resolving the pensions crisis should be a top priority for any Government who are serious about fixing our jails?
Jake Richards
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I take this opportunity to praise and thank the prison officers who do a remarkable job in what are often trying and appalling circumstances. As I said, the Government will continue to engage with the relevant and recognised unions, as well as with prison officers themselves. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary is meeting the POA in the coming days.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given the existing retirement age for prison officers and the increase in the number of violent offenders in prison, along with the increase in illegal substances getting into prison, does the Minister not agree that it is time urgently to review the age at which prison officers retire, as many older prison officers are looking to retire?
Jake Richards
As I have already said, it is absolutely right that we continue to have those discussions with the relevant trade unions. Let me be absolutely clear on behalf of the Government: we understand that the work and working conditions of prison officers are getting harder, and we are in the business of trying to help them.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Supporting victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse is a priority for this Government. The Ministry of Justice funds police and crime commissioners across England and Wales as well as more than 60 specialist sexual violence organisations that provide local support services for all victims, including victims of technology-assisted child sexual abuse.
Mrs Blundell
I thank the Minister for her answer. We all know of the increasing and sinister use of technology in the appalling sexual abuse of children and young people. To address that, will the Minister consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include all TACSA offences and commit to a ban on the technologies that generate deepfake and sexually abusive images of children?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Parliament intended the unduly lenient sentence scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. She will be aware that we had a recent debate on this issue on the Floor of the House in considering the Victims and Courts Bill. I have heard the strength of feeling in this House and among campaigners on this matter, and I am looking at it closely.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Yesterday, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland reported that the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s cyber-crimes team lacked the capacity and capability to manage the threat posed by prolific online sex offender Alexander McCartney, whose abuse led to the tragic death of 12-year-old Cimarron Thomas in 2018 and targeted at least 70 other children. Will the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to ensure that cyber-crime teams across the whole of the UK are properly resourced to deal with online child sexual exploitation?
Alex Davies-Jones
The whole House will have been shocked by that horrific case, and all our thoughts are with all the victims. It is an important case that draws attention to the nature and proliferation of these crimes. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Safeguarding has spoken to the PSNI on this case. There are powers through the Online Safety Act 2023; however, I am aware that the hon. Lady represents a nation where there is a devolved Administration. This is imperative. These crimes have no borders, and all victims deserve protection. I am sure that this matter will be taken up by the Home Office.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
A victim of an environmental crime can expect to receive the relevant services as set out in the victims code. Police and crime commissioners receive annual grant funding from the Ministry of Justice to commission support for victims of all crime types. I refer the hon. Lady, who I know is an avid campaigner in this area, to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who would be able to answer more fully on how we tackle environmental crimes specifically.
Dr Savage
Daniel’s Well in Malmesbury is a much-loved local swim spot, but last week the Environment Agency warned swimmers to stay away due to “strong currents”. However, Surfers Against Sewage have provided evidence that there have been a number of illegal sewage discharges and that a number of swimmers have fallen ill. Last year the Lib Dems tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would have allowed victims of environmental crime such as sewage spills to claim compensation. I wonder whether the Minister can explain why her party abstained from voting on that amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member will know that the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 gives the water industry regulators new powers to take tougher and faster action to crack down on water companies that are not delivering for customers and the environment. She will also be aware that the victims code covers victims of crime, who are persons who have suffered harm as a direct result of being subjected to or witnessing a crime at the time that it occurred. In the vast majority of cases of the type she raises, criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water would be committed against the environment, not directly against the person. However, where someone has been affected as a result, they are able to access services, via the NHS for example, to seek support.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Environmental crimes such as fly-tipping blight cities such as Gloucester, leaving victims across my city unable to enjoy the place they love. Will the Minister confirm what discussions she has had with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we can give local councils the powers and resources to enforce action on fly-tipping?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Fly-tipping blights all our communities —mine in Pontypridd as well as his in Gloucester. Taking crime off our streets is a mission for this Government, and we are working across Government to deliver on it, including in Gloucester, ensuring that local authorities have the powers they need to go after the perpetrators of these crimes.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government are committed to helping people with convictions find employment and turn away from reoffending. We are continuing to consider the criminal records regime, including the recommendations made in part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, to ensure that it balances public safety with supporting rehabilitation.
Fred Thomas
In my first surgery as an MP in Plymouth, I met a constituent who had received an unspent conviction for a one-off crime committed 34 years ago when they were a child. Since then they have served their time, turned their life around and been a constructive member of society, in employment for 12 years. In 2022, they were suspended out of the blue for two years and eventually let go on account of an unspent conviction. They told me that being given an unspent conviction as a child is nothing short of being given a life sentence. This outdated practice is unfair. What plans do the Government have to reform the law around unspent convictions to ensure that young offenders are given a genuine opportunity to rehabilitate and rebuild their lives?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I met him with officials just last week to discuss his constituent’s case and the issue more broadly. As I have said, we will continue to look at Sir Brian’s recommendation in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This is an issue that we want to look at and act on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One implication of an unspent conviction is that those who have a passport and want to go on holiday suddenly find that they cannot do so due to something that happened 25 or 30 years ago when they were younger and under 16. I have had a number of cases like that in Northern Ireland this past while. It is wrong that those who have committed a misdemeanour, as it was, find that it impacts them 30 years later. I had a constituent who wanted to go to Australia. After contacting a Minister we were able to get him there, but the impact on him and others is great. Will the Minister work with those in Northern Ireland dealing with immigration, in the Passport Office in particular, to ensure that unspent convictions from years ago are not held against people subsequently?
Jake Richards
I agree with the hon. Member’s remarks. Many Members across the House will have had constituents come to them in similar circumstances, and it is deeply worrying and troubling. This is complex, because it involves different systems and public safety is always paramount for this Government. We are absolutely looking at this issue and will report back to the House when we have made progress.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable. The Ministry of Justice has already taken action by: launching a pilot of domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas; introducing new criminal offences that capture creating sexually explicit deepfakes, and spiking; announcing family court reform, such as expanding our Pathfinder programme in the family court; and commissioning the independent review of criminal courts in order to improve court timeliness and provide justice for victims.
Anna Dixon
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I have been appalled at the failure of the previous Government to tackle the backlog in the courts, delaying justice for victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. I thank the Minister for her unwavering commitment to repairing the justice system that we inherited for victims and survivors. Will she outline the reforms specifically to the family court that the Government are introducing to protect victims of domestic abuse, including children, from further harm?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her service on the Public Accounts Committee looking at this issue. The Government are committed to better supporting adult and child victims of domestic abuse in the family courts. The Pathfinder model already provides access to expert support for victims, and published data has shown that the backlogs are more than 50% lower and cases are resolved up to 30 weeks quicker. Importantly, the Government have announced that, when parliamentary time allows, we will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in order to protect children in our family courts.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Minister confirm whether she is aware of anyone accused or convicted of a sexual offence having been granted asylum in the UK?
Alex Davies-Jones
I refer the hon. Member to the stats published on the Ministry of Justice website.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the Ministry of Justice ministerial team for repealing the £318 charge for the person at risk of violence order a couple of weeks ago—that will make a huge difference. However, I want to raise the strategy and the fact that online abuse is on the rise. Does she agree that any party that says it wants to repeal the Online Safety Act 2023 is not a party that cares about tackling violence against women and girls?
Alex Davies-Jones
Hear, hear. I thank my hon. Friend for the brilliant work she has been doing in championing this issue recently. The Online Safety Act ensures that online platforms are required to remove illegal content such as harassing or abusive material as soon as they are made aware of it. That is a fundamental feature in order to protect children in our country, and any party seeking to repeal that is not on the side of protecting children.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Across the west midlands, there is currently a backlog of 6,000 Crown court cases, many of which are sexual offence cases. In Shropshire, 759 cases are outstanding at Shrewsbury Crown court. Will the Minister commit to looking at the midlands circuit and seeing whether more rape and serious sexual offences resources can be given so that there can be suitably qualified and trained judges and advocates, and cases can be brought more quickly and swiftly to court? In Shropshire, some of those court cases are potentially two years out.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the question and the way in which he asked it. As he will know, the Government are doing all we can to bear down on the backlog in our Crown courts. That is why we have tasked Sir Brian Leveson with looking at how we can best get to grips with it. The right hon. Gentleman is right, however. I have sadly spoken to far too many rape and sexual violence victims who are waiting far too long for their day in court, which has an impact on them. We are straining every sinew, working with the judiciary and colleagues in the Crown Prosecution Service, to better support these victims and ensure that when they do get that day in court, they can access justice appropriately and have the best support available to them. I will happily work with him and anyone else in the House to ensure that any victim of crime has the support they need.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Last week, when told by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) that the Sentencing Bill would cut prison time for rapists and child groomers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said she that would have to “go away and check” whether that was true—the time to check was before she voted for the Bill. Surely the victims Minister knows and can tell the House what proportion of rapists and child groomers will have their prison time cut by Labour’s Sentencing Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Make no mistake: the Government had to make these choices because of the Conservative Government’s catastrophic mismanagement of our prison system. We are not abolishing short sentences, and judges will retain full discretion to keep offenders locked up. We have built safeguards into the systems to protect victims.
I remind the shadow Minister that the greatest threat to victims is the risk of not being able to lock up any dangerous offender in the first place. The measures that the Government are introducing will ensure that that will never happen again.
Dr Mullan
Yet again, we have a Government and a Victims Minister who cannot tell the House basic facts about the implications of their Bill. I will tell her: 60% of rapists and 90% child groomers sent to prison will have their prison time cut. That is appalling.
We also know that knives are all too often a feature of violence against women and girls. The House will have seen the tragic news that Katie Fox, the female victim of a brutal knife attack in Birmingham on Friday, has died. Over the last few weeks, the Labour Government have been talking tough on knife crime, but can the Minister tell the House what proportion of criminals sent to prison for carrying a knife will have to serve only a third of their sentence under Labour’s appalling Sentencing Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones
My thoughts and those of the whole House are, of course, with Katie’s family after the horrific crime that occurred in Birmingham. However, the hon. Member is clearly incapable of facing up to the reality that his Government left behind. It is this Government who are protecting victims and ensuring that violence against women and girls is a political priority, and that we are never again faced with the reality of having to let offenders out early without any safeguards in place. It is this Government who put those safeguards in place and it is this Government who are ensuring that we protect the public.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a justice system on its knees, starved for years of adequate funding, but we are fixing the foundations. We are investing in our buildings, in our people and in a record number of sitting days—sitting at or close to maximum judicial capacity in every jurisdiction. That is how we are fixing the courts system.
Vikki Slade
I was fortunate to visit Poole magistrates court last week; indeed, it is interesting to hear mention of the state of buildings, because they were appalling. I was most concerned when the district judge and court manager explained to me that there is no shortage of magistrates or court space and that the shortage is one of legal advisers in the system. They explained that the funding for one extra legal adviser would allow them to progress 500 cases a year, but they simply cannot retain them. What is the Minister doing to review that role and make sure that we can get those smaller cases through quickly?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady is right that our court staff are the backbone of our courts system and they make it tick every day. It is an absolute pleasure, as the Courts Minister, to visit courts like the one she described. I recently visited Snaresbrook Crown court and it was a pleasure to meet staff there. As she says, legal advisers are critical to the functioning of the magistrates court, and that is why we are investing an additional £5.2 million in addressing the retention challenges that she describes.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. and learned Friend is right to commend court staff and to highlight the significant issues in the courts system. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we uncovered problems with the buildings, the IT systems and the Probation Service—the whole system was in real difficulty. How long does she think it will take this Government to clear up the mess that the last Government left?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a mountain to climb, and we cannot fix the foundations overnight. This Government are committed to restoring the public’s confidence in the justice system. That is why, through the spending review, we have committed an additional £450 million to the courts system. That means, as I said, investing in our buildings and in our people to restore the public’s confidence in our system.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment on this issue? We had an incredibly constructive debate in Westminster Hall recently on the topic of third-party litigation funding. Litigation funding is what enabled Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters to fund their landmark legal action against the Post Office. It plays a critical role in access to justice and a vital role in contributing to our economy. For that reason, I am carefully considering, alongside colleagues, our response to the Civil Justice Council’s review to ensure that we get our reforms right.
Sir Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer and for the constructive debate a week or so ago. May I press her on timing—as she said, this is important for consumers, businesses and the legal sector—and test her on the opportunities for early dispute resolution, which were mentioned in the CJC report and which I would encourage the Government to look at seriously?
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the report is incredibly detailed and contains a whole host of recommendations. It is important that we go through that very carefully. We have all seen the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court judgment in the PACCAR case. We are looking at what the appropriate response would be. If we are going to effectively reverse the effect of that judgment, then we want to build back better and get the reforms right so that we can achieve the access to justice and the economic benefit that he so rightly says he is committed to.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Since the last Justice oral questions, I am proud to have taken the next steps towards putting a landmark Hillsborough law on to the statute book, with the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. There has also, understandably, been widespread interest in the number of releases in error from prisons. I can tell the House that in the year to March 2025, there were 262 releases in error and my Department has today published data showing that from April to the end of October this year, there were a further 91 mistaken releases. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, and I look forward to updating the House in my oral statement later today on the steps that the Government are taking to reverse this trend.
Clive Jones
The Conservative Thames Valley police and crime commissioner has said that the public should be doing more to stop shoplifting. This week, my constituent Sarah described being “smacked into” during a shoplifting incident and the fear that she felt at that moment. Does the Minister agree with the police and crime commissioner that Sarah is part of the problem, or does he think the bigger problem is that shoplifters know that more than 80% of these offences result in no charge at all?
Mr Lammy
This issue does require more neighbourhood policing and bobbies on the beat—as the hon. Gentleman knows, numbers were cut under the last Government. I also think that the intensive supervision courts, provided for in the Sentencing Bill, will be able to make a huge difference. A lot of shoplifters need a judge checking in with them regularly, and sometimes dealing with their addiction issue, to get them to change course.
Mr Speaker
I call Harpreet Uppal. Not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Last week, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that there was “no doubt” that the Government’s early release scheme would lead to an increase in crime. This followed the news that a man who had been released from prison early had been charged with murder. So this is a simple question: will the Justice Secretary rule out any more early release schemes for prisoners?
Mr Lammy
Can I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just before the general election in July 2024, his Government had three different versions of their early release scheme? We inherited a situation, as he knows, where prison capacity was completely unsustainable. Successive former Justice Secretaries under the previous Government have said this in the last week. We brought forward our early release scheme, and it was important to do that to put capacity into the system, but it is the Sentencing Bill that will begin to deal with this issue in a comprehensive way.
Robert Jenrick
Well, if we strip back all that waffle—the Secretary of State did not deny it, did he? That is interesting, because there has been another accidental release by the Ministry of Justice, and this time it is an email sent in error by his officials to me. It shows that his Department is looking to accommodate criminals in the community instead of in prison. As we would expect from him, it says that the plans are a “finger in the air” approach. It says that the Department is considering spending up to 100 grand a year per person to live outside of prison. That is more than the cost of a prison cell. Can the Justice Secretary really say with a straight face that his latest scheme is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that email, which was sent in error, referred to women. He knows that when we are talking about women offenders, the system must understandably consider the fact that many of them are mothers and many have been the victims of men who have groomed them, who have pimped them and who have abused them. That is why public policymakers understandably look at alternative ways to deal with women in the community. None of us in this House should make any apologies for that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
That is a characteristically important question from my hon. Friend. Education has a vital role in our prisons, helping to clamp down on reoffending and with rehabilitation. We are working at pace to look at how we can improve education within the prison system, including through the third sector as well as through the formal contracts we already have. Indeed, I am going to a prison in just the next few weeks to look at literacy rates with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies). There is work to do on this—it is not good enough at the moment—and we will get on with that in the weeks ahead.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Reports by charities and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner show that the family court system, which is plagued by delays, continues to provide the perfect environment for perpetrators of domestic abuse to continue to coerce and control. Training in identifying the signs of domestic abuse is not currently mandatory, so when will the Government bring forward legislation to reform the family court system, and when will they make domestic abuse training mandatory for all in the family courts?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for that question. She will be aware that this Government have announced that we will repeal the presumption of parental contact when parliamentary time allows—that is a priority. It is also a priority for this Government that we do all we can to protect victims of domestic abuse in the family courts. That is why we have introduced our domestic abuse protection orders pilots. However, she will know that the judiciary are independent. Training for them is a matter for the Judicial College, but we are working closely with the judiciary to ensure that they can spot the signs of coercive and controlling behaviour, so that we can do all we can to protect victims of these crimes.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am fortunate to get thorough updates from my police, fire and crime commissioner, Danielle Stone. In the latest update, she told me that she sees real improvements in the Probation Service, but Northampton still has a 40% staff vacancy rate. What is the Department doing to support recruitment and retention of the skilled staff that we need in the sector?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We recruited over 1,000 staff last year and 1,300 this year—we must retain them. Key to that is reducing caseloads, and that is why I am introducing AI.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member will know that this Government have made it a priority to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, and we are looking specifically at crimes committed against women and girls. We are working across Government with the Home Office, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney General’s Office to ensure that all agencies of the state and all of society get to grips with these crimes to bear down on the issue, so that we can all live safe, wherever we are.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Court backlogs cause painful waits for survivors of rape and sexual assault. The system fell apart under the previous Government, meaning that only around 3% of rape reports result in a charge. What is the Minister doing to reduce the waiting times for cases of rape and sexual assault?
Alex Davies-Jones
Rape charges have doubled since 2019. We have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold reforms to deliver swifter justice for all victims, and we are funding a record allocation of sitting days in the Crown court. This Government are spending £350 million on supporting victims of crime this year, and we are determined to do all we can for these victims.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The hon. Member raises a really important point. We need investment, structural reform and modernisation—that is, the adoption of technology. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his detailed review. We have got part 1, which suggests to us that structural reform. We are awaiting part 2, which should arrive by the end of the year, which will direct us as to how we can drive efficiency and get swifter justice for all victims, but in particular those of serious sexual offences.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Sasha Marsden was 16 years old when she was murdered, raped and then set on fire by David Minto. Sasha’s sister, Katie—who is my constituent and who joins us today—is campaigning for victims’ families to have fairer access to sentencing appeals. Despite the need for closure in sentencing, perpetrators are given multiple appeal opportunities, while victims’ families have just one chance. What will the Government do to ensure that victims’ families do not have fewer rights than perpetrators in this process?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government are determined to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. I commend my hon. Friend for representing Katie Brett and her family. I have had the extreme honour of meeting Katie both this morning and previously to discuss Sasha’s law and her campaigning on it. I am determined to work with her and all the other Justice for Victims families to ensure that we get this right. The Victims and Courts Bill is currently moving through Parliament, and I am determined that we do all we can to support victims.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Jake Richards
As the Justice Secretary has already stated during oral questions, the Government are committed to the ECHR, and that includes for the whole of Great Britain. Clearly, there are issues in ensuring that that convention and our international obligations evolve with the challenges that we face as a country, which is why we are looking at how it is implemented and clarified in domestic law. We continue to work with European partners on European reform, and that includes Scotland too.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Thanks to incredible campaigners on the Labour Benches, the Victims and Courts Bill protects children by putting important restrictions on parental responsibility following certain serious sexual offences. One of my constituents is a fierce campaigner for services and safety measures for children whose parent has committed a sexual offence against a child outside the family home. Children in the home are victims even though they were not directly abused. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all children of child sex offenders are offered better protection and support?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend’s constituent for their incredible campaigning on this issue. Children are victims in their own right—the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 put that in law—but there is a discrepancy in what sort of services and support children can get. The victims code currently sets out the minimum level of service that victims of crime should receive. We will consult on a new victims code shortly, and I am determined to ensure that we get that new code right for all victims, including the children of those heinous criminals.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman knows that successive Governments have made data releases. Those data releases have to be analysed properly. We make no excuses for voting in the appropriate way.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
My constituent Richard Pyke was the victim of a violent attack at his workplace in March of this year. He was given his victim impact statement when he met the Crown Prosecution Service barrister five minutes before going into court on the day of sentencing. It had been amended: he was not allowed to say how he felt that the perpetrator tried to murder him, he was no longer allowed to say that he was manipulated into a vulnerable position, and he was not allowed to state how he felt about the perpetrator’s release. What assurances can the Minister give victims of serious crimes, such as attempted murder, that they will not be censored in such a way?
Alex Davies-Jones
It was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend to discuss Richard’s case, and all my thoughts are with him as he seeks to recover from that horrible crime. It is important that victims’ voices are represented in the courtroom and in sentencing. As she will know, the victim impact statement is classed as a piece of evidence and must be carefully worded. However, I have heard the strength of feeling from her constituent and others on this matter, and we are working with victims to ensure that they get the support they need to set out articulately and clearly exactly how the crimes have affected them.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Two weeks ago, at the statement on prisoner release checks, the Secretary of State called my question “ridiculous”. Let me try a different tack: has he spoken to the affected family in Epping?
Mr Lammy
I said last week that I was keen to meet with the family, and I will meet with them when they meet with the Prisons Minister, I hope, in the coming weeks.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have seen a lack of maintenance of prisons, a stop-start prison building programme and all the challenges in our courts—is it any surprise that we are looking at non-custodial sentences for lower-level offenders? Does the Secretary of State agree that those on the Opposition Front Bench have some cheek to come to this House and question that when the failures in the system are down to 14 years failure?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend did a valiant job as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, constantly revisiting these issues. She will have noticed how successive Justice Secretaries under the last Government have said that they cut the numbers, they failed to invest, violence was up, and now we have junior staff making very important decisions.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I have been contacted by a Surrey Heath resident who has not just endured and survived appalling domestic abuse but is now enduring and attempting to survive the family court process, with multiple hearings over child contact arrangements. Will the Minister commit today to implementing the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent recommendations to better protect children at risk?
Alex Davies-Jones
This Government are clear that child safety during court-ordered contact is vital. We are improving multi-agency working to support early identification of risk and enable referral to specialist domestic abuse support. We are carefully considering the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report, and we will publish our response by the end of this year.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to say about the unprecedented letter in The Times today from nine recent former heads of the armed forces, stating that the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles and legacy legislation breaks the compact between service personnel who do their duty and the Government, who should stand up for them, not open them up to endless litigation and persecution?
Mr Lammy
I saw the Northern Ireland Secretary’s statement last week. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there has been considerable lawfare and that the scheme proposed by his Government was largely thrown out by the courts. That is why the Veterans Minister has listened very keenly to not just military families but all those who were victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State today agree to publish clear, honest and regular statistics on the number of illegal migrants convicted of sexual offences, murder or indeed any other crime? A yes or no answer will do well.
Mr Lammy
We do publish statistics in the usual way after they have been properly analysed. We have to make sure that all facts are verified, and we have done that in the same way that the last Government did.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I recently met the chief executive of an international charity that happens to be based in Wiltshire where there have been serious historical allegations. Unfortunately, the resourcing of such inquiries falls between the Serious Fraud Office, the National Crime Agency, Wiltshire police and the Charity Commission. Will one of the Ministers meet with me? It is not right that charity investigations are not conducted properly when there are serious allegations.
Mr Lammy
I am very happy to look at that and ensure that a Minister meets with the right hon. Gentleman.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Sexual exploitation is being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites, which currently enjoy near-total legal impunity, moving sexual exploitation off the street and into locations like flats and hotels, where outreach is harder and the coercion of vulnerable women can thrive. Given that advertising prostitution in a phone box was made illegal 25 years ago, can the Government explain why they are yet to outlaw the same advertising online?
Alex Davies-Jones
We need to tackle violence against women and girls in all its forms everywhere. I regularly meet my counterparts at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Government will publish our violence against women and girls strategy shortly.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Old Windsor is a small village in my constituency with an approved premises that has morphed to include high-risk offenders. It causes problems. Does the Minister agree that, first, probation services have responsibility for residents’ behaviour when they are outside that facility and, secondly, the police should have more focus on Old Windsor than they might otherwise have, given the location of that facility?
Jake Richards
It is right that the Probation Service takes those facilities and premises incredibly seriously. We are investing more in probation than ever before—£750 million, a 45% increase—to fix a service that was utterly dismantled by the last Conservative Government, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are reassured that this Government are getting on with job of ensuring that our Probation Service is fit for purpose.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It has been reported in the media that we have prison officers working in our prisons who can barely speak a word of English. In fact, they are using flash cards to instruct prisoners to go back to their cells. It does not take a mastermind to realise that that is recipe for disaster. Will the Justice Secretary tell us if that is true or not?
Jake Richards
I regularly visit prisons as part of my job, and I pay tribute to the incredible work that prison officers do, day in and day out, including prison officers who come from other countries to do sterling work in appalling circumstances to ensure that our prisons are safe. I thank them for their work, and I reject the premise of the question.
Prisoner Releases in Error
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on releases in error from prison.
On Armistice Day, let me begin by paying tribute to those we honour: Members of both Houses and parliamentary staff who gave their tomorrow for our today. Whatever divides our politics, today we remember what binds us together: our belief in service and the pursuit of the common good.
On Wednesday 5 November I answered Prime Minister’s questions. As someone who has served in this House for 25 years, I take my responsibilities to Parliament incredibly seriously. The House will recall that I was asked repeatedly whether any asylum-seeking offender had been released in error. At that time, I had been alerted of the release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from His Majesty’s Prison Wandsworth. Details about the case were still emerging throughout Wednesday. Importantly, my officials had not had confirmation about whether or not he was an asylum seeker. Indeed, it was not until later that afternoon that the Home Office confirmed to the Ministry of Justice that he was not.
Given the nature of the Opposition’s questions, I made a judgment that I would wait until I had all the detail, rather than risk giving an inaccurate, incomplete or misleading picture to the House about a sensitive case. Conservative Members may argue that they would have handled the situation differently. All I can do is to be open about the factors I was weighing at the time and that the data in the system we inherited is painfully slow. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to update the House in full today.
Members will recall that, following the release of Hadush Kebatu on 24 October, I put in place stronger release checks. I can confirm that the error leading to Mr Kaddour-Cherif’s release happened in September, before those checks came in. He was charged with burglary at Snaresbrook Crown court and a warrant was issued to HMP Pentonville for his remand. Contrary to the set down process, it was then forwarded by email to HMP Wandsworth when Mr Kaddour-Cherif was transferred. However, staff did not pick it up and he was released on 29 October. Mr Kaddour-Cherif was taken back into custody on 7 November by Haringey police. I am grateful to officers from my part of north London again, after they also re-arrested Mr Kebatu. I am grateful too to the wider Metropolitan police and to the public who assisted them.
I can tell the House that there were around 57,000 routine releases from prison in the year to March 2025. In that same time, there were 262 releases in error from prison. New data my Department published today shows that from April to the end of October this year, there were 91 releases in error from prison. Further data on the breakdown of offences are official statistics that need to be combed through in detail before being put into the public domain. That data is not due for publication today, but we recognise the public interest in being transparent about the overall number. It is important to note that this number may be revised as additional cases are subsequently recorded, but this is the very latest that I have been provided.
We understand that three mistakenly released prisoners are currently unlawfully at large. Their prison records show that none of them are convicted sex offenders. I have been informed this afternoon that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is investigating a further case of a potential release in error on 3 November of a person who may still be at large. It is symptomatic of the data issues that we inherited that this is all the information that I have been given, while police and HMPPS investigate.
On the confirmed cases, case one was in prison for failing to surrender to the police and was released in error in December 2024. Case two was in prison for a class B drug offence, and was released in error in August 2024. Case three was in prison for aggravated burglary, and was released in error in June 2025. Two are British nationals, and one is a foreign national offender. I will not provide any further details on individual cases. In each case, we have to consider the welfare of victims and the judgment of our law enforcement agencies.
Of the 262 releases in error from prison in the year to March 2025, 87 were of offenders whose main offence was one of violence against the person, and three were of offenders whose main offence was a sexual offence. I am clear that we must bear down on these numbers, which are symptomatic of a prison system under horrendous strain. As the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted last week,
“the state of the prison service has been unacceptable for a very long time…including under the Conservative government.”
Prisons are still struggling with violence. The safety in custody statistics show an 8% rise in the rate of assaults in the year to June 2025. Systems are archaic; every prisoner’s sentence is worked out on paper. Consideration is given to the type of offence and the legislation that covers it, and there are more than 500 pages of sentence management guidance.
I pay tribute to prison officers, who are doing an incredibly important job, but as the Prison Officers Association has said,
“Prisons throughout the country are underfunded, understaffed and operating under relentless strain.”
Frontline prison officers were cut by a quarter between 2010 and 2017. That is around 6,000 fewer people, and it means that there are fewer experienced staff, which places more pressure on the system. Unsurprisingly, mistakes happen in those circumstances. Indeed, from 2010-11 to the end of 2023-24, under the previous Government, there were 860 known releases in error from prisons.
We must recognise the distress that is caused to victims who learn that the person who harmed them is free when they should be behind bars. In the worst cases, such as that of William Fernandez back in 2021, prisoners have committed further horrific offences. I give an unequivocal apology to all who have faced worry or worse as a result of releases in error, especially Hadush Kebatu’s victims, whom I have offered to meet. I hope that the right hon. Member for Newark will join me in that apology to all who have suffered because of releases in error under this Government and previous Governments.
Human error will always exist, and no Justice Secretary could prevent every mistake, but we must reduce the risk and reverse the trend over the course of this Parliament. We must be honest: the release process requires a radical overhaul, and establishing the facts in individual cases is complex. Decisions about public statements rightly rest with the police. Issuing details too early could frustrate covert inquiries, or put police officers or the public at risk. These are judgments for experienced operational leaders to make, and parliamentarians must give them the space in which to make them.
This is a complex issue—we must be straight with the public about that—and I am clear that we have a mountain to climb in response. First, I am chairing a new justice performance board, which will give a comprehensive view of prisons and criminal court performance, including releases in error, to drive a step change in how we respond. The first monthly meeting took place yesterday. Secondly, I am making sure that we understand the issues. Following the release of Kebatu, I asked Dame Lynne Owens to carry out a review, which will conclude by the end of February next year. That review will now include the adequacy of data collected and published on releases in error, and we fully expect to uncover additional incidents. I can also announce that we will set up a team of data scientists to review historical releases in error in order to understand what is going wrong.
Thirdly, I am improving processes. Because some of these errors originated not in the prison process, but in the court process, I will implement an urgent warrant query unit, supported by court experts, so that prisons can escalate queries and get rapid clarifications to reduce the risk of releases in error that emanate from the court system. We are also issuing instructions to court staff to reinforce mandatory requirements for imprisonment orders to be confirmed verbally with judges before they are finalised. This measure has been shared with the judiciary. The court and prison services are also scoping a joint exercise on live warrants. It will initially take place in the London region. That exercise will identify errors and ensure that prisoners are subject to the correct warrants.
Fourthly, I am accelerating upgrades. I stood up a digital rapid response team last week to reduce human error with cutting-edge technology. Over the next six months, we will provide up to £10 million to deliver artificial intelligence and technology solutions, which will help frontline staff avoid mistakes and support them in calculating sentences accurately. Finally, I am simplifying the release policy. One of the aims of the Sentencing Bill is to standardise how cases are treated, and following Dame Lynne Owens’ review, we will consider whether amendments to operational policy are required. These are the initial steps to address this issue, but I will update the House where further changes are necessary. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Can I just clear something up, which does not have to happen? First of all, I was told that the Justice Secretary needed 13 minutes. [Interruption.] Bear with me. I said, “You will need to ask,” and in the end, the Department came back and said, “Oh no, it’s 10 minutes.” That statement was not 10 minutes; it was almost 12 minutes. I will work with Ministers and Secretaries of State, but the limit is 10 minutes. If there needs to be an extension, please ask; do not keep changing the length of time, because it is unfair to shadow Ministers when a statement runs over. The shadow Justice Secretary now has an extra minute, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson has an extra half-minute, but in future, please stick to the rule of 10 minutes. If you do need longer, I am always sympathetic, as long as I know in advance, but it makes your Department look foolish if you run over, having said to me that an extension was no longer needed. It is certainly not going to make me look foolish in the future. I call the shadow Justice Secretary.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
So we are back here again. At least the Justice Secretary is getting some use out of his new suit. But where has Wednesday’s bombast and bravado gone? “Get a grip, man!”, he thundered last week, without even a hint of irony. There was none of that today, was there? Why is that? It is because, like increasing numbers of criminals in our jails, the Justice Secretary just does not know whether he is coming or going. Even his colleagues in government are turning on him, some with unbridled contempt. “The handling is terrible”, was the verdict of a Cabinet Minister; “just rank incompetence”, “cowardly”, and “frankly pretty dodgy” was the verdict of another. Before long, the Prime Minister will be saying that he has full confidence in the Justice Secretary, and we all know what that means.
Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary told the House that he had put in place the strongest checks ever to stop releases in error. Forty-eight hours later, another prisoner with a history of sex offences was released in error. Seven days later, a fraudster was let out, on the very day he was sentenced to 45 months inside—and today, the Justice Secretary admits that he lost another prisoner on that same day. They are Lammy’s lags, a whole new category of criminal who can just waltz out of prison despite the “strongest ever checks”, introduced by this Justice Secretary.
The public are being endangered as this circus rumbles on week after week, with no end in sight. When will the Justice Secretary put a stop to it? He cannot hide behind the inquiry that he has commissioned. He could not even get the name of the head of the review—Lynne Owens—right last week. “Anne Owens, Anne Owens,” he bellowed. Well, I looked her up, and the only “Anne Owens” I could find was a panto performer who recently appeared in “Alice in Wonderland”. Perhaps she was the one who gave the Justice Secretary tips on his performance at the Dispatch Box last week.
The former chief inspector of prisons says that the issue was caused, at least in part, by the “confusion” created by Labour’s botched early release scheme. Does the Justice Secretary now concede that there is a link between the doubling of the number of prisoners accidentally released in the last year and the introduction of Labour’s standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, or is it just an extremely unlucky coincidence? Do not take us for fools!
When will the Justice Secretary finally come clean? He will not provide details in answer to parliamentary questions. He will not answer even when he is here for Prime Minister’s questions. He will not respond to letters—but perhaps that is because they were not addressed to “the Deputy Prime Minister”. He has now been dragged here, kicking and screaming, to admit that one prisoner has been on the run from this Labour Government for 14 months, and 91 have been accidentally released over the last seven months. However, the Justice Secretary is so clueless that he has literally lost track of how many prisoners he has lost. He has said today that a prisoner “may” have been accidentally released last Monday. Well, has he looked? The prisoner is either in his cell or he is not.
What a complete and utter farce the Justice Secretary is presiding over. As we all suspected, the crisis on his Government’s watch is even bigger than he dared to admit. That is why he would not say anything last week. Prisoners are being accidentally released nearly every other day, putting our constituents—his constituents—at risk.
At this rate, he is on track for 156 prisoners to be accidentally released this year, which would be a record, were it not for the doubling that his Government managed to achieve last year.
In his statement today, the Justice Secretary posed more questions than he managed to answer. How many crimes were committed by those prisoners while they were on the run? Why can he not tell us who these 91 prisoners are? Who is the foreign criminal, and who is this mystery fourth offender whom he “may” have lost? How can he possibly be found if, unlike in the case of Cherif and Kebatu, the public do not have his face or his name?
The public deserve to know the truth, and this situation could not be any more serious. There has been a ninefold increase in the number of violent offenders accidentally released in the last year. On the Justice Secretary’s watch, the criminal justice system has been made to look a total mockery. The public are being put at risk. In his own words, it is time for him to “get a grip”—or go.
Mr Lammy
This is a crisis that we inherited in our prison system. [Interruption.] That is worthy of sober reflection, because the shadow Justice Secretary knows that when the Conservatives were in government, 17 prisoners were released in error every month. He knows that. A former Conservative Justice Secretary said in respect of this issue last Friday: “We essentially run our prisons regime very hot. We are very close to capacity. We have seen a big increase in the prison population over the last 20 years, and resources have not necessarily matched that. That is the first problem.” Another former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, said:
“Part of the issue is we can’t hold on to prison officers…Without that expertise, errors creep in.”
The shadow Justice Secretary himself challenged the Conservatives’ record in office, so he knows that this is a cross-party issue—one which, of course, we have to grip. I said that I had put in place those checks, and I stand by the checks that I put in. I also said in my statement that many of the cases that we are uncovering occurred before those checks were in place, and another case involved an error in the court system. That is why the new query process is very important indeed.
We had to introduce SDS40, and the right hon. Member knows why that is the case: because his Government, just in their last few months in office, made three different changes to their early release scheme, so worried were they about prison capacity—a prison capacity issue that we inherited. In their 14 years in office, they built only 500 extra places in the prison system, while we have pledged 14,000 by 2031.
The right hon. Member also knows that, as night follows day, if Governments cut officers by almost 50%, as the Conservatives did in office, and then recruit new officers, as we have attempted to do, those are then very junior people. They are working hard, and I thank them for all that they are doing, but in those circumstances mistakes will be made.
I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this—that is really important. I have put in place the digital team, because, as the right hon. Member also knows, this is a system based on human beings and there will therefore be errors; only technology will fix this issue over time. I have also now put in place that double check between the court and prison systems.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the initiatives that the Lord Chancellor has announced to deal with wrongful releases, but does he accept that the level and circumstances of such releases are symptomatic of a deeper malaise? Will he look at the Justice Committee’s current reports on drug culture, organised crime and the lack of education and work in prisons? Will he commit to tackling the underlying breakdown of order and discipline in the prison system, which, over years of decline, has made many prisons unsafe, chaotic and unfit for purpose?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has been doing on these issues for many years. His words echo those of the prison inspector. My hon. Friend of course knows that this is a system that is incredibly hot, frankly, because violence is up, self-harm is an issue, and there is the issue of things arriving in prison by drone, particularly drugs. We have staff doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend knows that no Government, in just 16 months in office, could turn around the austerity that this public service saw.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
If the situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. It seems like people currently have tougher checks to speak to an adviser at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or to get a GP appointment than offenders have to be released from prison.
Since the mistaken releases of recent weeks, I have heard horrendous reports from prison officers inside prisons of prisoners being identified by low-quality black-and-white photographs printed on paper and a few basic questions on personal information—information that could be readily shared between inmates—before being cleared for release. That is not good enough, especially when we now have biometric technology that is used for visitors to prisons but not for inmates. We cannot be reliant on an honour-based system that depends on the good will of convicts to hand themselves in, and police forces certainly do not have the spare capacity to conduct regular manhunts for people who should still be locked up.
After the release of Hadush Kebatu, the Deputy Prime Minister promised enhanced security checks, yet some of society’s most dangerous individuals have still ended up on our streets. Will he now spell out what those enhanced checks actually involve and whether biometric testing is used routinely to confirm a prisoner’s identity before release? Can he confirm what training prison officers receive before managing prisoner releases?
Like most of the justice system, our prison system was mismanaged and underfunded by the previous complacent Conservative Government, so we appreciate that the Labour Government inherited this mess. However, the number of mistaken prisoner releases has risen sharply on their watch and they cannot continue to risk public safety, particularly given that it took them a whole seven days to realise that a prisoner had been mistakenly released and that they are seemingly blaming an email being unread for the most recent error.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how long the Ministry of Justice has known about the three prisoners at large and how long the police have been trying to find them? The Deputy Prime Minister has promised the public an investigation, but they cannot wait months for answers while their safety continues to be put at risk, so what immediate action can he take today to ensure that dangerous criminals stay behind bars and that these mistakes stop once and for all?
Mr Lammy
I say to the hon. Lady, who reflects on the releases in error, that 57,000 people are released from prison every year. I am sure that, like me, she will commend the good work of prison officers and those in offender management units across our prisons, who do a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances.
The hon. Lady refers to the complexity. The last Government kept expanding their emergency release scheme—from 18 days to 35 days, and then to 70 days. In 2021, a review found 503 pages of guidance that staff had to follow for early release. It is a paper-based system. I cannot stand here as Secretary of State and say that we can eradicate all human error in a paper-based system, because we cannot. The only way to deal with it is to use technology to bring those levels down to something that the House would think is acceptable. I want to see the figure come down to historic levels over the course of this Parliament. It will of course take further investment, but I hope that the £10 million investment in the new digital team, and indeed the support that we are now offering between courts and prisons, will make a substantial difference.
The hon. Lady asks me what I am doing. I am delivering a new justice performance board, Dame Lynne Owens’ review, the urgent query process that I have outlined, the digital rapid response system and, of course, a simplified release policy, which is effectively what will come out of the Sentencing Bill.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that wrongful releases of prisoners will have caused a lot of distress and anxiety to the victims, their families and others? Does he also agree that we inherited a prison system that was in complete chaos and in such major breakdown that, although we are now taking the appropriate action to sort out the prison system and to prevent wrongful releases, this is going to take some time?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think the public recognise that. They might not have visited our prisons, but they know that cuts in our public services are real. They see it in their local authorities. They see it in their local hospitals. They see it in their local schools. They know that things like Sure Start were decimated. I am afraid that our Prison Service, which the public do not see, was one of the worst-hit public services.
It is my job to minimise that risk to the public, which is why I am introducing new measures and have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue very carefully. She is a former head of the National Crime Agency, and I know she will do a forensic examination. I will implement her recommendations so that we can bear down on this problem, but it is a paper-based system. Coming into this job, I did not realise that it was a paper-based system. I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary has realised that since he has been doing his job, but former Conservative Justice Secretaries know that it is a paper-based system, and they know that that is why errors happen.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?
Mr Lammy
Previous Governments did not have that data, and I am pretty confident that I do not have that data. If it exists, it exists in the individual police forces that deal with these issues operationally. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right that every prisoner released in error has to be found by the police. I thank the police for all they have done, and I particularly thank Haringey police for finding the two high-profile cases.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Under the system that has been in force for many years, the Government cannot initiate deportation action until after minimum custodial terms have been served. Can the Deputy Prime Minister commit to ensuring that measures removing all minimum custodial requirements will be implemented, so that eligible foreign offenders can be removed as soon as possible after sentencing and victims can be spared the distress we have seen recently?
Mr Lammy
I can give my hon. and learned Friend that undertaking. That is why we have brought forward the sentencing review and increased the removal of foreign national offenders to 5,000. All of that has been done in the last 16 months, when the Conservatives never did it once.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Two days before Kaddour-Cherif was released, the Justice Secretary said he had
“introduced the strictest checks ever seen in our prison system to stop similar unacceptable errors in future.”
Were they not implemented, or are they not strict enough?
Mr Lammy
Was the hon. Gentleman not listening? I discussed the cases just a few moments ago, and I discussed how those cases emanated prior to those checks—many of them—and that one of the errors in those cases started in the court system. It is also the case, and I have been crystal clear about this with the House, that in a paper-based system in which it is often the most junior people in our OMUs who are dealing with this, we cannot eradicate all human error. Any Secretary of State who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we could would be telling a mistruth.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
We must of course solve the immediate problem of accidental releases, which are a huge issue. However, for longer-term planning, we have a very high vacancy rate in our prisons. I understand what the Secretary of State has said about the work on bringing that down, but will he look at the Justice Committee’s recommendation to produce a 10-year plan for the prison system workforce in the same way as we do for the NHS?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are looking at that recommendation. There are significant workforce issues. We are asking our prison officers to work in a system that the prison inspector himself has said is cracking and at “breaking point”, and we must invest in our workforce.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The day before Prime Minister’s questions last week, we spent hours discussing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Bearing in mind that there has been such a crash in public trust and confidence, has the Lord Chancellor considered that it might have been better to have referred to the fact that he knew there was a mistaken release of a prisoner in the offing? He might not have been able to give the details, but to restore public trust and confidence, and in light of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, might it not have been better to have said something, and to have held over that decision and said he would come back to the House later with more detail?
Mr Lammy
I recognise why the hon. Lady, who is very reasonable, has made her comments in that way, but I simply say that we inherited a system in which 17 errors on release are made every single month. There is a data release every July, and I have now updated the House with more information than it has ever had about this issue. I have also been clear, as any Justice Secretary would be, that we are not going to be able to eradicate human error or to get back to historical levels quickly, but I have put in place as much as I can to minimise the risk to the public.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
As a Member who represents a prison constituency, I would like to put on record my thanks to prison and probation staff who work hard under difficult circumstances. In recognising that, I also know the pressure the prison system in under. It is shocking that the legacy of 14 years handed over to this Government was a paper-based system and a prison system that was breaking. The Conservatives like to talk about a farce. If they want to talk about a farce, I will hand them a mirror to look into, because the only farce here is the breaking system. What more can we do to support prison staff? Yes, there needs to be accountability, but we need to invest in technology and invest in solutions, and give our prisons the systems they need to stop these things happening in future.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to deal with this issue is to move to a system that is based on technology; to use the AI that is out there to properly compare records, whether they come from the court or from early release. That will take significant time, but I have found £10 million to at least begin that process. And that process begins as a result of these recent high-profile cases.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that even the west midlands victims’ advocate, Natalie Queiroz, is herself living in fear due to the Government’s new release guidelines on open prisons? In 2016 she was stabbed in my constituency 24 times by her ex-partner. She was eight months pregnant. Her attacker was jailed for 18 years but is now moving to an open prison four years earlier than expected. Natalie is terrified of coming face to face with him. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why those convicted of domestic abuse who cannot apply for early parole under the SDS40—standard determinate sentences—process are not also excluded from the Government’s dangerous policy of moving offenders to open prisons?
Mr Lammy
I know that the Victims Minister has met her. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that under the Sentencing Bill restriction zones can restrict the movement of those who have committed crimes such as the one he refers to.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
As a Wandsworth MP, my constituents are very concerned about these releases. They have seen years of underfunding of Wandsworth prison. They have also seen more investment by this Government since coming into power than for years and years before that. From visiting Wandsworth prison, I have every confidence in its new governance and the systems it is putting in place. I thank the Justice Secretary for his response to my letter, outlining the changes in training, technology and resources, and the digital rapid response unit, which are being put in place to redress these wrongs. For the sake of my constituents, will the Justice Secretary outline the stronger release checks that he has put in place straight away?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing in her community. I recognise that there will be anxiety in her constituency as a result of high-profile cases that have emanated from Wandsworth. She will know that one of those cases involved an error that actually started in the court system back in September, before the checks that I put in place. She asked me to outline what I have done. What it effectively means is that the duty governor and the deputy governor are having a double look at what comes out of their OMUs, which are largely staffed by slightly more junior staff who are making the decisions on who should be released from custody. I look forward to visiting Wandsworth with my hon. Friend in the coming months.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The ministerial code requires honesty and transparency. On 28 October, in a written parliamentary question, I asked how many of those released in error under this Government remain at large. On 3 November I received an answer, but it did not answer the question. Was that because the Government did not know how many people were at large, or because they chose not to be transparent and give the answer?
Mr Lammy
I explained at length in my statement who is at large. I have released data today outwith the normal cycle of releasing in July, which was done under the previous Government. I have been as transparent with the House today on this issue as any Minister has been. I remind the House that I checked the record and, despite 860 releases in error on their watch, the Conservatives never came to the House once on this issue—not once.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Our constituents deserve a prison system that they can have confidence in, yet prisoner releases in error increased every year since 2021. Despite that, there was no call for an investigation and there were no reforms. Can the Justice Secretary therefore reassure my Carlisle constituents that it is this Government who will implement the findings of Dame Lynne Owens’s investigation and restore the confidence that was eroded under the previous Government?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not once did the previous Government make a statement. Even when William Fernandez was released in error under them and went on to commit an horrific crime, not once did a Minister come to this Dispatch Box. Not once did the previous Government release extra detail, which I have done today.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
A Torquay solicitor has recently told me of multiple occasions when there has been a lack of security staff to convey convicted criminals from Newton Abbot magistrates court to prison. On one occasion, one individual started self-harming. On another occasion, an individual waited and then absconding because the building was being locked up—he was later arrested following a machete attack. How often is this happening across the United Kingdom, and what are you doing to stop this failure within the system?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman raises issues that are, in a sense, beyond the prison system. He is right about the delivery mechanism of prisoners from court to prisons. He knows, because it has come up in oral questions in the House, that we inherited backlogs from the Conservative party. He also knows that we are demanding that our police arrest more and bear down on crime. The criminal justice system is phenomenally hot. All this will affect the prison system. That is why we have asked Brian Leveson to look at issues of efficiency, in particular, in relation to the courts backlog. Part of that is the relationship between security and the movement of people from our courts to our prison system.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
When I chaired and served on the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served for more than 10 years, we looked at and, with the help of the National Audit Office, uncovered failures in the Probation Service—a policy area that yo-yoed between Ministers as they changed—as well as the failure to build and maintain prisons, failures with the courts IT system and failures with identifying information that needed to be shared. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Magee review, which was commissioned at the tail end of the previous Labour Government, and can he speculate as to why the review was never implemented over the 14 years of the Conservative Government?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Magee review and its recommendations. I have of course asked my officials to look closely at the recommendations and at whether they pertain to the crisis we have inherited. I am grateful to her for highlighting that issue. She will know that, under the Conservatives, the Prison Service saw 24% cuts, because of which more than half our frontline prison officers today have less than five years’ experience. It is shocking. That is what we inherited.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I try to make a constructive suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister? Has he considered that when somebody is due for release, they should be read a short statement saying that if they think they are being wrongly released, they should say so now, and if they do not do so, a further penalty of some sort will be imposed? Might not that act as a bit of a deterrent, as well as a check?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The truth, however, is that because of the complexity of the various early release schemes, the numerous pieces of guidance that exist and the many different thresholds, the prisoner himself is often not completely aware whether he should be released on Monday or Thursday. It is sometimes possible when a prisoner has been released in error that it is by a matter of days, and not a significant period. I recognise why the right hon. Gentleman says what he says—we do have to make sure that there is an obligation on the prisoner. It is something that I will ask Lynne Owens to look closely at.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State seems to have kicked off panto season. His comments reminded me of my favourite character, Buttons, who longs to be Prince Charming. If only his colleagues would write into the 1922 committee so that he can formally start his leadership bid. In the spirit of panto season, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister will join me in reminding the shadow Secretary of State that if he is looking for the reasons why our prisons are in this state, they are behind him!
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend puts it beautifully. I suspect that it is why the shadow Justice Secretary said last week that the state of the Prison Service has been unacceptable for a very long time, including under the Conservative Government. I suspect it is why William Hague, a former leader of the Conservative party, said that the Government failed to grasp this—they did not build more prisons, and they did not have enough people in our prisons—and that this has been a long period of real failure.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Between 5 July and the end of the reporting period in March, this Government oversaw the accidental release of 193 prisoners. That is five prisoners every week. We now know that there have been a further 91 accidental prison releases since 1 April, so there have been 284 in total. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that no prisoners have been accidentally released from HMP Littlehey in my constituency since Labour took office?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member knows that about 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Government.[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 43.] (Correction) He knows too that, in introducing their early release scheme and our emergency early release scheme, there is complexity in the system. I will look closely at the data that is available in relation to the prison in his constituency.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Having spoken to my prison governor in Monmouthshire this weekend, I know the burden that clerks and prison officers are under when they are calculating these sentences on paper. The brass neck of the Conservatives is quite something to be believed. Their own party grandee William Hague has said that
“the Conservative Government failed to grasp either that they had to build more prison places or that they had to let people out, and they did not want to face up to either.”
Can the Secretary of State say how we are tackling both?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right; we have to grip the system. I did that by chairing a performance board in the Department yesterday, and I have done it by asking Dame Lynne Owens to look at this closely. There does now need to be an urgent query process working between courts and prisons so that we are not seeing those mistakes between the two systems. I think that ultimately it will take digital technology to fix this, but I have started that with £10 million to expand the digital rapid response unit so that we can at least start to raise flags in and across the system so that those working in our offender management units can spot where there might be a problem. I am pleased that the Sentencing Bill, which has now been through this House, will simplify the system greatly, because it is too complex at the moment.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Kebatu was released in error on 24 October, which was a Friday. I was under the impression that in the last Parliament Simon Fell, the former Member for Barrow and Furness, passed a rather brilliant private Member’s Bill that became the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023. The Act states that a prisoner cannot be released on a Friday without the Secretary of State’s say-so, in order to reduce recidivism because people cannot get access to the state for 72 hours. Has the Secretary of State devolved that to prison governors, and if they are being seen to be ignoring the will of this House, will he draw that power back up to himself?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member makes a good point. The system had got to a place where prisoners were not being released on Fridays. It is my understanding that that was relaxed, and I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at that again.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
At the weekend, I was visited in my constituency surgery by one of the many hard-working prison officers from Durham—himself a victim of the chaos in the justice system that the previous Government left behind. Before he left, he wanted me to know just how bad it is and why people are being released early.
As we all know, 800 prisoners were released early on the Conservatives’ watch, so bad was the chaos they created. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), says that it is getting worse. That is because of the chaos they created—it got worse every year on their watch, too. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, both for the victims of crime and for our hard-working prison officers, he will do what it takes to get to the bottom of this? He has referenced the paper-based system. Without pre-empting Dame Lynne Owens’s review, will we be moving away from that 1980s paper-based system?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: there were 17 releases in error per month in 2024. Just in the Conservatives’ last days in office, there was a step change in those releases in error, and it very much started back in 2021 on their watch. But why did it start? It was because of the complexity of the system and the need to introduce new mechanisms to get prisoners out of an overheated prison system while being able to lock up the most violent people. That is why it has happened. Now, of course, we will do everything we can to get a grip.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to see a quieter, more emollient and, even by his own lights, humbler Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box than the one we saw last week. Will he say how many people have been wrongly detained and how much money his Department is setting aside for the likely ensuing litigation?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Member knows that we release those statistics on an annual basis. I think behind his question he knows that, just as the system releases prisoners in error, it sometimes retains prisoners when they should be released. The two go hand in hand.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that as the Lord Chancellor made his statement, victims were at the forefront of his mind. We can all only imagine the fear and distress felt by victims when someone who has caused them so much harm is released in error. Will he give us more detail and assure us that, in those circumstances, victims and their families will receive support and be kept fully informed about what is happening?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to put the victims and the anxiety that they will be feeling front and centre. I have published more data today on this issue than ever before because I recognise the public’s concern at this time, but it is right that I work with the police and our enforcement agencies on the publication of particular cases—sometimes victims have not been informed, it would be dangerous to publish names or, indeed, a prisoner would get to know that he or she is being looked for and go underground—in order to protect the public, and absolutely to protect victims.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Public safety should be the Justice Secretary’s priority, so why did it take six days for the Metropolitan police to be informed that a sex offender had been wrongly released from HMP Wandsworth?
Mr Lammy
As I said, I have apologised from the Dispatch Box. Human error is in the system. There are delays not just within our prisons but between different agencies, and that is why I have put in place the query system in particular.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Government inherited a prison system so weakened by austerity, but it was also overcrowded by a justice system that failed to look at rehabilitation as well as punishment. Will the Secretary of State redouble the Department’s efforts to match employers who want to give prisoners a chance to learn skills and the habit of work with the opportunity to do so while serving their sentences and afterwards, so that we can ensure that our communities are safer because we rehabilitate as well as punish?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she emphasises punishment that works, and that has to mean skills, education and employment so that people do not go on to reoffend. We have inherited a system where recidivism rates are beyond 60%, which means that the system is not working even though it is overheated. We have to look at those issues in time. The Sentencing Bill is the beginning of the story, but we will have to return to those issues if we are serious about reducing reoffending.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Recent events and today’s court ruling again bring to the surface anxiety in our Epping community. My thoughts remain with the victims, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. Appallingly, they and their families heard about the wrongful prisoner release from the media instead of the Government. It is frankly astonishing that the Government are only using their levers of power in the courts to overturn the case brought by the council, but are not using their powers to address these issues on the frontline: the illegal immigration crisis, mistaken release of convicted prisoners and serious management and safeguarding issues associated with the Bell Hotel, which needs urgently to close. When will the Government get a grip, realise that they are not political commentators but players on the pitch, and use their powers to tackle those issues once and for all?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the sensitivity of this issue in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and that many will have looked closely at today’s decision in court. He knows that under the last Government £9 million a day was spent on housing people in hotels, he knows that the Government are committed to a new programme and that we are looking, for example, at military bases to see where can house people, and he also knows that we have increased the amount of foreign nationals leaving this country and returning to the countries they are from.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I put on record my thanks to all the prison officer staff at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, who have held the line in the face of impossible cuts and challenges over the past 14 years under the previous Government.
It is hard to imagine the sheer distress that is caused to victims and their families whenever there is a release in error of any prisoner, as happened, as has been said, 800 times under the last Government without a single apology, a single independent inquiry or a single photo or name, as has been demanded by the shadow Justice Secretary. Does the Secretary of State agree that victims and their families should be put at the heart of our reforms when we try to make sure that that never happens again?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons that I asked Dame Lynne Owens, as she looks at this issue, to meet the victims—particularly the victims of Kebatu’s crime—and to keep them in mind. Notwithstanding the errors made, we have to ensure public confidence in the system. It is important to assert, once again from this Dispatch Box, that 57,000 people are released from prisons every year and there is no error at all in the vast majority of those releases.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the manner in which he has delivered it. The wrongful release of prisoners is of huge concern to my constituents. I echo the comments made by colleagues across the House that, ultimately, the people who really suffer are the victims of such terrible crimes.
Having previously worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, I saw a number of prisoners who were released on a Friday, and who would come to us on a Friday afternoon at about 5 o’clock with nowhere to go. Does the Secretary of State agree that when we release people from prison, we should make sure that they have somewhere to go? If they have to declare where they will go after their release, we might be able to avoid some of the mistakes.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right that the Friday release issue is often about public services not being available over the course of Friday evening into Saturday and the homelessness problem that that pertains to. That is why I think it is important that we relook at what is happening in the system—the system that we inherited.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On 10 October, Ola Abimbola, a violent Nigerian criminal, walked out of Ford open prison in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. He has not been seen since. He is meant to be serving 21 years for grievous bodily harm, kidnap and possession of an offensive weapon. How many other prisoners are at large from Ford open prison and what offences were they imprisoned for?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady will know that absconding is a serious criminal offence, and that any defendant who commits this crime could face longer behind bars. This is of course a different issue to releases in error. Category D prisons have always existed, and absconds by prisoners are assessed, but I assure her that there is a downward trend in those who are absconding—57 in the year to March 2025.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Is the Justice Secretary aware of any crimes committed by wrongly released prisoners while at large?
Mr Lammy
As I have just said, William Fernandez went on to commit an horrific crime but the last Government never came to the Dispatch Box about that. By definition, if we got to the situation that we did in 2024, when 17 releases in error were happening, of course it is possible that people can go on to commit crimes. That is why I am hugely grateful—I know it involves police resource—for the efforts of our police to re-arrest these individuals. Some of them, as we saw last week, hand themselves back in when they realise that their release was in error. Our job is to minimise risk, but in a paper-based system we can never eradicate risk in time.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Justice Secretary said that one of the prisoners accidentally released who is still at large is a foreign national offender. I know that, after PMQs last week, the right hon. Gentleman will be very well briefed this week, so can he say whether the prisoner was inside for aggravated burglary, drug offences or failing to surrender to the police? Can he also say how this foreign national offender entered the country and whether he was an asylum seeker?
Mr Lammy
I have made available as much detail as possible, given that this information is normally released in July. Case 2 was in prison for a class B drug offence, and to the best of my knowledge, my understanding is that that was the FNO prisoner. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that, but I will have it double-checked, because this information was made available to me very recently, and I will write to him if I make an error.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I have two prisons in my constituency, at Wetherby and Wealstun. I also have two on the outside of it, at Askham Grange and Full Sutton. They will have heard the Secretary of State say that he has put in place some of the strongest measures ever. The only question that my constituents want an answer to is this: when they will be able to say that they no longer fear dangerous criminals being released on to the streets to terrorise their communities?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the anxiety that this issue will have caused. In a way, it has been a revelation to the public that people are released in error from our system. I emphasise that the vast majority of people are released in the correct manner—57,000 are released every year—but under successive Governments, for all of my lifetime, there have been releases in error. We want to bring that number down to historic levels, because it has been going up since 2021. I cannot stand here and say that, in a paper-based system often implemented by junior staff, we will eradicate releases in error, but we will reduce them over the course of this Parliament.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 902.]
I am pleased he knows he is the Justice Secretary, and with that comes leadership, so can he guarantee to the public that he has a grip on the issue of prisoners released by mistake?
Mr Lammy
This is why I chair the new performance board. This is why I have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue intensively. This is why I have found £10 million for a digital rapid response unit. This is why, because there is sometimes a gap between our courts and our prisons, I have put in place a new urgent query process. This is why we are taking the Sentencing Bill through this House, which will simplify release. All those measures will begin to bear down on this issue. I am sure that Dame Lynne Owens will come forward with more measures, and we will take them.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Over the summer recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the probation centre in Dewsbury, where Lucy Nicholson, head of Kirklees probation delivery unit, and her team hosted me. I pay tribute to their work, which has been made extremely difficult by the lack of investment in not just in the Probation Service but in prisons by the previous Government. We have full accommodation, a lack of funding and resources, reduced staff numbers, no processes in place to protect the public or prison staff, no systems, and no checks and balances. Will the Secretary of State outline the timescales by which some and all of these issues will be addressed, so that people in my constituency and across the country can feel safe when they sleep at night?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Member for centring the importance of probation. It is why one of the first things I did when I took office was to visit the Probation Service in Islington, and it is why I was recently in Chatham in Kent with probation officers. Investing in technology is hugely important to reduce their caseloads. Investing in more staff is hugely important —we recruited more than 1,000 staff last year, with 1,300 to come. Probation needs more resource, and that is why we have committed to £700 million by the next spending review. I am sure that we will return to these issues because I have no doubt that the decisions made by former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling were a travesty for probation and criminal justice.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Can the Justice Secretary tell the House whether in the last 16 months any prisoners have been accidentally released from Hewell Grange prison in Worcestershire and, if so, how many?
Mr Lammy
As I said, I have released more data today than ever before. The hon. Member knows that the data is most often released in July. I will look closely at his prison to see. If 17 prisoners in 2024 were released in error every month, he will recognise that that will touch many prisons across the country, but he will also recognise that there are differences in terms of the category of prisons and prisoners, particularly those prisons that have a lot of churn and are letting people out on a more frequent basis than others.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Justice Secretary’s team say that he found out about the accidental release of Algerian sex offender Kaddour-Cherif on Tuesday evening. He contradicted them by saying he only learned of it on Wednesday morning. He said at PMQs that he had been busy shopping for a suit that morning. Did the Lord Chancellor spend any time at all shopping for a suit after he was told about that prisoner’s release?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Three hundred and twenty-one violent or sexual offenders either failed to come back to jail after being temporarily freed, returned later or breached the terms of their licence last year—the highest number for years. The number was 177 four years ago and it was 59 in 2014-15. Again, I ask the Secretary of State this question: will he commit to all the necessary changes, including updating data and technology in the present system, as a matter of public safety and public confidence?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member is right to put at the heart of his question getting back to historic levels before we started to see the increase back in 2021. That is my intent: to get back to much lower levels than we see now. This afternoon I have set out the measures that we are taking immediately. More will follow the review by Lynne Owens, but of course this will take investment across the prison system.
Robert Jenrick
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to questions, the Justice Secretary said at one point that 17 prisoners a day were released in error under the last Conservative Government. He then repeatedly said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error by the last Conservative Government. Neither of those things is correct. The actual figure was five a month—and five a month is five too many. I know that he would not want to appear as if he did not know what he was talking about, so might you be able to get him to correct the record, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I do not want to continue the debate, and that is what we are in danger of doing. I recognise and accept that a mistake was made. I think you have corrected the record, and we will leave it at that—unless the Justice Secretary wishes to come back.
Mr Lammy
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I said that 17 prisoners a month were released in error in 2024. If I misspoke at any point, then of course I am happy to correct the record, as I just have done, but I am pretty sure that I said that. [Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 36.]
Mr Speaker
Just for the record, you mistakenly said 17 a day, but I knew exactly what you meant: 17 a month. We will leave it at that.
Pensions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
As the Secretary of State will explain, he has come to the House to update us at the earliest possible moment, for which I thank him. I understand that there will be further updates in the future, when more is known. We have an important and well-subscribed debate later this afternoon, and a further important statement to come before that. In the light of that, and as there is such a limited amount of information available today, I am going to restrict this proceeding so that only a couple of Members can ask questions after the statement. I want to ensure that people are aware of that; it is not that I am ignoring them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will explain—not that I want to put words in his mouth—that he will come back at the earliest possible moment. This matter involves a court case and other issues. Members will not gain anything by standing to catch my eye.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way state pension ages were communicated to 1950s-born women.
The background to this issue is well known to the House. It arises from how decisions to equalise and raise the state pension age were communicated over a number of years, and the impact that that may have had on the ability of 1950s-born women to plan for their retirement. It stems from the communication of changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which gradually increased the state pension age for women from the age of 60 to 65 to bring it in line with that of men. The Pensions Act 2011, introduced under the coalition Government, then brought forward the timetable for equalisation, and the rise to age 66 for both men and women. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman was not looking at those policy changes to the state pension age, but between 2018 and 2024, it investigated complaints from 1950s-born women about the communication of changes to the state pension age.
In March last year, following a lengthy investigation lasting six years, the ombudsman published its final report. In December last year, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), provided the Government’s response to the House. In coming to this decision, she gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration, and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions. She did her job thoroughly and professionally in weighing up all the information before her, coming to a conclusion and informing Parliament.
Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material. In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should now consider this evidence. That means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.
As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of Court action in recent months, and we have today informed the Court of the action we now intend to take. In retaking the decision, we will review the evidence from 2007 alongside evidence previously considered. I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.
I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved, with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration. We will approach this in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.
The work will begin immediately, and I will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached. Mr Speaker, I understand that Members will have a number of questions, but I hope that you and the House will also understand that I cannot say anything today that pre-empts the conclusion of the process I have set out. I commend this statement to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As he rightly says, this is an important, albeit technical, statement, and we in the Opposition certainly accept the contents and the spirit in which it is given. It is about a legal process, and we respect that.
This relates to a matter of keen interest to many of our constituents: those women who have been affected by the changes in retirement age. Known as WASPI, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign have probably met with all of us here in one way or another, and they will be looking at the point made by the Secretary of State late in his statement:
“retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.”
The WASPI women are rightly angry with this Government. In opposition, shadow Ministers and Labour MPs stood alongside these women, as the Secretary of State did, campaigning for
“a better deal for WASPI women.”
However, when the Labour party won the general election, they quickly apparently U-turned on that position, blaming the fiscal situation they were left with. Indeed, in December last year, the Government made a statement confirming their about-turn on supporting WASPI women. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who said in response to that statement:
“But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances… Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]
She is absolutely right: the Government had the choice then to stand behind the women who they said have faced a great injustice, but they chose not to. Instead, the Labour party is now fighting them in a judicial review in the High Court. Whether it be the multiple U-turns on pensioners’ winter fuel payments or the imminent rumoured freezing of tax thresholds in the Budget, forcing many pensioners into paying income tax, it is clear that this Government are not on the side of our pensioners.
That brings me to some questions for the Secretary of State. First, the Minister for Pensions said in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic on 15 January:
“we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 156WH.]
However, to my knowledge, nothing has been released to that effect. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on when we can expect the plan and what will be in it?
Secondly, in a follow-up to written parliamentary questions from the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the Government said that they have “no plans” to meet representatives of the WASPI campaign. Indeed, the last time a Minister did meet them was on 5 September 2024. Why have this Government decided not to directly engage with the group they once stood shoulder to shoulder with, especially given that there is new evidence to consider?
Thirdly, during the 14 years we were in Government, we chose to help pensioners by increasing the personal allowance income tax threshold. However, independent research suggests that 1.6 million more pensioners are doomed to be filling in self-assessment tax returns within the next four years, thanks to the Government’s choices that may be made in the upcoming Budget. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Chancellor about the serious impact this retirement tax would have on a group that have consistently targeted by this Government?
Finally, why are this Government determined to blame everyone else for the decisions they have made? All this statement shows is that the Government want to keep kicking the can down the road and not be held accountable for their actions, but we should look at the record: unemployment is at 5%, the highest level since the pandemic, up from 4.2% in June last year; inflation is now sitting at 3.8%, up from 2% in June last year; economic growth has flatlined, despite having improved by 0.5% in the three months before this Government took office; borrowing costs have increased to their highest level since 1998, with 30-year gilt yields reaching 5.2%, compared with 4.7% when the Government took office; debt is now 96.4% of GDP, the highest since the 1960s; and winter fuel payments were cut for millions of pensioners, only for the Government U-turn on that after feeling the pressure of our strong campaign.
The Government are set to break their manifesto pledge and increase the tax burden to a historic high. Is it not true that this Government have been trying to dodge taking any form of responsibility for their actions? What is their problem with pensioners?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Member for at least some of his response. I cannot pre-empt the conclusion of the process that I set out in my statement, because I want it to be undertaken fairly and transparently. I have to say to him that his own Government had many years to consider the matter and did not come to a conclusion, so I take his comments urging us to go more quickly with a little pinch of salt.
The hon. Member referred to pensioners. We said that we would maintain the triple lock, and we have kept to that commitment. That will mean an increase of some £1,900 a year in the basic state pension over the course of this Parliament. We remain committed to the publication of the action plan to which he referred.
He is right that the previous Minister for Pensions met the WASPI campaigners, but he was a little more coy about the last time a Conservative Minister met the WASPI campaigners. Perhaps a Conservative Member can tell us when that was? I believe it was many years before that and that our Minister was the first to meet the WASPI campaigners for some time.
Finally, on the broader economic record, he failed to join me in welcoming the UK having the fastest growth in the G7 for the first half of this year.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—I appreciate its technical nature. Clearly, it is a concern that this evidence was not made available to our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) last year and I know that he will investigate that. I appreciate that he will not be able to give a specific date as to when he may be able to decide what this evidence means for his final conclusions, but is he able to give a timeframe for when he will be able to report back to the House?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for her question; I know that she has taken a long and keen interest in the matter. On timescales, when people hear this statement, I appreciate that they will want to know when the conclusion will happen, but it is right and proper that I look at all the available evidence. As I said in the statement, I have asked the Department if there is any other survey evidence or other kinds of evidence that should be brought to my attention. With that proviso, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I apologise for inadvertently using the word “you” the last time that I spoke, Mr Speaker.
Clearly, the clock is ticking for WASPI women. There are 3.6 million WASPI women across the United Kingdom, which is half a million more than the population of Wales. Sadly, a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes.
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. When we have explored this subject in recent months, I have found it extremely disturbing how the ombudsman failed to engage with the previous Conservative Government because they knew that there would not be a deal to make around what the relevant approach would be on compensation for WASPI women. I plead with the Secretary of State to revisit that; after all, Government Members are on record as supporting WASPI women for many years. Will he look to meet with them and ensure that there is a fair deal? There is due to be a High Court hearing next month, and I implore him to engage positively and to get a fair deal for WASPI women.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right; this issue has gone on for a long time. I took the view that, in the light of the evidence being cited, the right thing to do was to look again at it and at the decision in the round. I cannot speak for the previous Government’s failure to engage with the ombudsman—that is a matter for them—but I can tell the hon. Member that this Government are engaged with the ombudsman on the action plan discussed earlier, and we will continue to be engaged. As I said, I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said that as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. Who cited that evidence? Was it the Department for Work and Pensions or the Government, or was it the people opposing the Government in the court case? If it came from Government sources or from within the DWP, why was it not uncovered before? Can he give us every assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that all relevant evidence is uncovered in advance of the next decision being taken?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady asks about the nature of this evidence. It is a report from 2007 and, as I said, it is a DWP evaluation. The survey was not drawn to the attention of the previous Secretary of State because its potential relevance to the making of her decision was not evident at the time. I will consider this survey and any other relevant evidence in the process to which I referred in my statement.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to suspend the House until 5.15 pm due to the late notice of the next statement.
BBC Leadership
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the BBC.
As the House will be aware, this weekend, the director general and the chief executive officer of BBC News tendered their resignations, following concerns about accuracy and impartiality at the BBC. This has sparked intense debate across the media and our nation. Today, I want to set out for the House what action is being taken to address the allegations that have been made, and the actions that the Government are taking to support the BBC in addressing this, and I want to address the future of an institution that has been at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.
The House will know that yesterday, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, wrote to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He accepted that there had been editorial failings, and he committed to a number of steps in response. Dr Shah believes that our national broadcaster, which remains one of the most trusted sources of news in our country, has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. I agree. Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with him and his team to ensure that where these standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows. I welcome the steps that have already been set out, and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues.
The concerns that have been raised are serious in and of themselves, but some in the House have gone even further, suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased. It should not be lost on us that the BBC has faced criticism from all sides for its coverage of highly contentious and contested issues. It has been accused of giving too much airtime to particular parties, and of giving them too little. Those in the House, from left and right, who are attacking the BBC for not expressing views with which they agree should consider just what is at stake. There is a fundamental difference between raising serious concerns about editorial failings, and Members of this House launching a sustained attack on the institution itself.
The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it is a national institution that belongs to us all. Every day, it tells the story of who we are—the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK. It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries, has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched, and is by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom. At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart. It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world. Trusted news and high-quality programming are essential to our democratic and cultural life, and all of us in the House should value them, uphold them and fiercely defend them.
The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future. Throughout its history, the BBC has always adapted and evolved. This is an institution that began in the era of radio, when it was deemed an existential threat to the newspaper industry. It evolved into the age of mass audiences ushered in by the invention of television, and navigated the complexities of reporting during the second world war.
We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves. We will publish a Green Paper and launch a public consultation shortly, and I will set out more detail on that for the House in the coming weeks.
I would like to thank the outgoing director general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years. I thank the CEO of BBC News for leading the BBC’s news operation through stormy times. I do not underestimate the challenge of taking on those roles, and the personal toll that that can take on the individuals who hold them. As we write the next chapter of an institution that has stood at the centre of British public life for a century, our overarching goal is simple: to ensure that the BBC can renew its mission for the modern age and continue to inform, educate and entertain, not just for the coming decade but well into the next century. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her statement. The BBC is in a sorry mess—sadly, one of its own making—that has resulted in the resignation of the director general and its CEO of news. Those recent leadership changes are a response to the growing number of examples of bias in the BBC, one of which has resulted in a potential $1 billion lawsuit. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said that the BBC needs to change and needs saving from itself. Otherwise, we may all pay the price, through reputational damage, and from our pockets, as licence fee payers. We all want the BBC to succeed and be the best possible version of itself, but that requires institutional change, and far more than a few moves at the top.
I will first acknowledge some of the many things that the BBC does well, and the ways in which it delivers on its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. Those things range from “Strictly” and “Traitors” to its world-class natural history programming, sport and local radio, and its coverage of major national events, including the recent remembrance services. Those are things that we can all be proud of, and that contribute positively to the BBC’s brand, and its reputation at home and abroad. But the BBC also has a charter obligation of impartiality, and too many examples have come to light of bias at the BBC, particularly in relation to its news and current affairs output. It has often strayed far from its editorial guidelines, including in its coverage of trans rights, its selective push notifications of news, in the Gaza documentary, in the output of the Arabic news service, and in its reliance on stats provided by Hamas. All those things speak to bias at the BBC. At a time when antisemitism is rising around the world, the BBC should surely think twice about distributing questionable data from a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. We expect better from our national broadcaster.
I am glad that the BBC chair has admitted an error of judgment relating to the “Panorama” programme on Donald Trump, which involved editing his speech to give the impression that he said something that he did not. The BBC now faces a hefty lawsuit, and we do not want to see the taxpayer, the licence fee payer, or the rest of the BBC suffer because of the poor judgment of the “Panorama” programme makers, who seem unable to distinguish opinion from impartial journalism, and who clearly all thought the same. That is precisely the problem. It is remarkable that in every area of its operations, the BBC seeks inclusivity and diversity, other than in thought, and in political thinking. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must change—that the BBC’s culture needs to change? Does she agree that the BBC must provide a full apology to the US President, and, hopefully, avoid legal action, and does she agree that the BBC would do well to apologise to the British public, too?
Does the Secretary of State also agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the BBC’s adherence to impartiality standards, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs, and that we need more than apologies and resignations at the top—that we need clear actions on complaints processing, governance, oversight and compliance, to ensure that the BBC sticks to its charter obligations on impartiality, and rigidly and consistently abides by its own editorial guidelines?
The Secretary of State mentioned the next steps and the BBC charter review, but we would appreciate more detail on timelines as soon as possible. What discussions is she having with the BBC leadership about the search for the new director general? Given that the BBC Arabic service is funded in part by the British taxpayer through a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant, what discussions is she having with her FCDO colleagues about its future funding and governance arrangements, and about the impact that the BBC’s editorial failings have had on Israel and our partners in the middle east? Action must be taken, and the serious issues discussed today must be addressed, because the BBC must once again become an institution of which all of us, not just some of us, can be proud.
Lisa Nandy
May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I know that the situation that has unfolded over the past week has been of serious concern to him. I say from the outset that I strongly agree with him that two resignations are not the answer to the challenges that the BBC has faced, not just over the last week, but in recent months. I have come to this House too many times to share progress updates after editorial failings. He mentioned examples relating to Gaza and Glastonbury, but there have been others as well. I am pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Dr Samir Shah, has accepted the instances where the institution has made mistakes. I am pleased that he has been open with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), about that, and I am pleased that he is setting out the concrete actions that will follow.
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that clear actions are important; they must be swift, robust and transparent. I also strongly agree with him that there is a problem with consistency and the way that standards are applied, which leaves individual journalists and presenters in a very difficult position. I have made that point to the chairman, and previously to the director general.
I have had discussions with the chairman of the board about the search for a director general. The House should be aware that the Government do not appoint the director general. As set out in the charter, that is a matter solely for the board, but we stand ready to provide support, where it is requested and necessary, to make sure that we get the highest-calibre individual. I understand from the board that there is a desire to move quickly on that, but that the existing director general will remain in place to ensure a smooth transition, and I will update the House as I receive further information.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the BBC Arabic service and funding for the World Service. It is important to recognise that there have been serious concerns and failings on the part of the BBC Arabic service. Dr Shah, in response to that issue, set out in a letter to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a number of steps that are being taken. I understand that they include structural changes, as well as staff changes, but I gently push back against the assertion that this issue should affect our support for the World Service. The World Service is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness, of which there are many in the world at the moment. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Whatever the position regarding Donald Trump, who has said far worse than what was shown in the wrongly edited clip, the only ones rubbing their hands with glee during this debacle are those who do not want a free press—those politicians who have deep pockets lined by goodness knows who, and who cosplay as journalists on RT and GB News to spread division and hatred. I hope that all of us in this House agree with the principle of keeping our public broadcaster free from political interference. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to review the influence of former Conservative spin doctor Robbie Gibb on the BBC’s board?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so I am unable to pursue the course of action that she suggests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have always pushed the BBC to be better, delivering genuinely balanced reporting, rigorous investigation and the best journalism in the world. We believe in a strong, independent, publicly funded BBC that values factuality, scrutiny and accountability in our democracy. The BBC clearly is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake, and we welcome the BBC’s apology. The resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn over a new leaf, rebuild trust and return to its core mission to inform, educate and entertain.
However, it is obvious to everyone that this issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to the dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories that populists such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Donald Trump trade on, and we cannot let that happen. As the Government navigate Trump’s latest tantrum in threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what is the Secretary of State doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC—which is the most trusted source of information in the world?
Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Secretary of State truly believes in an independent BBC, will she now sack Robbie Gibb, end the political grip on the BBC board and listen to Liberal Democrat calls to guarantee that the appointment of the next director general is transparent, impartial and worthy of the trust that the British public place in the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady asks if we will stand up for the BBC, and she will have heard my words to the House today. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in the country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. How will we stand up for the BBC? We will put it on a firm footing through the charter process that we are about to start. On her concerns about board members, she will have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her leadership on this. I wholeheartedly welcome her words that political figures should not be presenters of the news. Surely that should apply also to the arbiters of news standards. Could these reforms therefore look at the four-person editorial standards committee, given that two of them have resigned, leaving as its most senior member someone who has owned a newspaper in his time, breaching the Independent Press Standards Organisation guidelines—the ex-Conservative director of communications, Robbie Gibb?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend mentions the editorial guidance and standards committee, which has been the source of much debate and scrutiny over recent days. I have discussed this directly with the chair of the BBC. I understand that changes to that committee are planned, and I very much welcome that decision.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy.
That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship?
On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline?
Lisa Nandy
First, I welcome the action that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is taking, which she has announced to the House. To maintain confidence in the BBC, it is absolutely essential that the BBC is transparent about the actions it has taken and the actions it intends to take. It is very welcome that she is ensuring that the fullest explanation is given not just to this House, but to the public.
On the timing of the charter review, the hon. Lady will have heard what I said to her Committee when I appeared before it recently, which is that we will start the charter review process before the end of the year. I will of course return to this House as soon as the timing is finalised to give Members a chance to debate it.
The hon. Lady asked what action we, as a Government, are taking to support the board through what is clearly a tumultuous time. I have been working very closely with the chairman of the BBC in recent days—I have spoken to him daily—and with the director general. We have been clear as a Government that we stand ready to provide all the support the board needs to appoint the highest calibre person to the post of director general and to consider what changes it might want to make to senior leadership structures and roles as a result of its deliberations. The BBC is of course independent of Government and it is essential that it is given the space to be able to get on with that process, but we have been working very closely with the BBC chairman, at his request, in order to make sure that the BBC can continue to thrive.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Now, more than ever, the role of the BBC in our national story and our democracy and the trust we put in it are vital. Trust is not given; it is earned, and we cannot shy away when things go wrong. Does the Culture Secretary agree with me that the charter should focus on transparency, accountability and measurable commitments to impartiality as the surest way to ensure that trust in the BBC is retained?
Lisa Nandy
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As well as the very important issues around standards, I would add trust, accountability and independence from Government—any Government, including ours—because the BBC plays a critical role in holding up a mirror not just to society but to Governments of all political persuasions. I would add that the BBC has always been one of the strongest drivers of the creative industries across every nation and region. As part of the charter review process, we will be working to strengthen that to make sure that the BBC is able to tell the story of our whole nation, and not just some of it.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I join the Culture Secretary in paying tribute to the director general of the BBC—I found him helpful on issues such as antisemitism—but the problem with the BBC goes much deeper than the current leadership. Does she agree, first of all, that it goes to the cultural disposition of the BBC? People who work for it have an overwhelmingly metropolitan outlook and obsess about issues such as Black Lives Matter and Palestine in a way that suburban and provincial England does not obsess? Moreover, my constituents are sick of waiting for the lecture from the BBC in output such as drama. That is the case from other broadcasters, but the difference with the BBC is that my constituents pay for it. There is a real problem with the BBC now, whereby many people feel that it represents half the United Kingdom and not the other half. Does she agree that, for those of us who want the BBC to succeed, that must be addressed as a matter of urgency?
Lisa Nandy
The challenges the right hon. Gentleman describes do not specifically relate just to the BBC. I have voiced concerns, as have many Conservative Culture Secretaries previously, about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry in one background and from one region. I believe, as many of my Conservative predecessors have done, that that needs to change. I would caution focusing particularly on the BBC, because that is a problem for the media industry as a whole and therefore for the public debate. The BBC over the years, through its work at Media City in Salford and at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham, is one of the organisations that is at the forefront of changing that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, though, that there has to be a level of internal challenge within any successful organisation. In the discussions I have been having with the chairman of the BBC and the director general in recent days, that has been the subject of many of the concerns that I have raised.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former journalist and former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I know more than most some of the failings of the BBC, but I also recognise some of its great strengths, not least in combating misinformation online. I know many of its journalists personally and many, many of them take ultra seriously their duties to provide fair, impartial and, yes, fearless news coverage. It is the fearlessness that often upsets this House, on either side. Yes, this was a serious error by the “Panorama” team and a correction should have been issued swiftly, but that does not mean that the BBC as an institution should be undermined. There are enemies on the left and the right who want to see the demise of the BBC, and they would rue that day should it ever happen.
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend first on the point he makes about the seriousness of some of the failings and the need to uphold the highest standards. I also agree about the challenges and attacks that the BBC faces from both left and right. The real division in the debate over the BBC is not between left and right; it is between those of us who think that the national broadcaster is there to represent their world view and those of us who believe that our national broadcaster is here to challenge all of us.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The internet is full of people who think they are in touch with a bigger truth and that it does not matter what happens to all sorts of littler truths along the way in getting that bigger truth across. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee, Samir Shah spoke of the “sacred job” of the BBC to use evidence that can be trusted. That is more important than ever. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is events such as these that give ammunition to people who say, “Disregard the BBC—don’t look at the mainstream media” and consider all sources to be the same? The most worrying thing is not that a mistake happened, because mistakes happen in big organisations; the most worrying thing is that it took this long for it be corrected. Does the Secretary of State agree that in future, corrections must always be made swiftly and proactively?
Lisa Nandy
I have reflected concern about the time it takes to respond to the BBC leadership, not just in relation to this episode, but previously. It really does undermine trust and confidence in the BBC. When a process takes time, and if there is no proper explanation as to why it has taken some time, it leads people to believe that there is complacency at the top of the organisation. I think the chairman has heard that loud and clear and has taken it on board as part of the learning from this episode. I have shared some of my frustrations with the BBC leadership and the failings that have happened over the past 16 months with this House, as have others, because the BBC holds such an important place in our national life and must command the trust of the whole public.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we can all hear the Secretary of State’s frustration that we are in this position. She is absolutely right that there must be a period of introspection at the BBC about how this has come to pass, because it is true that trust in our national institutions is declining. However, I must take issue with her comment that the BBC is a national institution that belongs to us all. My constituents—and, I wager, those of Members across this House—are deeply concerned by the political attacks on the BBC, whether from home or abroad, and want to see it protected, because they think they own it. The honest truth, however, is that at the moment they do not own it. In the past, my right hon. Friend has been interested in these ideas; with the charter renewal coming up, might she meet a group of us to look at how ideas such as mutualisation and allowing the public to be part of running the organisation might be the future in giving back trust and confidence in the BBC and genuinely protecting it from political institutions?
Lisa Nandy
I stand absolutely by the assertion that the BBC belongs to us all. It is funded by the licence fee payer, but more than that it is one of the few shared spaces and places that we have in this country. I was reflecting on this on Remembrance Sunday as I stood at the Cenotaph, and did so before that at the VE Day commemorations earlier this year: there are very few broadcasters in this country that could provide those moments where the entire country stops and comes together through a shared experience. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her suggestions.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The BBC has said that the editing of the “Panorama” programme gave the impression of a
“direct call for violent action”—
something it then described as an “error of judgement”, which seems an extraordinary understatement. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that although this was considered by the editorial guidelines and standards committee in May, nothing was done? Should not as a first step the editorial guidelines and standards committee be made far tougher and fully independent? Will the Secretary of State consider that and other measures as part of the charter review she is undertaking as a way of strengthening the impartiality requirement that was inserted in the previous charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion. I look forward to having more detailed conversations with him as we start the charter review process. As he is a former Culture Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to have those conversations. He raises the specific issue of the committee meeting that took place in May. My understanding is that there was a meeting in January, then a further meeting in May at the BBC’s own request, but there was then a failure to follow through. I do not want to speak for the BBC. It is not my role to answer questions on behalf of the BBC about how it took those decisions, but I note with interest that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be calling members of the editorial guidelines and standards committee to appear before it, and I am sure that that will be one of the things the Select Committee seeks to probe.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I do not think any reasonable person can think that the programme put out by “Panorama” was a mistake. It was clearly manipulation with a purpose, and unfortunately it follows a long line—I will not list all the examples, as other hon. Members have done that, but they include Gaza, anti-women trans issues and Europe. To give an example from my constituency, a programme was put out a few years ago called “People Like Us”, where contributors—young women—had been paid to fight and other contributors had been sent on holiday in order to get them to say particular things. I do not think that the biggest threat to the BBC is some conspiracy. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that the biggest threat to the BBC is a failure to uphold objectivity and the standards we expect from the BBC.
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view about the seriousness of the failings, which the BBC has accepted this week, and the need for clear, robust, firm and swift action in response. I would, though, remind the House that the BBC is responsible for thousands of hours of output across multiple channels, including some of the most popular and entertaining programmes in this country and some of the highest-quality children’s television in the world. It is also responsible for the BBC World Service, which is renowned and revered the world over. It plays an essential role in our global democracy and is responsible for regional news that is highly trusted. It reaches stories, people and communities that others cannot reach. I say that not to downplay in any sense the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised this week, but just to make clear that the BBC as an institution is essential to this country, and that when we hold it to the highest standards, it is because we need it to thrive.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
To interrogate honourably, the BBC needs to have a level of integrity, yet it has diminished itself in ignoring a report for six months that looked not just at one “Panorama” programme but at a litany of failures. The BBC piously shows religious observance to the principles of integrity and impartiality, but when challenged and criticised, it sacrifices all that on the altar of supreme arrogance. Hearing today that the high priest of partiality Jonathan Munro continues to defend the editorial decisions of the “Panorama” programme, does the Secretary of State believe that he too must go?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is not for me or any Government to decide who is employed by the BBC and who is not, but I agree, of course, that integrity and impartiality are vital.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Like some other colleagues in the House, I often start my morning with Dotty on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and end my days with Amelia on “BBC Look East”. I say that because it demonstrates that the BBC is much more than its editorial decision making at the national level. Every day, thousands of BBC staff are telling our stories, representing our communities and being part of the fabric of this country.
As a former official of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union, I have spoken to many BBC staff and members of the National Union of Journalists and BECTU over recent days who are horrified by some of the coverage of this matter. They want accountability, and they want the BBC to restore its trust, but they also want to hear the message that their work is valued and that they are part of the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the talent that makes the BBC an institution and that that talent needs to be nurtured, while dealing with the leadership?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend not just for the point he made but for the compelling way in which he made it. Like him, I have been astonished by the calibre of BBC staff, whether the back-office staff who so often do not get the credit, the journalists who work tirelessly in communities up and down the country to tell stories that otherwise would not be heard, or the young apprentices who start out with the most incredible opportunities and go on to have amazing careers because of the institution that the BBC is and the work that is done to support them.
I know that this issue has had an impact on many BBC journalists. I want them to hear directly from the Government how much we value, treasure and support them. I also say to the House that in all the conversations I have had with major investors who come to this country to invest in film and TV production, they say that the BBC is—for all of them, without exception —a major draw because of the work it does in skilling up a generation of talent and providing the institutions and facilities those investors need to come here.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the statement, but this is not just about editorial challenges for the BBC; there has been a total lack of deftness in dealing with talent-related issues and other scandals over the past few years. There are also governance issues with BBC Studios—a commercial organisation with separate whistleblowing schemes—hiding behind the BBC brand. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the broader skills that are needed to make the changes necessary so that the BBC can maximise its huge global opportunities in both news and productions?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member is right to raise the lack of deftness—and, I would add, the lack of urgency—in the handling of some of the issues that have arisen in the past couple of years. Let this be the moment that that changes. That is the tone and nature of the conversations I have been having with the BBC’s senior leadership. I also echo the points he made about the skillsets required to ensure that the BBC can get on to a firm footing as we begin this next chapter.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am no BBC basher; I want to protect it. This morning, along with a number of cross-party MPs, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking if she would ask the BBC board exactly why it delayed issuing an appropriate apology over the “Panorama” Trump edit, because, as we know, that delay inflicted further damage on the BBC, which is our country’s most trusted news source. I agree with Hannah Barnes, who said yesterday in a New Statesman article that the corporation
“must turn this crisis into an opportunity.”
Will the Secretary of State also seek clarity from the former director general Tim Davie on the worrying words in his resignation letter about how the BBC needs to be championed and not weaponised?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the letter that I received earlier today. I have discussed the delay in issuing an apology with the BBC and been given a full account by the chairman of the board. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the BBC, but she will have heard that the Select Committee intends to call members of that BBC committee, and I am sure the Select Committee will raise that question with them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Debates about partiality are something that we in Scotland are more than familiar with—particularly those in the 50% on the side of Scottish independence—but these sustained attacks on the BBC by forces that seek to undermine it and mould it into their instrument must be resisted. Surely that could be assisted by the sacking of Robbie Gibb. Will the Secretary of State assure me that with any changes in leadership, BBC Scotland’s editorial independence will be maintained and it will continue to serve us according to our national debate and our political culture?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will have heard the comments I made about the legal threshold that must be met for any changes in leadership. The Government appoint the chair of the BBC; we do not appoint individual staff members. The board member that he mentioned was appointed by the last Conservative Government and his term was renewed just weeks before the general election, so I cannot take the action that he requests.
The hon. Member mentioned the nations and regions, which are close to my heart as well. Through the charter review process, we will seek to ensure that the BBC’s direction can be driven through its nations and regions and that people in every part of the UK can see a fair share of content that reflects their lives, their communities and their contribution.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I spent time yesterday with journalists at BBC Radio Cambridgeshire admiring their dedication and professionalism, which stands in marked contrast to this shabby debacle that sullies a great institution’s reputation. Is not part of the problem the fragmentation of what should be a public service? Frankly, this failure is symptomatic of the long-term fragmentation of so many of our public services as a consequence of the Conservative Government.
Lisa Nandy
As I said to the House just a moment ago, the charter review marks the start of the next chapter of the BBC’s long and proud history. That will be the moment when we can come together as a whole House and a whole country to agree the future of the BBC.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There are certainly many questions—particularly for those who deliberately set out to destroy the BBC—but I want to ask the Secretary of State this one. In the absence of the ability to remove certain members from the board, will she make a commitment that all future appointments should be conducted through a transparent process rather than being political appointments?
Lisa Nandy
The House was asked to approve the terms of the last charter. Similarly, the House will be asked to approve the terms of the next charter, which will set out how the BBC will operate for the next decade. It will certainly look at appointments, transparency and structures, and that will be the hon. Member’s opportunity to get involved.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
Many have expressed their annoyance at the BBC in recent days for being too woke, too Tory or too liberal—or, in my case, for allowing the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to appear on the “Question Time” panel more often than he has appeared in his own constituency. Is not the fact that the BBC has been attacked by every side evidence that it continues to make every effort to maintain balance in a world of increasingly polarised and divisive media?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?
Lisa Nandy
I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
These are indeed uncertain times for the BBC and for the people who work in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we remember that the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 found that the BBC remains the most trustworthy news brand in the UK, with 60% of respondents rating it highly for trust? Does she also agree that the BBC must respond to criticism in a considered and proportionate manner and carry out investigations with regard for due process, and that it should not be subject to political interference nor, for that matter, interference from commercial competitors?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the point about trust. The BBC is one of the most trusted institutions not just in our country but in the world. We seek to ensure that it upholds the highest standards because that is of such value and importance to all of us in the United Kingdom. I thank him for his words.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the nations and regions will form a very important part of the BBC charter review. To that end, she will know that over 90% of S4C’s funding is derived from the BBC licence fee. In the process of the BBC charter review, will the financial stability of S4C be a key consideration for the Government?
Lisa Nandy
I have been pleased to meet the leadership at S4C after what has been a difficult time. This Government reaffirm the importance of S4C to our national life, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we start the charter review process to make sure that that continues.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Staff at the former BBC Monitoring station in Caversham in my constituency played a vital role over many years, monitoring broadcasts from around the world. Indeed, they broke a number of important news stories over the years, including that of the Iranian revolution, which was only possible because of the public service model and the dedication of the staff and their skills. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, but can I ask her to say a few words of thanks to the staff of the BBC for their continued work and for the BBC’s vital role as a public institution?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend will have heard the comments that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). I commend those many BBC staff, particularly those who put themselves in danger to report fearlessly from parts of the world where that is not possible. Recently, I came to this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to all those journalists, operating in Gaza in particular, where the loss of life has been without precedent. We owe them a great debt of thanks and I would like to place that on the record today.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It is a very long time since I was taught to edit tape with a chinagraph pencil and a razor blade, but the fundamental principle remains the same: you do not change the sense of what somebody has said—ever. Those who have read the transcript of Trump’s speech and then compared it with the “Panorama” edit know full well that that programme was a travesty of journalism and deeply dishonest. It also represented a desperate lack of editorial control.
I now part company with some of my colleagues; I believe, and I still believe, that the overwhelming majority of journalists employed by the BBC—and, for the record, those employed by Independent Television and Sky News—work fearlessly, faithfully and honestly to deliver the truth, and, when it comes to those working overseas, as has been said, with great courage also. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will resist with all her power the calls of those on both sides of this House and outside it who would seek to destroy one of the jewels in our national crown.
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give the right hon. Member that assurance.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I echo the solidarity with BBC journalists that has been expressed across the House. Can the Secretary of State assure me and other Members that measures will be taken in the forthcoming charter review to ensure that all political appointments to the BBC board are made with full public scrutiny, and that such appointees will not be involved in any editorial capacity in future, in order to protect the integrity, credibility and independence of the most important bastion of public service broadcasting in Britain and beyond?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his words and Members across the House for the tone of this debate. I know that all Members feel strongly about the failings of the BBC editorial process in recent days, but it is a credit to this House that we can have a sensible and measured debate about the actions needed to address it.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady will have heard my comments to other hon. Members about the appointments process. The charter review offers this whole House the opportunity to look again at how those appointments are made and which roles exist.
On the hon. Lady’s points about the BBC and the environment in which it operates, the Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with opinion and polemic, and therefore the inability of viewers to turn on their TV screens and understand what it is that they are watching. I have previously raised my concerns with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about politicians presenting news on programmes that are not necessarily deemed news programmes. As politicians, we are required to have an opinion and a point of view. That is very different from presenting impartial facts. The Government are looking to address that matter.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The BBC is unique and special, and it is ours. Yes, it is absolutely a part of the national conversation—but, importantly, it is also a part of the regional and local conversation. I have fantastic local journalists in my patch on Three Counties Radio and on “Look East”, and the fact is that a local story, which a local journalist has gone out to find, can quickly get on to the national stage because of our BBC; that is special. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in the forthcoming charter review she will take seriously the protection and enhancement of local news coverage?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking both at the charter process and at how we can help to support and defend local news through the BBC’s work. She will also know that this Government are developing a local news strategy to help our local newspapers to survive and thrive in an era in which they face significant pressure. She is absolutely right to say that local news is not just about reflecting the whole nation, although it does play that essential role; it is also often the training ground for some of our most talented journalists, who would otherwise not get those opportunities, so we are determined to strengthen and protect it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I would fight in the last ditch to prevent the BBC from ceasing to be a public service broadcaster and from being broken up. Any large organisation can have bad actors who behave unethically, and that has happened on this occasion, but it does the BBC no service when people parrot the line that the person responsible for this crisis is not the idiot who tampered with Donald Trump’s quote but a former Tory spin doctor, one of 13 members of the board, who allegedly influenced other members of the board to somehow provoke the present crisis. The crisis has nothing to do with Robbie Gibb; it has something to do with a mindset that, on the front page of today’s Guardian, has the whole thing about Robbie Gibb and relegates the fact that a $1 billion lawsuit may be taken out by Donald Trump against the BBC to a tiny paragraph at the end of the article on page 2. If you wants to know what is wrong with some bits of the BBC, read The Guardian today.
Lisa Nandy
I am not entirely sure how to respond to that, but the right hon. Member’s views are now on the record.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
We have heard an awful lot today about the professionalism of the journalists at the BBC, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are less of them now than there were last year and we hear that the BBC is in the fight of its life across a whole number of fronts. Well, when you are in a fight across multiple fronts, it seems odd to send some of your best fighters home, but that is what is happening to our journalists where there are less of them in our newsrooms. Does the Secretary of State agree that journalism, delivered free from fear or favour, costs money—and that it costs a lot of money to do it really well? Does she also agree that delivering that has to be at the centre of gravity for the BBC now and in the future, and that how we protect journalism and resource it properly has to be at the heart of the charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend and I can assure him that that is very much central to the charter review process that we are about to begin. He is right to say that fearless and robust journalism costs money, and it is essential that the BBC is fairly and sustainably resourced for years to come. The Government are keeping an open mind about how that may may unfold, but what I have said—and I am happy to repeat it to the House today—is that we have ruled out funding the BBC through general taxation, because although it is absolutely essential that good journalism is well resourced, it is also absolutely essential that the BBC remains independent from Government and is able to hold us to account without fear or favour.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is essential that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are upheld at all times. I am afraid that serious concerns have been raised about Sir Robbie Gibb’s conduct on the BBC board, including alleged attempts to influence recruitment and editorial decisions. If the Secretary of State cannot remove Gibbs from the board and cannot end the political appointments now, what actions can she take to restore public confidence in the BBC’s governance?
Lisa Nandy
Everyone in this House is right to take with the utmost seriousness the failings that the BBC has accepted have happened over the course of this year, but I would gently push back against the idea that the public has lost confidence in the BBC. It remains the most trusted source of news in this country and, as I said earlier, in many other parts of the world as well.
In terms of the actions that I can take as Secretary of State, I am working closely to support the chairman of the board through what are obviously tumultuous times. The director general has agreed to stay on in order to see the organisation through the transition. We have already had discussions about the process for recruiting for a new director general and the need to strengthen the work of the board and senior leadership when it comes to editorial oversight. That includes, as I said a moment ago, a discussion about the mix of skills and experience that is needed at the highest levels of the organisation.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is absolutely right to hold the BBC to the highest standard, because that is the best way to defend our national broadcaster. Does she agree that it is not acceptable for Members of this House who are paid by the BBC’s commercial rivals—in fact, looking at the time, one of them is probably in make-up as we speak—to use their status as an MP to mount sustained and frenzied attacks that have only one aim: to destroy this national institution?
Lisa Nandy
As I said earlier, it is the legitimate, right and proper role of Members of this House to raise serious concerns about the decisions that have been made at the BBC over recent months and the response to them, but there is a difference between that and making a sustained attack on an institution that has stood at the centre of public life for over a century and belongs to us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and for her statement. It has been clear over the years that there has been a bias in the BBC, and I have had concerns over the last 12 months on at least four topics: BBC bias against Brexit; BBC bias against my party, the Democratic Unionist party—there are elected representatives back home in Northern Ireland who refuse to engage with the BBC; BBC bias for Gaza against Israel; and BBC bias against the free Iran Government in exile, with the BBC promoting the son of a former dictator. My goodness me, it is quite unbelievable. Two people have resigned, but the canker of editorial control is still there. So my question to the Secretary of State today is: when will it end? Is this just a pause or is this the end?
Lisa Nandy
As somebody who has shared my frustrations at some of the failures at the BBC over the last 16 months, and at the response at times, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that throughout this process I have very much felt that there is a recognition of the seriousness of this issue at the highest levels of the BBC. In the conversations that I have had with the senior leadership in the institution, there is also a discussion and a consideration of what wider changes need to be made in order to maintain and uphold the highest standards. He asks when it will end. I think the answer has to be: now.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, and particularly her strong support for the BBC as an institution that belongs to us all. With the BBC regularly rated worldwide as one of the most trusted global news sources, does she agree that a strong BBC acts as a bulwark against misinformation not only in this country but across other critical parts of the world where there are few other trusted news sources, and that the delivery of services to those parts of the world must be properly funded?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is not lost on anyone in this House that, at a time when other countries who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests at heart are investing heavily in state-funded propaganda, it is essential that the BBC continues to be a light on the hill for people in times of darkness.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live?
Lisa Nandy
I can, and I will. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the story of the whole nation has to be told, and the best way to ensure that it is told is to ensure that all of us are involved in telling it, not just some. When we look at the charter review, there will be a particular focus on our nations and regions. I have said previously that, although I absolutely commend the BBC’s work—it has been a leader in the field of moving jobs, programming and skills out of London—I want to see a shift in commissioning power so that, in every nation and region, we decide the story that we tell about ourselves to ourselves as a nation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
We should be rigorous in holding the BBC to account, especially when it makes mistakes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those who jump on any infraction with glee may have ulterior motives? Does she further agree that the BBC is a beacon of fearless, impartial journalism here and abroad, and that as misinformation and disinformation grow, and as attempts to attack media outlets by those suspicious of their values are on the rise, the BBC is needed more than ever?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend about the centrality of the BBC to our public life. All of us in this House should rightly be seeking to ensure that the BBC upholds the highest standards while defending and protecting it as an institution and considering together how we can ensure that it stands at the centre of our public life for many more decades to come.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Government announce last week that they will tackle fake news in the curriculum. I always say to children when I go into schools that, “You can trust journalism if you can sue the person who wrote it,” so I actually welcome the writ coming from America, though I hope it can be sorted out, purely to say that if something is wrong, you can do that. The basis of why we are here today—forget all the politicking about who is on the board, what it is about Trump and anything else—is that the BBC faked a piece of news. We have to get to the heart of how that happened. May I ask that the Secretary of State use her offices to work with the current director general to get right to the heart of how this was ever allowed to happen? We have heard and all believe that the BBC is a respected journalistic organisation, but this is probably the biggest crisis it faces because right now we can honestly say that it faked the news.
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member asked me to use the office I hold to ensure that we get to the bottom of this and to ensure full transparency, and I will of course do that. The whole House will be grateful to the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for taking action quickly to ensure that that account is transparent and open to the public.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Sometimes when assessing things like the BBC, there is the Westminster bubble and then the real world outside. Some of us in Northern Ireland have been pressing the BBC for many years to be more transparent, independent and impartial, so this latest debacle is but one in a long line. We are not talking about light entertainment or drama—no one questions that, and that by and large gets a green light from most people—it is news and current affairs. There is no point in people distracting by introducing a conspiracy within the BBC board. Is now not the time to start afresh with a transformed BBC service to give us the impartial news service that many of us have demanded for years?
Lisa Nandy
The charter review will provide us with an opportunity to do just that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Why does the Minister think the BBC’s national leadership has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money resisting attempts to publish the 2004 Balen report? Does she suspect, like I do, that it might be because the conclusions drawn 20 years ago are very similar to the conclusions that have been made apparent in the now leaked Michael Prescott report, particularly around a culture that makes it possible for it to be okay to doctor and distort the facts to suit a preformed agenda?
Lisa Nandy
That is a question for the BBC, and when members of the editorial committee appear before the Select Committee, I am sure that that is something the Committee will rightly challenge them on.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Earlier this year, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the great privilege of visiting the 77th Brigade—the anti-Russian disinformation brigade of the British Army down in Newbury. The experts on the front line of the information wars told us that the British population are being subjected to tens of thousands of messages every single day designed to seed distrust between Government and citizen and break our belief in our institutions. The United Kingdom is in an incredibly privileged position in that we have a state broadcaster that provides us with something that might resemble a national culture. If we were to lose that, we would be feeding the forces that stand against us. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC provides a vital connection to our past that unifies us and that, as well as being a source of education, information and entertainment, it is also a great source of national resilience?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Member. If the BBC did not exist in the times that we live in, we would seek to invent it.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Member. That is why this Government will also resist recent attacks on the institution itself by Members from across the House. The local democracy reporting service that he talks about is a vital part of our local democracy. It also helps to create the next generation of journalists who might not otherwise have the opportunity to work in journalism and tell the stories that matter so much to all of us across this House.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Robbie Gibb—faithful or traitor?
Lisa Nandy
Perhaps I can hear my hon. Friend’s views about that over a few drinks later on.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Lisa Nandy
It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with that or with his characterisation of an institution that plays a vital role in this country. I gently say to him that I do not think most people do either. While I am sure the public have been extremely concerned about the serious failings that have been accepted this week by the BBC, it still remains the most trusted source of news in this country.
I say to all Members of this House that there has been a lot of discussion today about individuals being held responsible for all the problems at the BBC, whether they are individuals who serve on the board or as senior executives. My assessment of the failures that have been admitted over recent years is that they stem not from an institutional bias, but from a need to have sufficient rigour and oversight at the top of the organisation that is applied consistently across the board. That is something I know the chairman of the BBC is seeking to achieve, and as a Government we stand ready to support it in that.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In the early 2000s, I lived in Hanoi alongside my husband who was reporting on Vietnam for the BBC, and I saw for myself how he and the BBC worked very hard for truth. He then spent a year in Myanmar, working alongside extraordinarily brave local journalists who sought to expand public broadcasting under a military dictatorship. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC’s trusted journalism is one of our strongest defences against disinformation, both at home and abroad?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work that BBC Verify does in helping to empower our citizens to navigate a difficult news environment.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
“Auntie” is definitively a monopoly. When Mr Reith wrote into the charter that she should inform, educate and entertain with complete impartiality, he did it for good reason. This recent disgusting episode with this “Panorama” programme, where we have undermined our relationship with probably our greatest ally, is just the tip of the iceberg. Would the Minister agree that now is the time to responsibly defund this monopoly? If she does not, would she agree that it is time for root-and-branch reform with a view to ensuring that, in the same way that she has done with football club boards, we see people from across the country who are actually forced to pay for this service represented on the board of the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I strongly disagree with him on the first point. On the latter point, the issue of accountability to the public, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised a moment ago, is something that we have been thinking about with the senior leadership of the BBC and others as we approach the charter review. I would certainly be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, we learned that the BBC upheld a complaint about presenter Martine Croxall. It is alleged that she changed—correctly —the wording of “pregnant people” to “women”. Somehow, the BBC found her eye-roll to have conveyed a personal view. There are two genders—male and female —and one of those genders can become pregnant: women. That is a scientific fact, and it is the view of the Supreme Court. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that the BBC leadership abides by the Court’s ruling, and does she agree that the BBC’s lefty, woke agenda is certainly not in step with the majority of right-thinking people, who want common sense at the core of broadcasting?
Lisa Nandy
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the BBC. It is not for the Secretary of State to start writing editorial guidelines for the BBC on the Floor of the House of Commons, as I am sure most Members would agree. It is my job, however, to work with the senior leadership to ensure that it has the right structures and people in place, so that it can have well-thought-through, easily understood and consistent editorial guidelines of the highest standards that are applied consistently and do not leave presenters and journalists struggling to interpret them.
Points of Order
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. It is possible that, during the course of the statement, the Secretary of State gave the impression that she does not have the power to remove BBC board members. In fact, the BBC charter empowers her to remove anyone who is
“unable, unfit or unwilling to perform the functions of a member.”
I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how to take this concern forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will be aware that she had two minutes during the course of the statement to raise her concern. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State wishes to respond.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to make it clear that, as I have consistently said to the House, a very high legal threshold must be met in order for board members to be removed—that is set out in the terms of the charter—so I am unable to take the action that a number of Members have requested.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) published juvenile and shameful AI-edited videos of proceedings in this Chamber. I have written to Mr Speaker about this matter and whether it is a breach of the terms and conditions of parliamentlive.tv, which explicitly prohibit the altering of video or audio recordings in any way. I trust that that will be fully investigated.
More broadly, although that video was obviously edited, I am deeply concerned about the use of generative AI, which is fast evolving. The House must protect itself and our wider democratic system by drawing a firm line in the sand. Attempts to edit the words that Members speak in the Chamber and lessen their gravitas, and to make Members seem less responsible, are not acceptable, are disrespectful to colleagues, and are moreover an affront to democracy. What sanctions can be imposed on Members of this House to deter and prevent such behaviour, and if those sanctions are not adequate, what more can be done to ensure that our democracy is better protected from that use of AI technology?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I understand that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead wishes to raise a similar point of order.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister made an historic appearance as the first black man in history to answer Prime Minister’s questions. It would have been seen by thousands of young black men, who would have believed that this is a place for them. Footage from that appearance has sadly been doctored for circulation on social media, in violation of Parliament’s rules on the use of footage—namely, rules 1.2, 1.4 and 2.1—including a video shared from the account of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Will you advise me on how I and other hon. Members might ensure than such flagrant breaches do not occur again?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank both Members for their points of order. May I seek clarification that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was informed of them in advance?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The terms and conditions for downloading and making use of clips from parliamentlive.tv are published online. Although it would not be appropriate for me to refer to guidance given to individual Members, I urge all colleagues to follow the rules. Ultimately, I am not responsible for what Members post online. How we treat each other is important and sets the tone for national debate. I ask Members to consider carefully what is in good or bad taste, and to exercise good judgment in what they post online about colleagues.
On the broader point about the use of AI in relation to footage of our proceedings, that is an issue that the Administration Committee may wish to pursue. In particular, the House might benefit from considering whether the current licensing rules and enforcement mechanisms are appropriate.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have previously inadvertently stated that the Government had pledged £1.2 million towards the strategic health alliance and UK-Ukraine trauma recovery. [Official Report, 15 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 404.] In fact, that sum has not yet been pledged; it is the amount that is sought, and it would make a real difference, if it were provided. I apologise for any confusion caused. While I have your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to urge the Government once again to consider making that commitment?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. She has put her correction on the record.
Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that the Nathan Gill bribery case is still technically sub judice until sentencing on 21 November. However, given that the accused has pleaded guilty to the charges, and in the light of Members’ continued interest in this case in the context of Russian interference in British politics, Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver to allow discussion of the case during today’s proceedings. Members should avoid making reference to sentencing issues.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the seizure of frozen assets connected to the Russian Federation; to require the Secretary of State to publish recommendations about the use of such assets to fund military, reconstruction and humanitarian work in Ukraine; and for connected purposes.
In November 2024, my constituent Alex wrote to me. He is a research scientist who has lived in the UK for over 25 years. Alex is Ukrainian. At a surgery, he told me how devastated and angry he is about the destruction of his country by Russian invaders. He also told me of his fear for his brother, who is fighting on the frontlines. Alex wanted to know why Ukraine was struggling to obtain the weapons that it needed to resist Russian assaults. He asked me a simple question: “What more can the UK do to help my brother and my country?”. The truth is that, in November 2024, the UK could do more, and 12 months later, the UK can still do more. This Bill sets out what the UK can do in one key area.
Alex’s story is one of tens of thousands just like it. We have all heard them from amazing Ukrainians who have been hosted by communities across the UK since Russia invaded. Those stories speak to the horror inflicted by Vladimir Putin. The UN estimates that over 50,000 Ukrainian citizens have become casualties of Putin’s war machine, including over 2,300 children who have been wounded, and more than 700 who have been killed. Tens of thousands of brave Ukrainian men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice on the frontline.
Some in this House, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), would prefer to be apologists for Putin, but I know that I speak for most colleagues when I say that Putin alone is responsible for the atrocities that we are witnessing in Ukraine. Putin is not content merely to devastate Ukraine today. He is hell-bent on erasing its future. His systematic programme for the abduction of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children will go down as one of the vilest acts of this war. I want to pay tribute to those colleagues who have shone a spotlight on this appalling crime. We must all commit ourselves to returning each and every Ukrainian child to their home.
Putin’s ambitions stretch beyond Ukraine. In the Baltics, Russia poses an existential threat to our Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian allies, all of whom face daily cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns. In the Caucasus, Putin’s cronies in the Georgian Dream party have cracked down violently on democracy activists, while the Kremlin’s insidious efforts to distort elections in Moldova and Romania are well documented. Putin also wages a campaign of sabotage and cyber-war across the rest of Europe, including here at home. Confirmation over the weekend that the RAF will now be deployed to defend Belgian airspace against Russian drone threats speaks to the collective nature of the threat we face.
Putin’s imperial ambitions are extensive. That is why we must be unwavering in our support for the Ukrainian people. The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine since the full-scale invasion. That support was sustained by all three Prime Ministers in the previous Government, by the present Government, and by nearly all parties in this House across that time. We should be proud of that legacy.
By providing weapons, equipment and fighter pilot training, we have helped keep Ukraine in the fight. Our leadership on the G7’s efforts to crack down on Russian oil revenues has been vital in cutting Putin’s profits, but Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to go further to ensure that no actors in the UK economy can facilitate the sale of Russian gas. We are also pushing the Government to explain why more than £30 million-worth of Russian planes were imported to the UK last year.
Britain’s contribution has been crucial, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Rather, we must double down on our support. Last month, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, Denys Shmyhal, laid out the challenge: he estimated that Ukraine will need to spend $120 billion on defence in 2026, of which Ukraine can cover half. That leaves a $60 billion hole, which Ukraine’s allies have a duty to help fill. For many months, Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to fund Ukraine’s defence by seizing frozen Russian assets across the UK. The most recent estimates suggest that $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen across G7 countries, which includes close to £30 billion here in the UK. Seizing the UK-based assets could allow us to fill half of the projected deficit in Ukraine’s required defence spend for next year, while ensuring that Putin and his cronies are the ones who pay. We could help turbocharge Ukraine’s deep strike capabilities while bolstering the supply of air defence systems. In short, we could provide Ukraine with a vital new lifeline of support.
We find ourselves at a critical point. Ukraine’s need for finance is urgent. The UK’s efforts to move G7—and particularly EU—allies have not yet resulted in success. At the same time, one very specific item allied to this topic highlights the frustrations felt by so many in this House. In May 2022, the Conservative Government announced that they had
“agreed a Deed of Undertaking”
with Roman Abramovich,
“in which he commits the proceeds to a charity in a jurisdiction agreed by the Government for the purposes of helping victims of the war in Ukraine.”
In common with other Members, I have asked Ministers about those funds. On 24 February, 17 March and 21 May, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is in his place, told me they were “redoubling” their efforts, “doing everything” they can and “working at pace”. However, over three and a half years on, there is no progress towards releasing the £2.3 billion, suggesting an alarming lack of either resolve or creativity from successive Governments.
I am keenly aware of the arguments raised against seizing Russia’s frozen assets. The primary concern is that a direct seizure creates the possibility of litigious action by the Kremlin. The second is that, by acting against Russia, we might inadvertently undermine wider confidence in the UK as a safe haven for financial assets. On the point about the legal risks, the US’s Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians—REPO—Act and Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act demonstrate that other allies believe it is possible to legislate effectively to allow for asset seizures. On the financial risks, I quote former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron, who said in March 2024:
“I think that the economic case is very strong. Here we are in the City of London, one of the great financial centres of the world. I do not think that using that money will disadvantage us in any way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1545.]
I am conscious that these concerns have inspired important efforts in Brussels, aimed at securing Europe-wide agreement to proposals that would allow for the use of frozen assets, while reassuring Belgium in particular, where the majority of frozen assets are held, that the legal risk will be both reduced and shared. Although I welcome these efforts at securing international consensus, those proposals have stalled, and with each day that passes without concrete action to unleash the potential of the assets, Putin’s war machine makes further progress.
Last month, we learned that, shamefully, an elected UK MEP, Nathan Gill, took payment from a Russian agent, Oleg Voloshyn, to repeat pro-Russian propaganda in the European Parliament. Mr Gill sat in the European Parliament with party colleagues who now sit in this House. It is for the hon. Member for Clacton to explain his meetings with Mr Voloshyn’s wife, and for the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to explain his public support for Mr Gill in 2019 and his more recent receipt of hospitality from Vladimir and Lubov Chernukhin. But I know that the overwhelming majority of colleagues in this House—just like the constituents we all represent—want us to provide the brave men and women of Ukraine with the funds that they need to defend themselves. I am proud to present this Bill on a cross-party basis, and am grateful to my co-sponsors and other Members who have shown their support.
Thirteen months later, I am still motivated by Alex’s question. I am no longer prepared to tell him that it is “very hard”, or that Belgium is cautious. This has become a question of will. The time for delay and timidity is over. I believe that it is the will of this House to legislate so that the UK can lead our G7 and EU partners in seizing Russian state assets in the UK and making them available to Ukraine. Ukraine needs her friends to step forward with urgency and purpose. She needs our financial support today, so that she can purchase the military matériel to drive back the Russians and defend her sovereign territory. I urge the Government to show leadership towards our European and G7 allies and to work with colleagues from across the House to enact this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I put the Question, I would like to confirm whether the hon. Member informed the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) of his intention to refer to them. If he has not, it would have been a courtesy for him to have done so in advance.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Calum Miller, James MacCleary, Monica Harding, Dr Al Pinkerton, Mike Martin, Richard Foord, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Gethins, Sir Julian Lewis and Alex Sobel present the Bill.
Calum Miller accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 326).
Remembrance Day: Armed Forces
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces.
On Sunday, His Majesty the King led the nation in commemorating generations of men and women who served, fought and, in many cases, did not return home. About 10,000 veterans gathered at the Cenotaph on Whitehall to observe the traditional two-minute silence and take part in the Royal British Legion’s Remembrance Sunday march-past. As a veteran myself, I was immensely proud to march as part of the Royal Marines Association. At memorials in towns, villages and cities right across the UK, civilians and members of the armed forces came together to pay their respects to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in all wars.
We owe everything to those heroes who laid down their lives to defend our shores, protect our interests and safeguard our way of life. The peace and the freedom we enjoy today are their precious legacy, and it is a reminder that freedom is not free. Remembrance Day is the most important opportunity we have as a nation to come together and honour them. Remembrance for me, and, I think, for many other veterans around the country, is about remembering the friends and the brothers in arms we have lost—the specific moment when life was taken away; the gunfire, the explosion, the screaming, the chaos, the mud and the dust. It is those heightened senses at the time of a traumatic event that are imprinted upon the memory. Those memories are as vivid as the birth of a first child, a birthday or any other impactful occasion, but they have a very different meaning. Remembrance is about just that: it is the one day of the year when it is safe to remember, when memories surface and when we pay collective tribute to those who are serving and who have served.
Remembrance Day is also a very important time for this House, which has always had a special affinity with our armed forces and veterans. Given my former role, it is a privilege for me to lead today’s debate. Throughout the last year, it has been an honour to visit over 60 veterans’ organisations and to meet many outstanding and selfless people. From the veterans community hub in Lanarkshire to the Helping Homeless Veterans UK hub in Bournemouth, and across all the great nations of the United Kingdom, those individuals dedicate their time to our armed forces community.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Support for our veterans is essential. I am proud that the Royal British Legion is growing in Derby. Will the Minister join me in wishing good luck to those who have set up a new branch in Mackworth? Does he agree that this Government’s veterans strategy, including the £13.8 million to address homelessness, shows that we are marching in step with those who campaign for veterans?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Al Carns
Let me finish my point, and then my hon. Friend can jump in.
I put on record my personal thanks to the Royal British Legion for its work on the poppy appeal this year, and every year. I am sure that hon. Members across the House echo that appreciation and I look forward to hearing their contributions to the debate.
2025 has been a busy year for military anniversaries, particularly those associated with the final year of the second world war. In April, we marked 80 years since British troops swept across northern Europe and liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. We remember the horrors and atrocities that those soldiers witnessed at first hand, and the incredible work that they carried out afterwards, burying the dead, containing the spread of disease and caring for the survivors. Within a matter of weeks, allied forces would be in Berlin, Hitler would be dead and communities across Britain would take to the streets to celebrate victory in Europe. On 8 May this year, we took to the streets again to celebrate VE Day’s 80th anniversary and to pay tribute to all those who fought for democracy over tyranny, liberty over oppression and human dignity over barbarism.
However, for some, VE Day did not mean that the nightmare of the second world war was over. British and Commonwealth troops in the far east, who had suffered some of the most gruelling and hostile environments of the entire conflict, still faced three months of fighting. The story of their war is one of almost superhuman strength and resilience. In August, we were able to remember their extraordinary contribution when we marked the 80th anniversary of Victory over Japan Day—the day that finally brought the most catastrophic war in human history to an end.
In September, we marked 85 years since the battle of Britain, when our aviators took on the might of the Luftwaffe, in a contest that determined not only control of our skies, but the fate of our entire nation. At a time of supreme enemy confidence, Britain proved to the world for the first time that Hitler and his forces could be defeated.
After such an important year of commemorations, today, Remembrance Day 2025, is a moment of profound national reflection and gratitude as we remember all those who served and all those who have fallen. We remember the conflicts gone by. On the 107th anniversary of the 1918 armistice, we remember those who fought in the great war. We also remember those who served in the Korean war, which began 75 years ago, as well as those who fought in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe. We remember the Commonwealth troops who made a huge contribution to both world wars and other conflicts, and those who serve today and continue to uphold the values of courage, duty, professionalism and compassion that have long distinguished British armed forces.
Just as our forefathers fought for democracy, freedom and the right to self-determination, so do our Ukrainian allies in the east. Let us remember the courageous heroism that Ukraine and Ukrainians are delivering today. Pitched in a battle of national survival, their war is no less bloody than the second world war. When we think about that conflict, it is worth recognising that the Russians have taken more casualties in that conflict than the Americans took in the entire second world war. That gives a statistical feel for the pain and suffering of that conflict caused by Putin’s war of aggression. As we remember, we pay homage to all those fighting for the same values and ethics that we hold dear.
I thank the many thousands of people from civilian and military backgrounds who have worked so hard to organise what have been fantastic commemorations. Defence Ministers and shadow Defence spokespeople have travelled the length and breadth of the UK to attend the Royal Irish Regiment’s annual remembrance service in Belfast, the field of remembrance in Cardiff, the Scottish national Remembrance Sunday event, the “Remembering Afghanistan” events at the National Memorial Arboretum, the War Widows Association annual service at the Cenotaph and many others. Those are just a tiny fraction of the many events, up and down the country, that have been made possible by the tireless work of our armed forces and thousands of people in local communities. The last survey undertaken in 2018 showed that 98,115 members of the Army alone attended Remembrance Day parades at over 620 different events, and there were similar numbers, probably more, this year. Events are also being held worldwide, from Riga, where UK officials joined commemorations at the Jelgava Commonwealth war graves site, to Senegal, where colleagues held an act of remembrance at the Bel-Air cemetery in Dakar.
As we discuss the role that our armed forces play in remembrance today, we must consider the remarkable work that serving personnel perform all year round in educating young people about the history of defence, deterrence and warfare; promoting awareness and raising funds through charities, including through the Royal British Legion’s incredible poppy appeal; and working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to maintain military graves to the highest possible standard all around the world. Today we thank them for their outstanding contribution.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the interests of peace and togetherness, I will not take it personally that he chose to take an intervention earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), whose constituency is in the east midlands, rather than from me, whose constituency is in the west midlands, but being from the west midlands he should know better. I thank him for mentioning young people. Will he join me in thanking all the young people I was with this morning at the cenotaph in Newcastle-under-Lyme, who came from local schools with their homemade poppies and wreaths? Our future commitment to democracy and peace lies in their hands, and as adults we have an important responsibility to ensure that they are a part of bringing our country together.
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his poignant contribution, and I thank those in Newcastle-under-Lyme for ensuring that awareness about the sacrifice is spread not just across the adult population, but across the youth of today. I always say that navies, armies and air forces do not win wars, but industries, economies and societies do, so making sure that society never forgets the past is critical.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I say that there is no more appropriate Member of the House to be introducing this debate than the hon. and gallant Gentleman with his distinguished record? I think I represent more generals than any other right hon. or hon. Member of the House. The Minister will have seen that nine four-star officers wrote to The Times to raise their concerns about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the legal activism that it is likely to encourage, which
“risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends.”
While we all honour our brave servicemen and servicewomen today rhetorically, does the Minister agree that we need to follow that through with real action, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged today and into the future?
Al Carns
The right hon. Member makes an interesting point. I want to be clear and concise: of all days, today is a day of remembrance and is not about political point scoring. There is a debate scheduled on Thursday when we can discuss the issue in detail. I would very much welcome a discussion with the individuals who sent the letter, as would the Defence Secretary and others, to talk through the issues, to provide balance to the argument, to ensure that we protect our country and our armed forces from lawfare, and to ensure that they are represented and their voices heard.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I want to return to the point about commemoration. Having served before, I remember that when I got elected back in 1992, we were not allowed to wear uniforms in public because of the IRA threat at the time, and bit by bit commemorations were no longer attended. I remember my first commemoration in Chingford; we were lucky if 100 people turned out. May I say that that has been reversed? One good example is that on Sunday at the memorial in Chingford, nearly 2,000 people turned up to commemorate those who have fallen and those who went before. Is that not a very good example of how the next generation sometimes understands commemoration better than my generation did?
Al Carns
What a welcome intervention. I was stood with veterans during the Cenotaph march-past; it always astounds me that we stand there with 10,000 people, and as the guns fire, there is complete silence in one of the busiest capitals in the world. It is a sombre but hugely humble experience. It is an absolute pleasure to see and hear all the amazing stories of almost every constituency around this great nation, standing together united to celebrate those individuals who served or are serving, their families and the bereaved.
While we often focus on the individuals who have been lost, we must remember those who have been left behind—the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the partners, the wives and the husbands who, after one of those traumatic events, all need to adapt to a new way of life. We need to remember them all and acknowledge that while their loved ones perhaps paid the ultimate sacrifice, it is not just the individual who serves, but the whole family—and they often suffer in silence long after the event.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Minister is right to acknowledge not just the veterans, but those who have loved them. Today my son had the privilege of reading at our local cenotaph the names of those who were killed in world war two as well as the name of my best friend, who was a Royal Marine and died in 2012 in Afghanistan. It was an incredibly proud moment for me that my son got to read his name and remember the sacrifice that those who have loved and lost make for us to live our lives, so I thank the Minister for acknowledging those who have loved and lost.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Lady for such a moving contribution. May I say, in jest, that she has a very good choice of best friends? I know that her best friend’s memory will live long into the future, and it is a delight to hear that her son took part in that commemoration.
Importantly, we must look after bereaved children. If you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to highlight that, following our little jaunt up Everest earlier this year, we managed to raise just under £500,000 for veterans charities and the specific needs of bereaved children. That will go to help loved ones across a plethora of different charities. We show our eternal gratitude for those families who have cared for members of our armed forces after returning from service—those who often bear physical and mental scars from the conflicts they have experienced.
The reason that this year’s world war two commemorations were especially poignant is that they were likely the last major events to feature veterans from the war in any great numbers. Even the youngest of those veterans who graced the ceremonies in London are now well into their 10th decade. One of them is Mervyn Kersh, who is 100 years old and took part in the D-day landings, then went on to Belsen a few weeks after it was liberated; he laid a wreath at the Cenotaph. The whole House can be proud that he will be watching Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow from the Gallery—what an honour it will be to welcome him here.
The living connection that Mervyn and his comrades provide to the war is a priceless asset, particularly at a time when the bloodiest European conflict since the second world war continues to rage in Ukraine. They understand the cost of conflict, because they lived through it, but they also understand the privileges we inherited after the war; 80 years of peace, prosperity and freedom can never, ever be taken for granted. We must be prepared to defend them in an increasingly dangerous world, and today a new generation of servicemen and servicewomen is doing precisely that. They are heirs to the veterans who proudly paraded on 8 May, and they are the guardians of that cherished inheritance. Today we also pay tribute to our servicemen and servicewomen working around the world to deter aggression, to safeguard British interests and to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, showing that Putin will not divide us.
Members will note that throughout this speech there has not been one ounce of politics. That could be called political naivety, but I call it a deeply held respect for those who have served and continue to serve; I welcome the debate and conversation on Thursday. This week’s commemorations remind us once again of the unbreakable bonds linking our heroes from the past with the armed forces personnel of today and indeed with those who will serve in the future.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Joshua Mullinger is an able cadet in the sea cadets in York, who played an integral role in the York service of remembrance, and Conservative councillor and Lord Mayor Martin Rowley is a veteran. Will the Minister join me in commemorating the work of those very remarkable individuals?
Al Carns
The cadets play such an important part, with the sea cadets right at the forefront. Seeing Joshua thriving in that environment is absolutely superb, and hearing of Martin Rowley excelling after being in service is hugely admirable—I thank him in particular for his service.
As we remember the generations who have sacrificed so much, their testimony lives on, inspiring us to be strong in the face of adversity. Being resilient during difficult times and standing up for values that we believe in—that is the way we will remember our military heroes best, and that is how we will ensure that their priceless legacy of peace and freedom will endure.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a privilege to open this debate for His Majesty’s Opposition on 11 November, Armistice Day—a date on which the nation pauses and gives thanks for the sacrifice of our armed forces so that we can live in a free country.
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I endorse his comments about the value of our armed forces and the vital role they play in the nation’s contribution to remembrance. We all thank them for their service. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the operational role of our armed forces, which remain as vigilant as ever around the clock to keep us safe in the 21st century. Nevertheless, perhaps he will forgive me if in my contribution I too take something of a historical perspective on the vital role that our armed forces have played in the defence of our nation down the years.
I was privileged to attend the Royal British Legion festival of remembrance last Saturday evening, which remains as moving an occasion as when I first attended as an MOD Minister over a decade ago. I pay tribute to the extremely valuable role that the Royal British Legion plays in both shaping our whole concept of remembrance and in supporting our veterans, some 2 million or so of whom are still living today. As well as the national commemorations, including those at the Cenotaph, the Royal British Legion, often supported by local armed forces personnel, plays a vital role in organising services at a community level in all our constituencies, up and down the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
In my experience, every community tends to do remembrance slightly differently to account for local circumstances, but each ceremony has common elements with which we are all familiar: the emotive playing of the “Last Post”, the two-minute silence and, usually, the famous epitaph from the 2nd Infantry Division memorial—universally known as the Kohima epitaph—with those famous and stirring words:
“When you go home, tell them of us and say,
For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”
The battle of Kohima, brilliantly described in Field Marshal the Viscount Slim’s 1956 book, “Defeat into Victory”—arguably one of the best books ever written on the whole concept of generalship—was a classic example of a dogged defence by British and, crucially, Commonwealth forces in stopping the attempted Japanese advance into India in mid-1944. Indeed, the dogged, stubborn defence—often against superior odds—is a recurrent feature of British military tradition: including the English archers at Agincourt; the great siege of Gibraltar; Wellington’s army at Waterloo; the 24th Foot at Rorke’s Drift, which saw 11 Victoria Crosses awarded, the most ever awarded in a single action; “the few” of Fighter Command in the battle of Britain, to whom the Minister also referred; the Royal Navy escorting the Atlantic convoys; the Glorious Glosters at the Imjin river in Korea; and many more besides, including more recently in the middle east.
There are, of course, many comparable examples from the first world war, not least the stand of the British Expeditionary Force at Mons and the subsequent first battle of Ypres. Anyone who has stood at the Menin Gate when the buglers of the Ypres fire brigade play the “Last Post”, as it swirls around that famous arch, knows that it is a truly moving and emotive ceremony to behold.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend has mentioned Bill Slim, who many who know history will say was probably the greatest allied general of the war—it was brilliant what he achieved with next to nothing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was something very special about the 14th Army, which comes out in other accounts? Apart from just fighting, there were both Indian and British members of the 14th. They served in the same slit trenches and ran to aid each other; regardless of race or anything else, they delivered for each other. The most remarkable bit of the story of the 14th was that it did not matter who they were or where they came from, they were as one against the tyranny of the Japanese.
Mr Francois
I completely agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend—the history of the 14th Army is a proud one. It was a marvellous amalgam, under a brilliant leader, of people from countries and races from around the entire Commonwealth who fought with one common aim: freedom. They were sometimes called the forgotten army, but they are not forgotten tonight.
After the horrors of the trenches and an understandable aversion to war in the 1920s, with Britain exhausted—both financially and emotionally—by the horrors of the great war, the Government of the day introduced what came to be known as the 10-year rule. This was not just the policy of the War Office or the Admiralty, as they then were; it was a pan-Whitehall edict, the essence of which was that Britain would not have to fight another major war for at least 10 years. This key planning assumption became the centrepiece of British strategic theory and, with strong endorsement from the Treasury, the 10-year rule soon became a rolling one, extended on an annual basis. Given that no war was expected for at least a decade, this allowed for major economies in the financing of the armed forces and an associated running-down of all three services. As one example of how seriously the 10-year rule was taken and implemented, even Winston Churchill during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s exerted pressure to cut back on his beloved Royal Navy—the same service he had fought tenaciously to expand as First Lord of the Admiralty barely a decade before.
Indeed, as a mood of pacifism gripped the nation, in 1933—the same year in which Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany—the earnest students of the Oxford Union, who are having their own problems at the moment, passed a motion by a majority of over two to one that
“this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”.
The subsequent policy of appeasement from the 1930s British establishment—the blob of their day—was as erroneous then as it would be today. Authoritarian dictators tend to admire strength, particularly their own, and despise weakness—a lesson that any British Government, including this one, would do well to remember. History tells us again and again that the appeasement of dictators does not work, just as it failed to work in the 1930s
The 10-year rule, which by that stage had lasted well over a decade, was eventually rescinded in 1935-36 as Britain began to rearm in response to Hitler’s increasingly bellicose behaviour. Nevertheless, that rearmament, and comparable action by our allies, was ultimately insufficient to deter what then became the second world war—a brutal conflict in which over 50 million people died, far more even than had perished in the supposed war to end all wars some two decades before.
I mention all this not just because I studied history and then military history at university, but because if—as Members of this House believe, and as I have always believed—the ultimate goal of our armed forces is to save lives by deterring war and persuading any potential aggressor that they could not prevail, then even today we all need to ask ourselves, regardless of party, whether we are doing enough to secure the peace by maintaining sufficiently strong armed forces to provide such a vital deterrent effect. It is a historical fact that twice in the last century, this country paid an immense cost in both blood and treasure to defeat militarism.
Today, the threats are somewhat different, with a war on our doorstep in Europe following Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are in effect now fighting for our freedom too, and we must back them to the hilt as a result. We also see a major rearmament by China; North Korea continues to develop even longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, now with support from Russia; and Iran continues to exert malign influence across the middle east, even after the successful American strike on its emerging nuclear capabilities. The circumstances may have changed, but the principle remains exactly the same. We in the western democracies cannot drop our guard against the growing powers of the 21st-century autocracies—something that those who fought in the second world war would instinctively understand only too well.
Bearing in mind the Minister’s caution, I was genuinely concerned to read one passage of the Government’s recent strategic defence review—its seminal defence policy document. On page 43, under the heading “Transforming UK Warfighting”, it states:
“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”
I say to the Minister in all sincerity that that seems to contain an echo of the 10-year rule of the 1920s. While there was a great deal of good in the SDR, not least the intention to speed up our highly bureaucratic procurement system—about which I have always held firm views, as the Minister knows—I nevertheless worry, given increasing threats from Russia and now also from China, about whether the Ministry of Defence today displays the genuine sense of urgency that is required to meet the challenges we now all clearly face. Before I am accused of selective quoting, the same paragraph of the SDR goes on to say:
“This vision could be achieved more quickly should circumstances demand it and should more resources be made available.”
Notwithstanding those words, with much of the new money in the SDR unavailable for at least two years and a multibillion-pound programme of in-year efficiency savings now under way, I merely ask whether we have really learned the lessons of the past century as well as we might have.
In conclusion, we in these islands have always ultimately been prepared to make great sacrifices to uphold the freedom of Europe, and indeed of the wider world. That is why, given our history, we should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In response to the philosopher Edmund Burke’s famous challenge that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, twice in the past century our own good men and women across the nation stood up to and defeated such evil, with our armed forces in the lead. Rightfully, we solemnly remember that sacrifice each and every November, including in this House tonight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While we are celebrating and remembering the greatest generation, we also have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. Perhaps we should be focusing on that as well—looking back, but also looking forward, as I think the Minister said. We must try to raise a generation of young people who are proud to be British, to stand against repression, and to undertake to be inclusive. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is what we need to build for?
Mr Francois
As a young person myself, having recently turned 60—[Laughter.] In all seriousness, at the remembrances services that I attended this weekend—like, I am sure, many Members on both sides of the House—I was struck by the number of young people from, for instance, the Cubs, the Scouts and the Brownies who attended those services and, in many cases, participated, and laid tributes, wreaths and crosses of their own. I took great heart from that, and I believe that there is hope yet.
There would be no greater betrayal of the sacrifices that we have been debating this evening than would occur if we as a House, with all the other matters that we have to consider, somehow became so distracted or complacent that we failed to act with sufficient clarity of purpose and determination to deter a future major conflict, perhaps even a global one, from breaking out again in our lifetimes. To put it, perhaps, in another way, we must now conduct ourselves, in “our today”, in such a way as never to risk the security of “our tomorrow”. With that sincere warning, I pay tribute to our valiant armed forces, both past and present, and to everything that they do, day in and day out, to keep us and our country safe and free—lest we forget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, let me inform Members that a five-minute speaking time limit will be imposed after the speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As Chair of the Defence Committee and on behalf of the whole Committee, I want to express our deepest gratitude to all those who have served our country to keep us safe. On this day, we remember and honour those whose bravery and sacrifice secured for us the freedoms that we value so dearly, and pay tribute to those who continue to protect our way of life today. It is our great privilege as members of the Defence Committee that we are able to see their work at first hand.
This year we have visited the British battlegroup stationed in Tapa in Estonia, whose presence deters Russian aggression against our NATO allies in eastern Europe. We have also met serving personnel during our many visits to military sites across the UK, including RAF Lossiemouth, HMNB Portsmouth and the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where we met the impressive young people who will be the soldiers of the future. Meeting those remarkable individuals reminds us that the work of our armed forces never stops: they are always vigilant, and always prepared to do what is necessary to keep us safe—and that lifesaving work goes beyond defence. Earlier this month, HMS Trent was deployed to support disaster relief efforts in Jamaica following the devastating impact of Hurricane Melissa. I am immensely proud that the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces are out there representing the best of British every single day.
One of our Committee’s missions is to speak up on behalf of these exceptional people, and to raise the issues that matter to them. When the Committee was appointed by the House last year, one of our first priorities was to complete the previous Committee’s work on service accommodation because of the importance of that issue to serving personnel and their families. The standard of the housing in which we expect personnel to live has been unacceptable for some time, and that must be addressed. We are encouraged to see that the Government are focused on the overhaul of defence housing, and we will be scrutinising the new defence housing strategy as it is rolled out to ensure that it delivers what has been promised.
Another area that we continue to scrutinise is the treatment of women in the armed forces. More than 16,000 women serve our country in the military, but there are still unfair biases and barriers to their participation, and, sadly, many examples of bullying and harassment. That must change. We have agreed to hold an annual public hearing with the Ministry of Defence and the single services to drive them to improve, and to stamp out discrimination for good.
We want to ensure that all members of the armed forces community are treated fairly, which is why this year we held an inquiry on the Government’s plans to update the armed forces covenant. As Members know, the covenant is a solemn commitment from Government and society to the armed forces community that serving personnel, their families and veterans should not be disadvantaged in civilian life. Our inquiry asked veterans and serving personnel whether they felt that that promise was being fulfilled. While some of the feedback was positive, we still heard of too many examples in which the covenant is not understood or, worse still, is ignored. That means, for example, individuals having to wait for years for NHS treatment because they fall to the bottom of the waiting list each time they are deployed to a new area.
There are also gaps in the covenant, which means that the forces community still face disadvantages in social care, employment and the tax system. That is why we recommended that when the Government legislate in the next armed forces Bill, they should extend the covenant duty to every single Department. We look forward to that legislation, and hope that it will properly embed the covenant in our institutions and in wider society, so that those who have served can be in no doubt that it is there to support them. We also look forward to seeing the delivery of the new veterans strategy. The “Veterans Strategy” policy paper was published yesterday, and the strategy will be another important part of fulfilling our nation’s promise to the armed forces community.
In my constituency, I am pleased that the covenant has also been adopted by Slough borough council, but its implementation must of course be robust. Slough has a proud and enduring history of supporting our troops. In fact, the very roots of our iconic Slough Trading Estate lie in its establishment as a military repair depot in the first world war, and Langley airfield was the proud producer of thousands of Hawker Hurricanes in the second world war. Slough’s history is interwoven with defence. Just last week I had the honour of hosting an event to celebrate, in Parliament, two local heroes. Both those veterans, Havildar-Major Rajindar Singh Dhatt and Daffadar Mohammed Hussain, served in world war two, and sadly passed away earlier this year. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of brave troops from across the globe for our freedom, must never be forgotten. We must do more than just be thankful; we must actively celebrate and honour the service given by all, especially in these febrile times, including those from across the world who ensured that our freedoms could be preserved. Remembrance should never be exclusive.
Today’s remembrance services honour the past, but they also remind us of the duty performed by those who defend us today in an increasingly dangerous world. Our Committee’s visit to Ukraine last month was a sobering reminder that war in Europe is no longer a thing of the past. We must never forget our debt to those who sacrificed so much for our freedom, and we must never neglect our obligations to those who make sacrifices today. Our Committee will continue to honour the fallen, while also putting the welfare of the of the servicemen and women of our armed forces at the heart of our work throughout this Parliament. We will remember them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Remembrance Day is when our nation pauses to honour those who have served, those who continue to serve and, most especially, those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedoms. Indeed, just this morning I was in Polegate, in my constituency, to lay a wreath alongside representatives of the local Royal British Legion, councillors, and local clubs and societies, and I had the honour of laying wreaths in Ringmer and Lewes on Sunday. We MPs have the unique honour of standing alongside people from across our communities—particularly young people; there was a huge turnout of young people at all our remembrance events—as we lay wreaths to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us.
During the second world war, our corner of Sussex saw convoy after convoy of troops and provisions pass through our small villages and country lanes. Indeed, some of those country lanes still bear the scars of tank tracks that damaged kerbs and other infrastructure. In 1942, Operation Jubilee, otherwise known as the Dieppe raid, was launched from Newhaven in my constituency, to test plans for the full-scale invasion of the Normandy coast. The cost was high: in the operation, nearly 4,000 Canadian and British troops were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Every year, we remember those brave soldiers in ceremonies in Newhaven and Dieppe.
Today, in my constituency of Lewes, more than 3,600 households contain at least one veteran. Remembrance Day is an event that brings us together. It is a time of unity and pride, as well as solemnity and reflection. Yet remembrance without action is merely sentiment. True remembrance demands that we translate our gratitude into tangible support for those who have served. It demands that we look honestly at how we treat our veterans and serving personnel today, not just how we commemorate those of yesterday. When we do so with clear eyes, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: that we can do better. That is why I really welcome the publication of the Government’s new veterans strategy this week.
Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. Our servicemen and servicewomen possess unparalleled skill, courage and dedication, and that is the legacy we must uphold. The men and women who wear our uniform today stand in an unbroken line stretching back through centuries, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). They carry forward the same spirit that saw their predecessors stand firm against wannabe despots, from Napoleon to Hitler. But excellence requires investment. Defence is not simply another Department competing for resources but the fundamental obligation of the state—the bedrock on which all our other freedoms depend. Without security, there can be no prosperity, and without defence, there can be no democracy.
The world today is more dangerous than at any time since the end of the cold war. Modern warfare is no longer confined to tanks, ships and planes; it is also fought with drones, in cyber-space and in our data networks. That is why we must be able to move quickly, adapt rapidly, and learn from our Ukrainian allies, who are innovating on the battlefield every day. Britain must be ready to absorb and integrate these lessons and ensure that our own armed forces are ready. This is not the time for retreat or for isolationism; this is the time for Britain to lead in Europe, to stand firm alongside our allies, and to ensure that our armed forces have everything they need to defend our nation and our values.
The Government’s commitment to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is welcome, but it is not enough. We need cross-party talks to agree on a rapid path towards 3%, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can work together to achieve just that. Let us be under no illusion: we have the most capable military in Europe, so as the US continues to withdraw forces from across our continent—it recently withdrew a division from Romania—it will be the UK that will be looked to, to step up and lead. We need sustained, long-term investment in our armed forces, not reactive gestures driven by electoral cycles. As we have seen in the strategic defence review, investment will need to be sustained over a long period.
On this Remembrance Day, as we honour those who served before, we must also stand beside those serving today. Recruitment and retention are in crisis; more people leave our armed forces than join. The Haythornthwaite report identified family impact as the most common reason for departure, and one third of military spouses say that they would be happier if their partner left the service. We have failed to provide decent housing and failed to support military families adequately. Three quarters of all personnel live in service accommodation, yet barely half remain satisfied with service accommodation conditions. I welcome the Government’s announcement of £9 billion for military housing, but we must be clear that that is not generosity; it is catching up on the years of neglect.
The housing crisis for veterans extends beyond their time in the service. Thousands of households containing someone who served in our armed forces are assessed as being homeless each year, and, shamefully, that figure is rising. Having veterans on our streets in 2025 is a profound dereliction of duty.
I was pleased to hear the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mention the treatment of women in our armed forces, which I am sure is a major concern for us all. We are all familiar with the terrible case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who took her own life at Larkhill in Wiltshire, and the bungled handling of that case by the Army, which has subsequently come to light. They did not listen to her —nobody listened to her—and the inquest found that the failure to take appropriate action was a direct contributor to her death.
The Atherton report revealed the scale of the crisis: the majority of women who responded to its survey reported experiencing bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. The Ministry of Defence has introduced reforms, but they are not having the impact on the ground that was hoped for. We must implement every recommendation of the Atherton report. We must ensure that the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner has responsibility for handling serious complaints. We must do more to improve conviction rates for sexual assaults within the armed forces. How can we expect women to put their lives on the line to keep us safe when their voices are still not being heard within their own ranks?
Mental health is another critical area in which we have fallen short. More than half our veterans report having experienced mental health problems, yet when veterans seek help, they face long waiting times, inadequate provision and services that fail to understand their specific needs. We must provide comprehensive, easy-to-access, professional mental health support. We must offer regular mental health assessments at key transition points. We must fight the stigma surrounding mental ill health, so that asking for help is seen not as a weakness, but as a strength.
The global security landscape is more volatile and unpredictable than it has been in a generation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered the relative peace that we have enjoyed on our continent for decades. An emboldened Kremlin seeks to undermine western democracies through disinformation, cyber-attacks and attempts to influence our political processes. We have seen evidence of Russian interference in elections across Europe, attempts to sow discord through social media manipulation, and sustained efforts to weaken NATO from within. China expands its military capabilities and asserts increasingly aggressive territorial claims. Instability spreads across the middle east, Africa and beyond. Authoritarian regimes grow bolder, while democracies appear hesitant and, at times, divided.
Our commitment to NATO must therefore remain the cornerstone of our security. Only a few weeks ago, Portsmouth-based HMS Duncan was deployed under NATO command to shadow the Russian destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov through the channel. It was a striking image of an alliance in action: British, French and Dutch forces working together to protect our shared waters. The ageing Russian vessel, limping westward, stood in stark contrast to the cutting-edge capability of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer. It is proof that our strength lies not in isolation, but in standing together with our allies, at sea and beyond.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on European co-operation. Does he agree that it would be more than helpful—particularly in the face of Russian aggression, and of the American retraction from European defence that he mentions—if the French Government took another look at how the United Kingdom could be involved in a shared European defence approach? Instead, they are trying to blackmail His Majesty’s Government, for a large pay-off, as we seek to participate in something that is designed to protect all European citizens.
James MacCleary
Yes, that is an important point, because European countries working together will be critical in future. We can look at past examples of joint projects; for example, the Sea Viper system used on our ships was developed jointly with other European countries and has been very successful. Europe would be missing a trick if we were in any way excluded from a scheme, given the size of the British military-industrial complex, and the contribution that we can make through not just our primes but our start-ups and our medium-sized businesses, and the expertise that our military brings. It would be quite short-sighted of the French Government, or indeed any other Government, to put obstacles in the way of future collaboration, particularly at a time of such threat from the east.
To truly honour our armed forces personnel, we must uphold the principles they serve by protecting our country with the same dedication and resolve that they have shown in its defence. There are 1.8 million veterans in England and Wales, plus 150,000 full-time serving personnel and their families. They are our neighbours, our colleagues, our friends and our family members. Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world, but they need to be given the capabilities to meet the threats we face. They need decent housing, comprehensive healthcare, proper mental health support, fair compensation and genuine respect.
Defence is not an optional extra, but the foundation of everything else we hold dear. On this Remembrance Day, let us do more than remember. Let us resolve to act. Let us commit to providing everything that our armed forces community deserves, and let us prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice made by those who gave everything so that we can live in freedom and security. They stood for us; now we must stand for them. That is the essence of remembrance. That is the measure of our patriotism. That is our duty, and that is our obligation to those who serve. Lest we forget.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Like all hon. Members, I had the honour this weekend of being part of a local remembrance service. As always, Newport cenotaph was hugely well attended by veterans, service personnel and residents from across our city, who all came together to pay our respects to those who have served our country, and to those who serve today to keep us safe. We thank them deeply.
Thanks are also due to the Royal British Legion. With the support of the local community in Caerleon, it has adorned every lamp post and school railing with beautiful red poppies. I thank the Redwick History Group, which, along with community members and representatives of The Rifles, has today unveiled a grave marker for a Crimean war veteran, Henry Davies, who has lain for 118 years in an unmarked grave in the churchyard in Redwick.
As well as honouring sacrifices, remembrance means listening to those who are still seeking justice. Ministers will be aware that in Newport and across Wales, veterans of the Falklands war from the Welsh Guards continue to campaign for the release of papers relating to the board of inquiry’s investigation into the bombing of the Sir Galahad in 1982. It is 43 years since the attack, in which 56 people died and many more were injured. Ever since, survivors and their families have sought transparency about what happened, but they need those documents declassified. Some of them are scheduled to remain closed until 2065, which is a long time to wait.
My constituent Mike Hermanis, formerly of the Welsh Guards, first brought this issue to me in a surgery in St Julians around three years ago. On his behalf, and on behalf of others, including Kevin Edwards, may I urge the Department to help speed up the process? The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), made it clear from the Dispatch Box that no blame is attached to the Welsh Guards, who conducted themselves heroically on that day. I acknowledge his work, but Ministers will understand the desire to get to the truth for those who have lived with this for so many years. For more context, I refer Ministers to Crispin Black’s excellent book, “Too Thin for a Shroud”. Seven documents have been released so far, but there are dozens and dozens to go, and it is taking a long time. I press the Minister to agree to meet us urgently, so that we can finally resolve this, and so that veterans and their families can get to the truth and find the peace that they deserve.
This weekend, our city will remember those who served in the merchant navy at a service organised by the Merchant Navy Association, which is ably chaired by my excellent constituent Allan Speight. The vital role of the merchant navy in conflict is sometimes a little overshadowed and under-appreciated. Over both world wars, more than 54,000 seafarers lost their life as they maintained vital supply lines, while under constant threat from enemy submarines and aircraft, and their sacrifice is never forgotten in Newport.
Newport’s port was recognised as one of the most important in the UK, and during world war two, merchant ships sailing from Newport joined Atlantic and Arctic convoys. More than 430 seamen from Newport were lost in the war, including those on the SS Llanwern; just 11 of the 60-strong crew made it back. We also remember Raymond Steed, the second youngest to die, aged just 14, when the SS Empire Morn was blown up by a U-boat. Such sacrifices are not forgotten by our Doorkeeper Paul, whose uncle Jimmy Kehoe died in 1941 when his ship, too, was sunk by a U-boat.
Finally, I thank all those who provide services for veterans in Newport. I regularly meet Newport veterans, and I thank them for their service in many conflicts. Some of our conversations are more robust than others, but it is always good to hear their views and have their reflections, and I acknowledge that there is always more to do.
As we mark Armistice Day, we should reflect on today’s unstable world. Old threats are resurfacing, fear and anxiety are common feelings, and there are new threats from emerging technologies. Trust, truth and values of honesty and reliability are under attack. Remembrance is about the loss of brave lives, but it is also a living example of our resistance and our determination to defend our values, to demand truth, and not to give in to hostile forces. In these difficult times, we thank all those who have served, and all those who serve today.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Every nation rightly celebrates the heroism of its soldiers, but in the United Kingdom’s case, we also celebrate their skill in avoiding innocent deaths when dealing with the enemies of our nation and our democracy. When nations neutralise terrorists, they typically use a bomb or a missile, but bombs and missiles also kill innocent bystanders in the house, in the wedding party or in the bus, so Britain, as the Minister knows better than anybody else, often uses special forces in those circumstances.
Richard Williams, the former commanding officer of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment during our operations in Iraq, said that
“the SAS soldiers took extreme risks, facing violent and well-prepared opposition to capture these terrorists and hand them on to Iraqi justice and detention. It was a deliberate and careful approach…It required precision, intelligence, self-control, skill…in the face of immense danger—the very opposite of the hot-blooded, murderous drama depicted by poorly informed outsiders.
At the start of 2005, approximately 100 vehicle-borne suicide bombs were being detonated every month in Baghdad by AQ-I”—
al-Qaeda in Iraq—
“and thousands of Shia Muslims were being slaughtered by assassination gangs. But by the end of 2007, after the combined US and SAS effort…The number of suicide bombs had dropped to a single detonation per month”—
saving lives—
“and the Sunni population of central Iraq was supporting the coalition efforts in eradicating AQ-I from their midst. It was a remarkable outcome justifiably celebrated by military and political leaders”,
and it was all down to our soldiers.
However, those special forces and that capacity to protect innocent lives are at risk. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, only today we have seen nine retired four-star generals warning in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare. I will quote some of their words extensively and put them on the parliamentary record. They said:
“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces…we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.
Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of ‘lawfare’…which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative.”
Mr Francois
Can my right hon. Friend confirm for the parliamentary record that of the nine generals who have written this unprecedented letter, three formerly served as Chief of the General Staff—in other words, the professional head of the British Army?
David Davis
Yes, that is right. All of them had soldiers serve under them at risk on the frontline and had soldiers die under their command, so they are all people with strong knowledge of what we are talking about.
To go on with the quotation:
“And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”
If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer, as I have described, because we will not be able to do what we have done in the past and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation when called upon.
The Minister did not like it when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire raised this issue, and I understand that it is an uncomfortable one for a day like today, but it is important that we are not guilty of hypocrisy in this Chamber, and that we recognise that the people we are standing up for face a new threat that we have to deal with. I have to say to the House, again to the Minister’s probable discomfort, that I have been surprised, on two occasions in the last two weeks, to have people on the frontline on this issue quote Martin Luther King:
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
We owe it to them not to be silent on these issues.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak today on behalf of the people of Barrow and Furness as we mark this season of remembrance. Each year, we pause to reflect on the courage, duty and sacrifice of those who served, including those who never returned and those who live with the cost of service every day.
In Barrow and Furness, remembrance runs deep. Our town has long been bound to the defence of the nation not only through the proud service of the men and women in uniform, but through the hands and skills of the generations who built and maintained the Royal Navy submarines. Every steel plate and rivet crafted in Barrow is part of a commitment to peace through strength, the nuclear deterrent that has kept our country safe for over half a century. Those who work in our shipyard and those who served before them understand that deterrence is not abstract, but the quiet assurance that our nation can protect itself and prevent conflict. Their work honours the memory of those who fought to secure that peace. Alongside that proud industrial tradition stands our Army Reserve centre in Barrow, where local men and women train and serve with professionalism and pride. They embody the spirit and service that runs through our community.
My late grandfather Charles Arthur Beadell served in the second world war. He was my favourite person in the world, a devoted and fun-loving grandparent who would tell a very young me tales of war sanitised for my six-year-old ears. I had no idea until I had grown up and he had passed that those stories were a form of therapy. The horrors he saw haunted him, leaving him screaming in his sleep for the rest of his life. He had taken lives and watched those around him lose theirs. He had been blown up with his team, and being the only survivor, he was the lucky one. Yet he never once showed any bitterness towards German soldiers, and often remarked that they did not want to be there any more than him, but they were all serving their country. In a world with so much anger and hate, I think of his words of wisdom with hope.
Remembrance is not just about looking back. It is about the duty we owe to today’s veterans, reservists and service personnel. It means ensuring the success of the armed forces covenant: those who serve our country deserve not to be disadvantaged for their service. I was proud to sit on the Committee on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which created an advocate to ensure that those who have served are never left behind. Today, let us ensure that our commitment to peace and security continues through the work done in my constituency, in constituencies across the country and here in Parliament. We will remember them.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This is a short story about war. It is a story about what war looks like from the ground. It is not so much my story, but I was there and I was part of it. It is the story of Operation Herrick 11. More specifically, it is the story of 3 Rifles Battlegroup in Sangin, a small Afghan town of just a few square kilometres. The casualties sustained by 3 Rifles Battlegroup between October and March over the winter 2009-10 remain the heaviest casualties sustained by a British Army battlegroup since the Korean war. Sangin is where a third of all British soldiers who died in Afghanistan lost their lives.
Staff Sergeant Olaf “Oz” Schmid, George Cross, 30, was killed defusing multiple improvised explosive devices on 31 October 2009. Serjeant Phillip Scott, 30, was killed by an improvised explosive device during a patrol on 5 November. Rifleman Philip Allen, 20, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 November. Rifleman Samuel Bassett, 20, died in hospital from his injuries from an IED on 8 November. Rifleman Andrew Fentiman, 29, was killed by small arms fire during a foot patrol on the morning of 15 November. Rifleman James Brown, 18, died of his injuries from a suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal David Kirkness, 24, was also killed by the suicide IED on 15 December. Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard, 22, was shot and killed by friendly fire from a British sniper on 20 December. Lance Corporal Tommy Brown was killed by an IED on 22 December. Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, 23, died of his wounds from a friendly fire Apache helicopter attack on 22 December. Sapper David Watson, 23, was caught in an IED detonation and died in the operating theatre on new year’s eve.
Corporal Lee Brownson, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, 30, was killed by an IED on 15 January 2010. Rifleman Luke Farmer, 19, was killed by the same IED as Corporal Brownson on 15 January. Rifleman Peter Aldridge, 19, was caught by an IED, and he died en route to Camp Bastion on 22 January. Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper, 21, was killed by an IED on 24 January. Corporal John Moore, 22, and Private Sean McDonald, 26, were both killed by an IED on 7 February. Rifleman Mark Marshall, 29, was killed by an IED during a routine foot patrol on Valentine’s day, 14 February. Rifleman Martin Kinggett, 19, was shot and killed on 25 February. Rifleman Carlo Apolis, 28, was killed by a single gunshot wound on 1 March. Corporal Richard Green, 23, was killed by a single sniper round on 2 March. Rifleman Jonathon Allott, 19, was killed by a command wire IED on 5 March. Corporal Stephen Thompson, 31, was killed by an IED during a patrol on 7 March. Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, 24, died of a single gunshot wound on 7 March. Serjeant Steven “Stevie” Campbell, 30, was killed by a command wire IED hidden underwater on 22 March. Rifleman Daniel Holkham, 19, was killed by a vehicle-borne suicide IED, weeks short of the end of his tour, on 27 March.
Thirty soldiers died in Sangin in those six months, and another 80-plus suffered combat injuries, including amputations. I apologise if there are those whom I have missed, but there is no definitive list that we can check to read their stories. I pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, some of whom I knew and many of whom I did not. We ask young men and women, some of them still teenagers, to close with and kill the enemy through dismounted close combat to win the fight in those last 100 yards, and that ask comes with a cost. So in this period of remembrance, I ask those in this House to remember their names, and should any of us have to make that fateful decision to commit soldiers to harm’s way, to remember above everything else that that decision will come with more names.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a pleasure to join you today at the remembrance service in Westminster Hall, and it was an honour to attend services in Tarbert, Harris in my constituency and at the Lewis war memorial in Stornoway at the weekend. The years are passing, but the numbers attending are not diminishing, which is perhaps not surprising in the Western Isles because we have a very high proportion of veterans who have served.
Historically, certainly in world war one, the islands suffered a disproportionately high number of men lost in comparison with the rest of the Commonwealth. Military historians tell us that that is because the reserve forces such as the Cameron Highlanders, the Seaforth Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders were thrown into action early in the war, and many were lost in November 1914, before the Regular Army had even deployed in France. Island losses were compounded by the loss of the yacht Iolaire, a ship requisitioned as a troop carrier, which struck the rocks less than 1 mile out of Stornoway harbour on new year’s eve 1919 with the loss of 200 returning sailors within a mile of their home. This event became the crowning sorrow of the war that cast a century of mourning across the islands.
We remembered them, as we remembered all who served, when we gathered on Sunday under the Lewis war memorial, an 85-foot granite tower built to be seen from all parishes of Lewis. Like memorials across the country, the tower and memorial garden bears the names of all those who served and were lost in both world wars—except that it does not bear all the names. Malcolm Macdonald, the chair of Stornoway Historical Society and the author of “The Darkest Dawn”, a book on that Iolaire tragedy, revealed this week that his research shows that 389 names are not listed on the Lewis war memorial where they rightfully should be: 170 from world war one and 219 from world war two. Of those not listed, some are remembered in Commonwealth war graves or on war memorials elsewhere, but even then, 37 men from world war one and 58 from world war two do not appear to have been recognised anywhere. They come from all parishes from all over the islands.
It is the painstaking research of Mr Macdonald—based on his own intimate knowledge, including of the street he grew up on—that has revealed those statistics. On Westview Terrace where he lives, there is only one name from the second world war on the war memorial, yet he knows seven men were lost: No. 1 was Norman Macritchie, who died in Egypt and was in the Royal Navy; No. 3 was James Mackenzie, killed at Arnhem; No. 5 was Kenneth Mackenzie, killed in an RAF crash; No. 9 was William Maclean; and so on—down the street and out across the island. That is an example from one street on one island. If this list of missing men, of lost fallen, is true for the Isle of Lewis, then it must certainly be true for places across the whole country.
There are many reasons why men are missing from the Lewis war memorial. In the first world war, headmasters compiled the names for memorialising, and emigration and a lack of definitive information would have contributed. In world war two, families were simply asked to submit names for the roll of honour, which we now know to be incomplete—389 forgotten war heroes from an island where people do not just know their own history, they know their neighbours’ history and everyone else’s as well.
The kind of assiduous research that Mr Macdonald undertook does not come cheap. He spent years of his own time digging through the force records, looking for ships’ lists and overseas war records—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you are looking for one John Macleod in an island of John Macleods, you can see how that adds up.
Three things struck me about this situation. Of course I welcome this week’s announcement of £2 million of funding for the restoration of war memorials across the UK, but I would urge Ministers to go a bit further. We could find funds to help communities complete their rolls of honour by discounting or reimbursing research costs, but not every community has a Stornoway Historical Society and not every one has a Malcolm Macdonald to hand. Looking for the forgotten fallen across the UK is a much bigger task, but one that could, with the cross-fertilisation of existing lists, archival research and the innovative power of artificial intelligence, become a project that would recover the legacy of service and sacrifice, and correct the draft of history inscribed on stone memorials across the country.
I hope the names of the Lewis men are inscribed on a new plaque or in some kind of accessible form—digital or in print—so their losses can be recorded and they can be accorded their rightful status among their comrades. I hope the same can be true of people across the UK and that we can make this a reality—that the Government can step in with an AI project to scour the archives, correct the records and bring back the names of all those who gave their lives for their island home, for this country. Lest we forget.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a privilege to be able to say even a few words about the vital contribution our armed forces continue to make to the act of remembrance.
Every veteran deserves to have their service recognised, and it is a great credit to communities across the country that people from all walks of life still give generously and gather, as they did on this rainy Remembrance Sunday in North Devon, to recognise that dedication to duty. On Saturday, I was in South Molton where I met some young Army cadets loyally collecting for the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal outside the pannier market. Indeed, battalions of the wider armed forces community are visibly deployed every year to support the good work of the Royal British Legion, and many other worthy armed forces charities up and down the length of Britain. Thanks to the exceptional dedication of cadet officers, like Major Joe Martin in my constituency of North Devon, many of those outstanding young cadets will go on to have bright careers in our armed forces themselves.
Those of us who have served, or represent forces towns, can easily forget that November is one of the few opportunities many people get to engage with serving personnel from our armed forces directly, face to face. As we know, Britain traditionally does not maintain large standing armies, so seeing uniforms on our high streets for remembrance is a rare chance to connect communities with the people who volunteer to defend them. It is important to remind people that we are all in this together, given some of the current conflicts around the world. This is not a country where people fear seeing soldiers in the street. Instead, the admiration for what our armed forces do on our behalf is profound. Our armed forces must be an extension of the society they serve, the democracy they defend, and the people they protect. Although every poppy sold will help the welfare of a veteran who deserves our gratitude, there is also a battle for hearts and minds that is being fought and won.
Our armed forces are ambassadors for the values of the uniform. As my good friends in the Royal Marines at the Barnstaple social club always toast on Remembrance Sunday: we will champion those values, remember absent friends and honour their sacrifice.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure briefly to the debate today. May I associate myself with the words of other hon. Members, reflecting the respect and gratitude we have for servicemen and servicewomen, past and present, and of course, remembering all those who have been lost?
Around the country, communities have been gathering around a cenotaph or a war memorial. In Renfrew in my constituency the war memorial stands all year round as a poignant reminder of their service. I therefore welcome the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that a £2 million fund has been provided to restore war memorials across the UK, as many have fallen into disrepair. I will certainly be following up on that for my own constituency.
Last week, it was a privilege to visit Scotland’s Bravest Manufacturing Company in Bishopton. The company is a collaboration between the Royal British Legion and the military charity Erskine. I met veteran employees, many of whom had struggled to transition to civilian life and acquire gainful employment again. I heard at first hand about their journey from military to civilian careers, and was struck by how difficult some of them had found the experience and how brave they all were. Erskine was established in my constituency in 1916 and provides care, employment and housing to many ex-service personnel. Today, I wish to honour them and, on behalf of all my constituents, thank Erskine for all that it does.
My constituency sits on the River Clyde, a strategic target during world war two and still home to many strategic defence assets and military personnel. I want every young man or women who makes the choice to serve to know that their service is respected and that we owe them a debt of gratitude and honour. In closing, I simply say to all of them: thank you for your service.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
This morning, eight four-star generals and an air chief marshal took the unprecedented step of writing to the newspapers. Their letter deserves to be heard in full and to be entered the public record. They write:
“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces, we do not speak out lightly. Yet on Armistice Day we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.
No member of the armed forces received a “letter of comfort” after the Good Friday Agreement. What they relied upon was far stronger: the belief that if they acted within the law, under proper orders and in good faith, the nation would stand by them. This bill tears up that compact. Be clear, those who served in Northern Ireland do not seek immunity, they simply seek fairness—the recognition that there is a fundamental difference between legitimate authority and illegitimate violence. To erase that distinction weakens the moral authority of the state.
By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered in pursuit of political ends as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy. That is not reconciliation; it is abdication of responsibility. Trust between the state and the individual who serves it is the cornerstone of military effectiveness. If servicemen and women begin to doubt, when they believe that lawful actions taken in the service of the crown will one day be re-examined in the misplaced light of hindsight, then recruitment, retention and morale will suffer.
Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of “lawfare”—the use of legal processes to fight political or ideological battles—which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative. We will lose our fighting edge at exactly the moment it is most needed. And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.
The prime minister and attorney-general must recognise that an ever-broadening interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights is being used against those who act under lawful authority of the crown. The state owes its servants more than political reassurance it must ensure that those who apply necessary force on behalf of the nation are not left to face the consequences alone.
The government must restore legal clarity, reaffirm the law of armed conflict, deviate from the application of the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and relevant international conventions and ensure those who act under lawful authority are protected. A new, honest framework is required. The Troubles Bill achieves nothing—and ongoing lawfare risks everything.”
The letter is signed by General Sir Peter Wall, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, General Sir Patrick Sanders, General Sir Richard Barrons, General Sir Chris Deverell, General Sir Richard Shirreff, General Sir Tim Radford, General Sir Nick Parker and Air Chief Marshal Sir Andrew Pulford. I will say on the record myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these are men whose boots I am not fit to polish.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
On Sunday, I was at the war memorial in Stirling city centre to lay a wreath and to reflect. Stirling’s memorial was completed in 1922. Six hundred and ninety-two names were recorded on the monument that first year, and behind every name was a story of a life lived and a life given to war. I want to talk about three of those names today, but I want to start with a woman who I have no doubt was in the crowd the day the memorial was unveiled. Her name was Margaret Fleming.
Margaret and her husband, John, lived in Stirling. Margaret worked in a local grocer’s shop and John was a sailor—a stoker on a steamship—who travelled the world’s oceans for months at a time, leaving Margaret to raise their family, including their sons Thomas and Martin. When war was declared, the Fleming men, like so many in every town and village across the land, answered the call to serve. John joined the merchant navy, Martin joined the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Thomas joined the Black Watch. On each of the days the men in her life left for war, I suspect Margaret would have helped them to pack, prepared a packed lunch and walked them to the railway station. I think she would have walked slowly. As a parent, I know I would.
In autumn 1914, the first of five battles of the war in Flanders took place near the town of Ypres, which stood between the advancing Germans and the channel ports—a vital line that the allies could not afford to lose. Eight thousand soldiers were killed in that battle, with nearly 30,000 wounded and more than 10,000 missing.
Along with the letters she would have craved, there was one method of communication Margaret would have dreaded receiving: a telegram. Among the telegrams that arrived in family homes across Britain that month, one would have found its way to Bank Street in Stirling, telling Margaret that her son Thomas had fallen on 27 October and been buried near where he died.
A second telegram would arrive three years later. Margaret’s husband, John, was serving on the steamship Batoum, carrying vital supplies across the Atlantic between the USA and Ireland. John was a donkeyman, working the small engine that pumped water from the bowels of the ship. It was a hot, hard and dangerous job. On 19 June 1917, the Batoum was less than six miles from home waters; the crew could see the lighthouse at Fastnet Rock—a beacon of safety after a 4,000-mile voyage—but they never saw the German U-boat or the torpedo that struck the ship. Forty-one of the forty-two members of crew survived. The only man lost that day was John, who stayed to tend to his engine, pumping water from the sinking ship to buy his comrades time to escape.
In 1918, just three months before the guns finally fell silent, a third telegram arrived. In the last months of the war, both sides threw everything they had into one final push and one million men were lost—80,000 fell in August alone. One of them was Martin Fleming, who was killed in Flanders on 10 August 1918. He was 20 years old. Margaret had lost her husband, her oldest son and her youngest son.
For those gathered at the memorial that first year, it was a deeply personal experience. For each of the parents, wives and children, each name recorded was a son, a father, a husband and a friend; all would have been known personally to someone in the crowd. The ongoing sacrifice of the families who were left behind by the devastation of war is more quietly marked than the sacrifice of the soldiers who died in the conflict, but we must remember both the lives lost in war and the lives lived on with the pain of loss to war.
At the unveiling in Stirling, Margaret would have stood before the memorial bearing the names of her husband and sons—three men she had loved and lost to war—their names cast in bronze, quietly carrying both the weight of her sorrow and the endurance of her love. As the years pass, we no longer know their faces or hear their voices, yet we can still speak their names and wonder who they were, how they lived and what they dreamed of, and in that wondering—in the act of remembrance—we keep them present in the life of our communities today. Margaret Fleming’s name is not recorded on Stirling’s war memorial, but it will now be recorded on the record of this place.
At the unveiling, Stirling’s provost spoke of his mingled feelings of grief and pride. Time dampens grief, yet deepens pride. It is with that in mind that I say with my heart full of peace, full of hope and full of love that we will remember them.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The three fatalities from Stirling that the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) has just set out so eloquently were three of the 135,000 men and women who died from Scotland during world war one. There were almost 60,000 Scots casualties in world war two, and more still in campaigns thereafter in Malaya, Korea, the Falklands, the Gulf and Afghanistan. Some 25% of all Scots who answered the call during the great war never returned to Scotland. We are united in remembrance of their selflessness and heroism and the personal sacrifice endured during that period.
As well as the brave men on the frontline, we must pay tribute to the Scots at home—many of whom were women—who toiled on the land and in the mines, shipyards and munitions factories. Without their efforts and sacrifice, the war could never have been prosecuted in the way that it was. One thousand and twelve men and women from Perthshire gave their lives during world war one, with 248 coming from Blairgowrie alone and many hundreds more coming from the Angus glens and the burghs of Angus. As well as the human sacrifice and cost, we must remember the cultural and economic toll of such high attrition of breeding-age men—men who would father families, or not as the case may be, and men who would have worked productively, or not as the case may be.
On the eastern tip of my constituency lies Montrose, the site of the UK’s first operational air station, home to No. 2 Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps, established in 1913. During world war two, Montrose was a strategic target for the Luftwaffe. Montrose was bombed at least 15 times in October 1940, suffering huge destruction to the port, air base and the Chivers jam factory, which caused a huge consternation. In that attack, three German Junkers dropped at least 24 bombs on the station, killing five, injuring 18 and destroying two hangars and the officers’ mess. Angus was bombed a minimum of 44 times before the war ended.
Against this, I was pleased to stand in the heaving rain on Sunday in Blairgowrie with veterans of the Black Watch, the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, cadets and a good 150 local people braving the elements to pay tribute and give thanks to our veterans. We should note that at the end of the second world war the state invested greatly in veterans. That concordance with our service personnel is one that we should seek to continue to honour. I know that in Scotland the Scottish Government have worked with business to proactively assist in the recruitment of veterans, not least because veterans are excellent employees. ScottishPower is demonstrating this by actively recruiting 300 veterans by the end of this year and a further 2,000 by the end of next year to support investment in our energy infrastructure.
Our armed forces are not essential to the fabric of our society. They are the fabric of our society. It can be quite fashionable to pretend that war is something that belongs in the history books, but 80 years is the blink of an eye in human history. Humans have demonstrated that they can be brutal, visceral and lethal, and I want the defence on my side to outpace logistically, industrially, technologically and lethally those who would seek to do us harm. We have a debt to our armed forces. They will step up and answer the call when needed, and that is their duty, and we owe them a serious debt of gratitude for that.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is an honour to mark Armistice Day by speaking in this debate about our armed forces—those who serve today and those who served before them. Their courage and service is woven into the tapestry of every village, town and city in this country.
In my constituency, that tapestry has been preserved thanks to the vital work of local historian Paul Johnson, who created the Herts at War project. Thousands from Stevenage and surrounding villages fought abroad in both world wars, each one with a unique character, life, home, family and with a story to be told. Take Herbert Charles Cooper from the village of Aston, who at just 18 years old enlisted in 1914 and joined the 9th East Surrey Regiment. He was the son of a local chimney sweep. On the western front, Herbert was tragically shot by a sniper while replacing sandbags on a parapet. He gave his life valiantly in service to his country and now lies in Spoilbank cemetery in Belgium.
Take Edward John Croft, born in 1886 on Stevenage High Street. He joined the Royal Navy as a boy seaman in 1904. His career was extraordinary: he served in the suppression of the Armenian massacres, supported the Messina earthquake rescues, and even acted as personal signalman to the Prince and Princess of Wales aboard HMS Renown. During the great war, he fought at Jutland aboard HMS Caroline, where he suffered shell shock. Later, while serving ashore, an air raid caused a relapse that ultimately led to his death in 1919. He is buried in the Royal Navy cemetery at Southsea.
Their stories are powerful, moving and inspiring, but also devastating. The stories do not end there. That brings me to the reality of modern service. Our armed forces are not only defending us abroad but protecting us at home—from cyber-threats, terrorism, even natural disasters. Their remit is expanding, and so must our support. I was honoured to meet service personnel from the Royal Air Force last year while taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That gave me a real insight into the lives that they lead on our behalf and what they need in terms of support, equipment, accommodation, childcare and so much more.
Now I turn to those who have served. I want to draw the House’s attention to an important piece of work produced in my constituency: the Hertfordshire veteran report, created by Stu Mendelson, co-founder of the Muster Point in Stevenage. This report is the first evidence-based overview of veteran need in Hertfordshire, using data from the 2021 census, the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre armed forces champions. It moves the conversation from assumption to evidence, and the findings are stark. Hertfordshire has fewer veterans that the national average but more at-risk veterans than expected, and their hardship is concentrated in specific districts. Over 5.8% of Stevenage’s veterans are on universal credit, which is well above the national average, and many rely on housing support.
I know that Stevenage borough council is doing all it can for veterans in our town. I want to pay particular tribute to Claire Parris, the council’s armed forces champion, for her tireless work in making this happen. I also want to thank Stu, Steve and their team at the Muster Point for everything they do for veterans in Stevenage and beyond. It is more than a hub; it is a lifeline offering practical support. I joined them last week at a 72-hour, non-stop vigil at our war memorial to mark remembrance and raise awareness.
We need to give veterans support. I take this opportunity to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister to visit the Muster Point in Stevenage to see at first hand how the armed forces covenant is being implemented and how we can go further and faster—as we must do—to deliver the full extent of its benefits to those who have served our country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the debate so far. Of all the fine contributions, I want to start where the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) left off. He spoke about the mother attending the memorial where her husband and two sons’ names were all inscribed. On Saturday I had the privilege of attending the War Widows’ special ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph. If one looks at the website of the War Widows Association, one sees this interesting piece of historical context. It says:
“Originally, when the association was formed”—
in 1971—
“the widows were not allowed to take part in the annual November Sunday service and march past at the Cenotaph. As they wanted to show their respect to their husbands they began to hold a very short service on the Saturday at the Cenotaph in London. They dashed between the cars and laid their cross, said a prayer and dashed back to the pavement.”
Well, how things have changed. Not only do war widows now participate on Remembrance Sunday, but Whitehall is closed specially in their honour on the preceding Saturday. Led by fine military musicians, they march in tribute to those whom they have lost in the service of our country. It was, as I said, a privilege to be invited to attend, and a pleasure to see our hon. and gallant Minister for Veterans and People present in solidarity.
That same evening, the BBC broadcast two hours of the finest television imaginable. The festival of remembrance perfectly combined music, pageantry, belated recognition of those who unjustly lost their service careers because of their sexuality, and unforgettable tributes to the fallen. I for one will never forget the testimony of the children of Corporal Mark Palin, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2011, and their bearing as they carried the book of remembrance to the centre of the Royal Albert Hall.
Strangely, one ward in my constituency by tradition holds its ceremony in the afternoon, so I was able to attend two local ceremonies: that at St Michael and All Angels church in Lyndhurst in the heart of the New Forest, and that at All Saints’ church on the waterside, close to where the Solent meets Southampton water, north of the Isle of Wight. Both events and the attendant parades were admirably organised, with Royal British Legion veterans at one end of the age range and uniformed young people at the other bringing style and panache to the occasions. The high levels of attendance testify to the importance to our communities of such solemn and sacred occasions.
In the few seconds remaining, I draw attention to the Airborne war cemetery, which lies about 7 km west of Arnhem, near the village of Oosterbeek. One of the last bastions held in the dreadful battle of Arnhem was the Roman Catholic church of St Bernulphus in Oosterbeek. It was left in ruins but beautifully rebuilt soon after the war. The rebuilt church remains a focal point for Arnhem commemorations, yet it is now under serious threat of sale and disposal. It is profoundly to be hoped that organisations such as Support our Paras and Government Ministers will make representations to the Dutch authorities about preserving that historic building.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
The communities I represent in St Helens North have a long and proud connection with the armed forces, from the St Helens Pals of the first world war, to groups such as Newton-le-Willows sea cadets and local veterans organisations, who do outstanding community work across the borough. Last week, in Parliament’s garden of remembrance, I planted a cross dedicated to Corporal Derek Johnson, who lived in Haydock, and who sadly passed away in June. He served in the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and went on to found the North West Veterans Corps of Drums, which supports the veterans community and takes part in fantastic public performances.
In September, we welcomed the Minister for the Armed Forces to St Helens North to meet local veterans and discuss what more we can do to ensure that all those who have served get the support that they need and deserve. The veterans’ strategy announced yesterday is a hugely positive step towards ensuring that no one who served is left behind, but there is always more that we can do.
My constituent Andy Reid MBE is a triple amputee who was injured by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan in 2009. In the years since, he has done a huge amount of work for wounded veterans, charities and the wider community through his Standing Tall Foundation. He is calling for a new medal to address a significant gap in our honours system. The UK has no formal medal to recognise service personnel wounded in combat. While we rightly honour those who have fallen through the Elizabeth Cross, there is no equivalent recognition for those who carry the physical scars of their service throughout their life. That places us out of step with key allies such as the United States, which has the Purple Heart, and India, which has the Wound medal. I fully support his campaign. I have already raised the matter with Ministry of Defence colleagues, and will be writing to the Cabinet Office to set out the case.
On Sunday, I had the honour of attending remembrance events in Earlestown, Haydock, and St Aidan’s church in Billinge. This morning, I attended a moving service at the Crank and Kings Moss war memorial.
When we attend remembrance events, we remember all those who served, and especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we also think about what they fought for and whether we are living up to the ideals that they defended. Sadly, the last witnesses of the great war have now left us, and those who witnessed the second world war and experienced its causes and consequences are increasingly fewer in number. I think of my grandparents, Gerald and Elsie Howard, and Peter and Joan Baines, who are no longer with us. I think about them all increasingly often. I did not ask them about their experiences when I had the chance—I wish that I had—but I do know the kind of people they were, and what mattered to them. They worked hard all their lives, they loved their families, they valued community and good humour, and they believed that people should look out for one another. I do not think we have changed that much. My grandparents and their generation fought for and earned the right to live in peace, and it seems to me that that is a fight that every generation has to have, in one form or another.
The voices and the experiences of those generations who lived through something similar to what we face now might be increasingly distant, but we must remember them, and we do. It is also important that we learn from them. I firmly believe that the tolerant, firm-minded, community-spirited and outward-looking Britain that my grandparents fought for and loved is still who we are. We can all play our part in defending those values—and we must, particularly those of us in this place—but there should be no doubt that those who are willing to step up and do so in uniform as members of our armed forces deserve the greatest praise. All those in St Helens North who served, and all those who continue to do so, can be assured of not just my thanks, but my support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that injunction.
In the past, one of our major sources of local pride was the county regiments, and in the case of my constituency, the Lincolnshire Regiment. Now merged into the Royal Anglians, it can still bring people out on to the street whenever the opportunity arises. Armed Forces Day is a massive event in North East Lincolnshire; it is estimated that it attracted over 200,000 people to the town of Cleethorpes over the weekend.
Today, I want to reflect on the contribution of the Grimsby Chums. Members will be well aware of the Pals regiments formed during 1914-15. Unlike the Pals regiments, however, the Grimsby regiment that was raised took the name of the Chums. When Lord Kitchener was appointed on 6 August 1914, he said that he did not believe that the war would be short, and he was certainly right. The Army at that time was made up of 450,000 people, and 118,000 were serving in India and elsewhere in the empire. Kitchener was determined to put more men in uniform.
In Grimsby and the surrounding area, local dignitaries stepped forward with offers of help. Alderman John Herbert Tate, the mayor, received a telegram from Kitchener and set about recruiting people into the new Grimsby Chums. Alderman Tate appointed a local timber merchant, George Bennett, as acting commander. The position was subsequently taken by the right hon. George Edward Heneage, who was plucked from retirement. His father had been the Grimsby MP.
The name “Chums” appears in print on 11 September 1914, in the Grimsby Daily Telegraph. It is somewhat strange that the title continued in use throughout the conflict. Recruitment was encouraged by local headmasters, particularly at Clee grammar and St James’ school. The Earl of Yarborough, whose Brocklesby estate includes much land in northern Lincolnshire, agreed to the request that the Chums set up camp on the estate. The Chums fought in many battles, most notably the battle of the Somme, in which, sadly, 15 officers and 487 men were killed. Grimsby and local people are proud of the Grimsby Chums. We honour them today, just as we honour those who have served in the years since the Chums were formed, and those serving today. We remember them.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a solemn honour to speak. Today we pause to not only remember the fallen, but renew our duty to ensuring that their courage, sacrifice and legacy are never forgotten. In Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove, that duty is lived out with quiet persistence and deep pride. Remembrance does not end with the names already carved in stone. Local historians, veterans and community leaders continue to seek out those brave women and men whose service has not yet been fully recognised. As part of the Honouring the Royal Doulton Fallen project, local campaigners, including Mike Lightfoot and my friend and predecessor in this place, Joan Walley, have worked tirelessly to recover the stories of those who served our nation but who have, for far too long, been left without the dignity of commemoration.
One such story is that of Private Alfred William Holdcroft, a young man from Hot Lane in Smallthorne, who fought in the battle of the Somme. For decades, he lay in an unmarked grave in Burslem cemetery. As a result of the hard work of all involved, back in September, I stood alongside our community as a new cross was dedicated at his resting place. It was a moment of quiet reverence. I join local campaigners in urging the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to formally recognise his grave, so that his contribution to our country is properly honoured. The project has also brought to light the story of Flight Sergeant Harold Kenneth Hall, who served in the Royal Air Force during the second world war, and who is believed to have been lost in action in 1941. Work continues to restore his records, so that he receives any honours he is due.
Across our area, we have a proud military tradition, and our duty is not only to remember those who served, but to stand with them, and with those who serve today. I therefore welcome this Government’s continued investment in veterans’ wellbeing, housing and employment support through the new Valour initiative. I also support this Government’s investment in the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and I look forward to supporting the restoration of Tunstall memorial gardens, something that I campaigned for as a councillor, so that future generations may stand, reflect and remember. I will also continue to work with the Royal Doulton project to reinstate the lost memorial at Kiln Gate in Burslem, and to ensure that we recognise every fallen hero in our area. Their service deserves our ongoing commitment to remembrance, and we will remember them.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I too want to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I have huge personal respect. Anyone who wants to take themselves to Wikipedia and have a look through his glittering career will be amazed. I made the mistake of looking earlier and finding out that he was younger than me, which was thoroughly depressing.
It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. Remembrance Day marks a significant moment of national unity, and an opportunity to share our deep-seated feelings of gratitude, sorrow and loss, which span generations. We give our thanks for the bravery and dedication of those who have served in our armed forces. I would especially like to remember those from my regiment, and those who served in the wider armoured corps. I vividly remember visiting the battlefield of Villers-Bocage with some of the veterans, and it was deeply moving. I would also like to make special mention of my uncle, Simon Clark, who as a very young man served on HMS Arrow. He marched at the Cenotaph yesterday, and we are all very proud.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the huge part that my constituency played in the second world war and the battle of Britain. RAF Biggin Hill, Britain’s most famous fighter station, played a critical role in defending London and the south-east. Despite being officially designated the most bombed station in Fighter Command, the station still saw the departure and return of over 1,000 sorties during the battle of Britain. At the close of the battle, Biggin Hill’s score of enemy aircraft destroyed was just under 600, and Winston Churchill described RAF Biggin Hill as “the strongest link”. I pay tribute to all those who served at RAF Biggin Hill, and to the community who supported them.
Bromley borough is home to more than 6,600 veterans—the highest number of any borough in London—and nearly 2,000 of those veterans are my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Locally, we are incredibly lucky to have the Hayes Royal British Legion branch. It was established over 90 years ago, and boasts 900 members, who collectively raise thousands of pounds to support serving and ex-serving members of the armed forces and their families. Since its inception in 1919, Remembrance Day has brought our communities together to remember the sacrifice made by all those serving in the UK and Commonwealth armed forces, their families, and others who have given their life in service to our country. It is right that we honour them today, and I am immensely privileged to be able to thank them on behalf of all my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
This morning, I was thrilled to unveil a plaque in Leighton Buzzard, next to the church, to honour the people who served at a place called Q Central. It is not very well known that during the second world war, 5,000 personnel served just outside Leighton Buzzard, and they were predominantly women. During the war, this became the biggest communications hub in the entire world, but for a long time, nobody knew very much about this story, because it was top secret. I want to thank local historian Paul Brown, who has been working to uncover what those phenomenal women did, and that work has culminated today in the unveiling of the plaque. I was also really pleased today to meet a young child called Bertie, one of the many children who lay a wreath every year at the war memorial in Leighton Buzzard. Bertie’s great-great-grandma, Joan Spencer, was one of the women who served her nation at Q Central.
The location was chosen because it already had really good communication links. The wireless signal was good—I wish today’s mobile phone signal was as good as that—and it was also near its famous neighbour, Bletchley Park. Crucially, it was a bit out of the way and therefore hidden from enemy bombers flying overhead. Work was also being done in underground tunnels that were highly camouflaged. I think it is an inspiring story, particularly as the first woman MP for Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and all the places around them. I talked to some of the young girls there today, and it proved to them that their ancestors had done important war work.
We are going to do more. We will ensure that there are boards next to the plaque to tell the story to future generations. We are also looking to get a sculpture that talks of the people and the experiences they had there, with the help of South Side Studios in Leighton Buzzard. I am proud of the community coming together because it feels that for the first time we are truly celebrating the stories of those who served in the shadows and bringing them into the light.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Since being elected, it has been my honour to represent my constituency at remembrance events, parades, ceremonies and services. Last weekend, I laid a wreath in Devizes. For me, it was an opportunity not just to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, but to appreciate the community’s patriotic spirit. So many have given so much.
Everyone from the Brownies and the cadets to servicemen and women, town councillors and veterans on motorbikes came out on Sunday. It was not just good to see it, but humbling to be a part of it. As a member of the Royal British Legion, it has been a privilege to campaign alongside veterans and fellow members and to meet service families. A few years ago, I had the chance with friends and fellow RBL members to take part in “Pedal to Ypres”, a fundraising cycle ride that takes participants along the frontline of the first world war as far as Vimy ridge. As we cycled back to Dunkirk with the sea wind in our faces and the situation in Ukraine very much on our minds, the curtain between the events of 1940 and the present day seemed poignantly thin.
Walking around these last few weeks, it has been good to see the poppies on people’s coats and jackets and to see poppy sellers outside shops and at railway stations. Indeed, the short ceremony in Westminster Hall this morning to mark the 11th hour of the 11th day was particularly striking. At a time when the country has felt divided, it is important to remember those family and community members who served and, in doing so, to unite people across the country.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Remembrance is truly a moment of national unity. From bereaved service families to the veterans of the second world war, our country comes together to honour the service and sacrifices of those who have ensured our collective safety and security. Like many veterans, I carry deeply personal memories shaped by conflict and comradeship. We remember those who came before us, but also those we served alongside—many of those I served with in Afghanistan and Iraq sadly did not come home.
Like many Members of this House, this weekend I was in my constituency attending services of remembrance. It was an immense privilege to stand alongside Royal Air Force cadets from 12F and 241 squadrons, Army cadets from 30 music detachment of Waltham Forest, Scouts, local families, people of all faiths, our councillors and fellow veterans, looking not only back but forward with hope.
It was that spirit of looking forward that made what happened next very special to me. At the memorial service in Leytonstone, I met four black servicemen spanning four generations of post-war service: Alan, Peter, Chris and Orlando. I brought them together to meet one another because each represented a chapter in our nation’s post-war story of service. Alan Sealy was in the Prince of Wales’s Own Regiment of Yorkshire, serving in the 1960s in Aden. Peter Barnett was in the 7th Parachute Regiment, the Royal Horse Artillery, and served in Germany and central America in the 1970s. Chris Nije was a royal marine in 42 Commando, and served in the middle east, Germany and Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Orlando Asumang is an RAF cadet starting on his journey to fulfil his dream of becoming a pilot, as I once did.
What united us was remembrance itself and the pride of service. For Peter, it was getting his red beret and his wings. For Chris, it was going from Bethnal Green to jumping out of aeroplanes. For Orlando, it was being able to lay a wreath on behalf of his Royal Air Force squadron 12F. Experiences of duty and service pass from one generation to the next. As we stood there, five black men remembering our ancestors and friends alongside our neighbours, and listening to faith leaders reading from the Bible, the Torah and the Quran, I was reminded that remembrance belongs to everyone.
Sadly, in 2025, there are those who seek to taint this sacred moment with their prejudice. That is why it is so vital that we stand loud and proud in honouring the service of people from every background, every faith and every circumstance, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the freedoms that we all share. Remembrance reminds us that unity itself is part of the legacy entrusted to us. I shared some of my thoughts with Peter, who wisely suggested that we should all head to the pub afterwards, because after all, what could be more British than that?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Today, our nation paused together in quiet reflection. In doing so, we remembered those who stood firm in the face of fear, served with courage, and made the ultimate sacrifice so that we might live in freedom.
As a daughter of Ulster, my thoughts turn to the fields of France—to the Somme—where so many young men from my homeland laid down their lives. On that terrible July morning in 1916, the 36th Ulster Division went over the top with unmatched courage. Within two days, thousands were killed or wounded. Captain Wilfrid Spender, who witnessed that charge, wrote that he
“would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”
I commend the Ancre Somme Association and the Royal British Legion for continuing to educate and remember in my area.
We in Northern Ireland know perhaps more than most what our armed forces mean for the safety of this United Kingdom. For decades, through some of the darkest times, they stood as a human shield between good and evil. They put on the uniform and went toe to toe with bloodthirsty terrorists in defence of innocent people. Alongside the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and other branches of the security services, they defended life and liberty in Northern Ireland.
Too many paid with their lives. More than 1,400 members of our armed forces were lost during Operation Banner. Hundreds were murdered by terrorists simply because they wore the uniform of their country. Three hundred and two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were killed, along with 29 prison officers. We lost prison officer David Black as recently as 2012, and Constable Stephen Carroll in 2009—both were killed in my constituency. We remember them with gratitude that cannot be measured in words.
Northern Ireland’s record of service to the Crown runs deep. Our people have time and again stepped forward when called upon. Today, that legacy continues in men and women like Air Chief Marshal Harvey Smyth of Lurgan, who is now Chief of the Air Staff of our armed forces. We also think of those who served in more recent conflicts—the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. My thoughts today are with the families of Lance Corporal Stephen McKee of 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment, who was from Banbridge, and Lieutenant Neal Turkington, platoon commander of 1st Battalion, the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who was from Portadown.
Remembrance must never be limited to the past; it must also be about the living and about ensuring that no veteran who served this nation is ever left without a home, a job or hope for the future, or subject to vexatious prosecution. There is no glory in war, but there is immense honour in service. There are acts of heroism that go unseen and sacrifices that go unspoken, yet they are the foundation upon which our freedoms rest. We will remember them.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is an honour to pay tribute in this debate to the men and women of our armed forces, past and present, whose courage and service secured our freedoms. In Colchester, we gathered for our traditional Remembrance Sunday service at the war memorial, against the backdrop of our castle and the remains of our Roman temple—a reminder that Colchester has been a garrison city for nearly two millennia. As ever, it was a deeply moving occasion. Soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade and their families were joined by civic representatives, veterans, cadets, youth organisations, the city orchestra and residents from across the community.
The bond between our city and the armed forces is historic and enduring. It is also a global history. Colchester cemetery is home to over 300 Commonwealth war graves, lovingly tended by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its local volunteers, and I thank the commission for giving me a poignant tour of the site in September.
I want to take a moment to recognise the Gurkha and Nepalese community in Colchester. Their contribution to our armed forces is legendary, and their presence in our city enriches us all. As we commemorate 80 years since the end of the second world war, we should remind ourselves of the bravery of over 250,000 Gurkha soldiers who fought for the British empire during that time. Their regiments continue to serve in the city today. We are proud to call them neighbours and friends. The Minister will be aware of the continued campaign by Gurkha veterans on pension rights, and I urge the Ministry of Defence to look again at that issue in good faith.
As we reflect on the historic sacrifices made, it is right that we also look forward. Our armed forces covenant renews our commitment to those who serve today. Just last week, the Government announced a £9 billion defence housing strategy—the largest upgrade to armed forces housing in over half a century. That plan will rebuild or modernise over 40,000 military homes, ensuring that service families have the safe, comfortable and dignified accommodation they deserve. Nearly 1,000 local Army homes in my area will be brought back into public ownership as a result of that scheme, and I would love to invite the Minister for the Armed Forces to come and see that for himself when his diary allows.
Remembrance is not just about looking back, as so many have said today. It is about reaffirming our present and future commitment to peace, security and community in extremely challenging times. It is also about underlining our unwavering support for our armed forces and our veterans.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Today we remember the courage, sacrifice and unwavering duty of those who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces. As a veteran myself, it is an honour to represent Epsom and Ewell, a constituency with a rich connection to the military, where over 8,000 soldiers trained during the first world war. Our local Royal Engineers, the 135 Geographic Squadron, have been in our community for over 75 years. Our local veterans hub sadly recently lost the last of its world war two veterans, but it continues to support more than 30 men and women. The hub brings veterans together, and I thank all the volunteers for their tireless work.
I was at the local reserve centre at the weekend, and veterans told me stories of their service. Frank Angus will be 100 next March. A lieutenant in the Royal Engineers, he was sent to Norfolk to clear mines from the beaches. He recounted the time he set alight a pile of mines, only to find out when trying to make a hasty getaway that his jeep would not start. At the event, Army chefs cooked up a wonderful curry, despite using a field kitchen. The kitchen in the reserve centre has been out of use for years, and the boiler broke 14 months ago and is still awaiting repair. There is also no overnight accommodation, and yet the squadron frequently stay overnight. Considering that the recent strategic defence review aims to grow the reservists by 20%, I was surprised by the lack of basic maintenance. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that?
Reflecting on the armed forces today, I would like to raise the case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who was found dead in her barracks after a warrant officer pinned her down and tried to kiss her. Female personnel have reported being ignored following incidents of sexual abuse. Can the Government provide assurances that steps have been taken to improve the treatment of females in the armed forces? We also remember the sacrifices of the LGBT+ veterans who served their country yet were treated appallingly, and I ask the Government to ensure that all LGBT+ veterans receive support in applying for the Government’s financial recognition scheme.
The “lab rats”, or nuclear test veterans, have suffered for too long, with health issues lasting for generations. Will the Government meet the nuclear test victim campaigners by Christmas?
Last month I was in Ukraine and saw at first hand the Shahed drones and cluster munitions that Russia is using indiscriminately against the Ukrainians. We met amputees at the Superhumans Centre, including 28-year-old British sailor Eddy Scott.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that personnel who are injured on active duty deserve support and recognition?
Helen Maguire
Yes, I agree that injured personnel require support.
While casevacing casualties from the frontline, Eddy’s vehicle was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and he lost his left arm and leg. The UK and Ukraine are working to establish a strategic health alliance, but that initiative needs £1.2 million and Government support would be instrumental, so will the Minister update the House on the Government’s position?
Civilians never ask to be part of war, yet they bear its greatest costs. I urge all nations to uphold international humanitarian law and to remain steadfast signatories to the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel mines and the convention on cluster munitions. Later this month, the international community will meet at the international conference on explosive weapons in populated areas to strengthen protection for civilians from explosive weapons. No UK Minister is currently due to attend. I urge the UK to play a leading role in implementing these treaties.
Finally, in this House we bear a profound responsibility, including determining whether our armed forces are sent into conflict, so let us today think about why we send our armed forces to war and remember those we have lost, those who are injured and those left behind. We will remember them.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Remembrance is more than a moment of silence. It is more than standing still, heads bowed, to honour those who served and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, and it is more than just a day. It is about how we choose to treat those who remain with us and about the daily choices that we make, as a Government and as a society, about the kind of country that we want to be.
The Royal British Legion has carried that responsibility for over a century. It has been a lifeline for the armed forces community, past and present, and for their families. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, it does that with quiet dedication, year in, year out. We see that commitment in the poppy appeal that is not a small, symbolic effort, but a huge community undertaking. I pay particular tribute to those volunteers who lead and sustain that work across Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, including the poppy appeal organisers, the branch officers and the many collectors who give up their time. They are not paid—they do it out of loyalty and gratitude.
That sense of service runs deep in so many families, including my own, from my family members who have served in all conflicts since world war one to my incredible nephew—I am somewhat biased—who serves today. Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have been privileged to spend time with many more of our serving personnel—helpfully, some of those I am not related to—and what has struck me most is their absolute commitment to one another, to service and to this nation. That same commitment runs through the wider armed forces community.
Last week, I attended a fundraiser organised by the Minister for the Armed Forces for the charity Scotty’s Little Soldiers, which helps the bereaved children and young people of military personnel. It was founded by an extraordinary woman, Nikki Scott, after the death of her husband, Corporal Lee Scott, in 2009. She spoke at length last week about her and her family’s experience, and her words, along with her absolute strength and compassion, have stuck with me ever since. From her very worst moment, she has chosen to serve others, showing that patriotism is found not only on the battlefield, but in the courage to care for those left behind. As Nikki Scott shows us, true patriotism is not loud or boastful. It is not about waving a flag once a year. It is about service before self. It is about caring for one another, honouring our shared values and building a fair country worthy of those who fought, and those who continue to fight, for it.
When veterans struggle to access healthcare or housing, when their families face hardship, or when loneliness creeps into the lives of those who once served, our response as a nation is a test of that patriotism. True remembrance means not only laying wreaths, but laying the foundations of a country that keeps faith with its promises to fairness, to decency and to one another.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
This morning I joined residents, schoolchildren and veterans in Stratford-upon-Avon for our Armistice Day service. Standing together in silence, we reflected on the lives behind the names, and the sacrifices that shaped our community and our shared history, including those of the Royal Observer Corps, established during world war one to spot enemy aircraft and to warn of air raids. I must give thanks to all the branches of the Royal British Legion in my constituency for their tireless community work to ensure that remembrance is kept alive and for giving a voice to ex-service personnel and raising awareness of the challenges they face.
In Stratford-on-Avon, remembrance runs deep. Our towns and villages are full of memorials that tell the story of local men and women, many of them very young, who served with quiet bravery. Two of them were remarkable individuals—Charles Rochford Lousada, born in Stratford-upon-Avon, and Philip Miles, from Tanworth-in-Arden—both of whom served in the Royal Air Force’s photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war. The purpose of the unit was to provide intelligence so that military leaders could strategically plan the actions of the allies.
The PRU flew unarmed Spitfires and Mosquitoes deep into enemy territory, capturing vital intelligence that shaped operations such as D-day and the Dambusters raid. Their missions were so dangerous that only half made it home, yet for decades their story went largely untold. I am proud to support the campaign, spearheaded by the Spitfire AA810 project, for a national memorial to honour those who served in the PRU, including Lousada and Miles. I understand that plans are progressing and that eventually the memorial should stand close to the Churchill War Rooms, where their photographs once guided military strategists and allied leaders. I hope that the PRU memorial will serve as a lasting symbol—a reminder that courage takes many forms.
As Members of this House, we have a duty to protect and uphold the values of freedom, openness and democracy that generations before us fought to defend; we owe it to the men and women who sacrificed so much. That is the true meaning of remembrance: not only to honour those who served, but to carry forward their vision of a fairer, freer and more peaceful world. We will remember them.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Sergeant Archie Schlapobersky, of the 12th Field Squadron of the South African Corps attached to the British 8th Army, fought at Monte Cassino, the bloody battle for Italy. Nearly 12,000 of his fellow South African soldiers—all volunteers—did not survive world war two. Archie became a farmer in Swaziland after the war, and his daughter, who is my wife, remembers him jumping out of an old army truck and lying on the ground, with his arms and hands over his head, when the first aeroplanes flew over the small British African colony. He had what we would now call post-traumatic stress disorder, but that was not widely recognised in soldiers returning from the terrible war.
Squadron Leader Derek Prinsley, my father, was a young doctor who served in East Anglia and the middle east. His war experiences are vividly described in the early chapters of his book, “New Ideas for Old Concerns”. Many airmen were killed and many injured when planes crashed on runways, and he wrote of extracting stricken pilots from the burning planes as if this was normal for young medics. Many of my father’s medical student friends did not return and did not join the NHS as he did when it was founded. He did not speak of it, but he had not forgotten them, I am sure.
The Times today carries the obituary of Monty Felton DFC, who has died at the age of 101. He flew 30 operations as a navigator in a Halifax bomber. Of the 125,000 airmen who flew with Bomber Command, 55,573 were lost. That is 44%—the highest in any branch of our services.
We speak today of remembrance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who spoke in Prime Minister’s questions last week of the AJEX parade. Thousands of Jewish citizens of this country and of the Commonwealth fought in the great conflicts of the last century. The Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women marches each year on the weekend following national remembrance, and I too will march this week with members of my family to honour the 80th anniversary of the end of the war. Monty Felton DFC never missed the parade.
In a small synagogue in Norwich, there is a war memorial. There are 10 names—three sets of brothers. In Vienna, the great cosmopolitan capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire, there is another beautiful synagogue, which survived the war because it is concealed behind a façade of Viennese houses. In the lobby, I saw a memorial to the fallen Jewish soldiers who fought for Austria in the first war. It was unveiled in 1929. Adjacent is a memorial to the thousands of Jewish citizens of Vienna who perished in the Holocaust hardly half a generation later. The juxtaposition is quite chilling.
I am of the generation whose parents fought in the war. Many did not speak of it, and my own father spoke of it only in great old age. It is right that we who are here today speak of it, for this was an heroic generation who fought a war that began with Polish cavalry and ended with nuclear bombs.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Today’s Remembrance Day debate is an important opportunity to pause and reflect—on the sacrifices of generations before us, and on those who have been impacted by war and conflict. The veterans’ community in Wales is widespread. We are a nation with a greater proportion of veterans and people who have experienced service: 4.5% of Wales’s civilian population have served in the armed forces, compared with 3.8% in England.
Supporting our veterans is an important issue in Wales, particularly those carrying trauma, both visible and hidden. One pressing issue facing our veterans is access to financial support for those with medical conditions. Veterans with life-changing service-related injuries should be exempt from repeat disability assessments in future. It is unfair to force people to undergo reassessments for permanent conditions and disabilities in order to access financial support. I therefore urge the UK Government to exempt veterans from disability reassessments.
Research by Age Cymru has suggested that almost one in five veterans in Wales who could be entitled to the armed forces pension are not claiming it. Many veterans are therefore missing out on financial support later in life. As such, I also urge the UK Government to address the issue of unclaimed pensions among the armed forces community in Wales.
Plaid Cymru will continue to support the application of the armed forces covenant to treat veterans in Wales and their families fairly. I ask this Government to look at how the covenant is working in Wales, not only to raise awareness of the covenant and its principles, but to ensure that it is being applied in the interface between reserved and devolved services. We know there are risks that people will fall between the gaps of support services.
We owe it to the generations who have come before us to build a more peaceful and just world. While we live in a period of increasing uncertainty, it is imperative that we support global efforts to resolve conflicts and build peace. Let us strive for a more peaceful world and, in doing so, honour the lives and legacy of those who sacrificed so much for us today. We shall remember them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I associate myself with the eloquent words of the Minister for the Armed Forces, and thank all those in this House who have served for their service.
I am honoured to contribute to today’s debate on behalf of the people of Portsmouth North, including members of the armed forces, as we pause to remember those who gave, and those who will give, their lives in the service of our nation, and to reflect on the continuing cost of conflict and the lasting contribution of our armed forces to our national life.
For me, remembrance is deeply personal. On 23 December 1940, during the second world war, my great-grandad George Hector Coles was killed when German bombers struck his home, 22 Abercrombie Street in Portsmouth, in one of the horrific blitz raids on my city. While families across Britain prepared for Christmas, mine received news that changed them forever. He never saw peace return after that war, and never met his grandchildren, but his sacrifice—like those of so many—echoes through generations and shapes my understanding of what remembrance truly means.
Portsmouth’s role in our nation’s defence cannot be overstated. As the home of His Majesty’s naval base, our city has stood on the frontline time after time. During the second world war, our streets endured 67 bombing raids, with nearly 1,000 lives lost and thousands left homeless, yet Portsmouth never faltered. The courage of dockyard workers, civil defence volunteers and ordinary families across the city exemplifies the spirit we honour today. At the weekend and today, I was proud to lay wreaths at memorials across our city, where the names of Pompey folk stand alongside those who never returned, including so many who were lost at sea with no grave. We owe it to all of them not only to remember, but to uphold the values for which they served—courage, duty, and a belief in a better future.
Remembrance is not only about the past; it is about those who serve today. There are around 4.5 million people in the UK armed forces community, and I am proud to say that my son is one of them. Alongside the Royal British Legion and with the amazing Terry and Denise, I am proud to have sold poppies for many years, and to wear my poppy. I pay tribute to the veterans, veterans’ groups, cadet forces, community organisations and charities across my city who support our armed forces families all the year round.
This year I have been contacted by constituents who would like me to speak specifically about their heroes. They are Leading Writer Kate Elizabeth Arnold; Kathy Cox—known as Katy Newman—who served as a corporal during the civil war in Cyprus; Barry Hynd, who served 30 years in the Army; Christopher John Purcell, who served 20 years in the Royal Navy, including in the Falklands and the Gulf; Graham Street, who served 35 years in the Navy; Corporal Fred Head, a recipient of the Military Medal and bar, who served from 1914 until 1919; and Walter Gabriel McKay, a first and second world war veteran. We must remember them.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This Sunday past, remembrance ceremonies and parades were held in Winchcombe and Bishops Cleeve, joined by Scout groups, cadet forces, armed forces personnel, veterans and members of our various branches of the Royal British Legion. It makes me particularly proud to see so many children of all ages marching with our annual parades, just as I once marched, as a cub scout, to a service at St George’s Church at RAF Halton. For the second time as Tewkesbury’s Member of Parliament, I observed a typically moving service at the abbey, led by the great Reverend Nick Davies, before our small but proud town encircled the cross at the top of Church Street and paid its respects, as it always does with such poignance.
I am certain that the act of remembrance is important for those of us who recognise that most noble of traits: selflessness for the benefit of others. In the case of remembrance, we recognise immense courage, facing down one’s own mortality, to defend against tyranny. However, not everyone feels the same way. Three years ago, after attending a remembrance event in Tewkesbury, I joined the family of a close friend for a drink in a restaurant beside the cross. Three of the younger members of his family felt opposed to the act of remembrance, as I recall, owing to its increasing politicisation and the misconception that it was a celebration of conflict. My friend George Porter invited me to explain to them what it meant to me. I recall stating that remembrance is not a celebration of war; the opposite is true. I told them that when I stand before the cross in the centre of Tewkesbury, or the Cenotaph in Westminster, I will be thinking of seven-year-old Shirley Trenchard.
Shirley was born to Royal Navy Petty Officer (Supply) Charles William Staddon Trenchard in 1935. When war with Germany was declared in 1939, he sailed aboard HMS Illustrious. On 10 January 1941, Illustrious suffered sustained bombardment by German aircraft near Malta, and although she remained afloat, she suffered many casualties. My great-grandfather succumbed to his wounds two days later. I think of his service, and of his sacrifice. I try to imagine his war, and how he might have felt during the bombardment of Illustrious. Mostly, though, I imagine a child learning that her father was not coming home, and I reckon with the cost that that war continues to draw from my grandmother, 84 years later. I think of my own daughter, and I hope that we can spare her that torment.
Finally, let me say to this anyone who would heed the words of a washed-up veteran: try not to judge another person for the presence or absence of a poppy, much less for whether the leaf is turned to face 11 o’clock, or to judge a person for whether he or she wears a white poppy. It is the act of remembering itself that is so important. Lest we forget.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
On Armistice Day, the country pauses to remember all those who died in the service of our country. For 88-year-old Gordon from Whitby, as for so many others who lost a family member, there is no need to pause, because he remembers every single day. Gordon’s older brother, Bob, who was 18, was killed towards the end of the second world war. Just before he died, Bob wrote a letter to Gordon. Gordon has carried that letter in his jacket pocket, close to his heart, ever since.
Last week, I was honoured to meet Gordon at the “Save a Place at the Table” exhibition at Pannett Art Gallery in Whitby, where Bob’s letter had been incorporated into a beautifully embroidered place mat celebrating his life. The long table was set with individual placemats, all commemorating ordinary local people who served our country. Sitting around the table, enjoying tea and cake, were those who had shared their stories and the schoolchildren who were hearing them for the first time. That wonderful community party was the result of a living art project funded by the Arts Council to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day.
As the generation who served in the second world war leave us, we must ensure not only that the yearly pause continues but that, every single day, we strive to better look after our veterans and serving personnel. I am proud that this Labour Government have put our veterans and armed forces at the heart of our policies. For each of the nearly 5,000 veterans living in Scarborough and Whitby, our renewal of the nation’s contract with them will be judged through the improved support we offer in healthcare, housing and employment.
My constituency has a strong and proud military history. Sites such as RAF Fylingdales and GCHQ Scarborough play a crucial role in national security. This weekend, I saw the future of the armed forces at remembrance services, in the cadets who proudly bore standards, stood in line and marched alongside serving personnel and veterans.
My constituent Gordon’s daily act of remembrance is keeping his brother’s letter close to his heart for nearly 80 years. In closing, I put on record my deepest gratitude to all those in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages who have served and continue to serve, and I finish by reflecting on how we might all turn an annual pause into a daily action.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a privilege to be able to stand in today’s debate and pay tribute to those who fought for this country, but that is nothing compared with how humbling it was to stand with veterans this morning and on Sunday in my Taunton and Wellington constituency to consider the massive sacrifices made by veterans and those who died for our country.
At the time of VJ Day, I paid tribute to three photographic reconnaissance unit pilots who lost their lives—two of them from Wellington and one from Taunton. Today, I would like to place on record the memory of Corporal Tom Gaden of the Rifles, who tragically lost his life to an IED in 2009 in the Afghanistan campaign mentioned earlier.
As well as to the veterans, I pay tribute to those who have continued to serve their community, such as Lieutenant Colonel Ray Hall MBE, the president of the Taunton Royal British Legion, and Michael Rose, who recently retired as president of the Wellington Royal British Legion. I also pay thanks to the town of Wellington for maintaining the tradition of holding its remembrance service on the Sunday afternoon, so that the Member of Parliament can attend both of those two massively important events in our calendar.
On Friday, the parents of two serving officers came to my surgery to talk to me about their housing conditions. I was proud to be able to report—on behalf of the whole House, really—that moves have recently been made on improving military service family accommodation. I was privileged to play a small part in that, as our housing spokesperson in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, to secure the decent homes standard for service family accommodation. I warmly welcome the Government’s £9 billion for military housing, and I hope that the single living accommodation review will follow fast on the heels of the service family accommodation promises that have been made.
I also pay tribute to those veterans who continue to live in Taunton and Wellington, who are now perhaps some of the last veterans of the second world war in our communities. I will write to the Minister, because I know she will have a lot to remember for his summing-up speech, but I invite her to wish William Spiller, a former leading aircraftman, a happy 100th birthday for 8 December. When I telephoned him this morning, he asked me why I was bothering with phoning— “Doesn’t everybody text these days?”—and he followed that up by sending me a text. With a spirit like that, I can understand how he and the rest of the RAF defeated the Luftwaffe!
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
As we mark this season of remembrance, I am honoured, on behalf of the people of South East Cornwall, to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces—those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and those who continue to serve our country with courage and pride. The tradition of service runs deep in South East Cornwall. Our ties to HMS Raleigh in Torpoint and His Majesty’s naval base in Devonport, just across the Tamar, mean that the Navy’s presence is woven into our community life. From cadet units in Liskeard, Saltash and Torpoint to the 12 Royal British Legion branches across our constituency, these groups ensure that the stories of sacrifice are never forgotten.
On Sunday, I was proud to stand alongside residents, veterans and representatives from community groups in Lostwithiel at their remembrance service—a powerful reminder of the values of loyalty, discipline and commitment that underpin service. It was also a pleasure to join Liskeard’s festival of remembrance concert. Organised by the Royal British Legion, and supported by the Liskeard community and the local council, it was a real night to remember, with lots of audience participation bringing everyone together to raise much-needed funds.
Remembrance must also mean responsibility, and I know that too many veterans still face delays in mental health support. They struggle to find housing, or encounter barriers when moving into civilian employment, so I warmly welcome the new veterans strategy and our pledge to renew the nation’s contract with our armed forces. For people in South East Cornwall, this means a fair deal on pay and conditions, guaranteed access to decent housing and healthcare, and a clear pathway from service to civilian life. I know what a difference programmes such as Valour and Fortitude will make to individuals and families across South East Cornwall.
South East Cornwall knows that defence is not just about security; it can be an engine for growth, driving innovation and good jobs in communities like mine. Our economic prosperity, our communities and our pride are interwoven with this proud history and a bright future for our armed forces. In South East Cornwall, we wear our poppies with pride, and we thank our armed forces today and every day for their sacrifice—lest we forget.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
There is little more important than for a nation to remember, with poignancy and much reflection, those who won the freedoms that we enjoy today and to look back on our heroes, many of whom laid down their lives so that we might live as we do. Many Members of this House have referred to family members, and it is a common feature that many of us had family members who served. In my case, it was a great-uncle, Sergeant William Mullen of the 9th Battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, who laid down his life on that most awful of days, 1 July 1916, in the battle of the Somme, where thousands of young men—many from the 36th (Ulster) Division and from Irish regiments—were slaughtered.
We have much to think about and be grateful for. In my constituency of North Antrim, one of our war heroes is Robert Quigg, who was awarded the Victoria Cross. The citation for his VC says:
“For most conspicuous bravery. He advanced to the assault with his platoon three times. Early next morning, hearing a rumour that his platoon officer was lying out wounded, he went out seven times to look for him under heavy shell and machine gun fire, each time bringing back a wounded man. The last man he dragged in on a waterproof sheet from within a few yards of the enemy’s wire. He was seven hours engaged in this most gallant work, and finally was so exhausted that he had to give up.”
That was the spirit of unquestioning sacrifice that previous generations brought to this nation.
Of course, in Northern Ireland on Remembrance Day, we also remember the many, many victims of wicked terrorism and are thankful for the service of so many. We think of the more than 700 young soldiers from this side of the Irish sea who gave their lives in Northern Ireland. We think of an equal number of local servicemen and policemen who were butchered by the wicked IRA. Of course, the whole poignancy of that is brought into focus by the fact that it was at a remembrance service that one of the most wicked acts of the IRA ever took place: the Poppy Day massacre in 1987, when 11 people were butchered as they stood to remember those who brought the freedom that we all enjoy. We can never forget.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
It has been a great pleasure to listen to the very powerful tributes paid by Members to their constituents and their constituencies. Nobody can boast as much about the British Army as the Member for East Wiltshire, which is me, because I represent the super-garrison of Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill. I claim the largest number of serving men and women and their families of any constituency in the country, and I am enormously proud to represent them, as I was to stand with many of them at the Tidworth memorial on Sunday.
However, morale among our veterans is not high. The Minister for the Armed Forces made a very powerful statement earlier when he talked about the intensity of the memories held by service people who remember fatal conflict, and about the trauma they retain. I hope that he also recognises how many serving and former service personnel bear the terrible and ineradicable memory of another event, which is the knock on the door from the military police. So many will have to endure that memory forever because of decisions made by successive Governments. As the Minister will know, there are stories of former special forces servicemen being arrested in front of their family at dawn, handcuffed and put in the back of a police van. These very unfortunate events have happened because Governments have allowed the courts to apply a wide interpretation of the European convention on human rights that goes far beyond the measures that have traditionally bound our military in armed conflict, such as the Geneva convention, the Armed Forces Acts, and British military law.
The previous Government made, I think, a very noble effort, particularly in the case of Northern Ireland, to curtail the persecution and prosecution of our troops through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Essentially, it recognised that, because of the decisions that followed the Good Friday agreement, it was impossible to achieve justice for the victims of republican terrorism, so an attempt was made through that Act to achieve some balance. I think more could have been done, but it was better than the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is being brought before the House next week.
The merry-go-round of prosecutions is starting again. Members have powerfully made the case that this is not just about the injustice being perpetrated against our forces; it is about the defence of our country. This Bill will harm the defence of the United Kingdom, because it will directly disincentivise young people from joining up and serving in our armed forces. I implore the Minister, as a brave veteran himself, to put his former comrades ahead of the European convention on human rights, and I hope that he will consider it his duty not to support the Bill next week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I declare an interest, having been a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years of part-time service. Like others, I know what it is like to lose colleagues and loved ones in the name of safety, security, democracy and freedom.
I represent Strangford constituency, where conscription was never needed. In a nation of volunteers, we were always a constituency of volunteers. I know I am not the only person who was so upset to hear on TV last week the 100-year-old veteran question the point of his sacrifice, and the sacrifice of his colleagues. What a chord it struck to know that this man is looking around at the modern-day UK and wondering what it was all for. These are the men and women to whom the flag means something, and for whom loyalty to the Crown was worth shedding blood. They believed that it was worth giving their life for those in their community. They are the generation who went to war because they knew what was needed. They worked hard, they played hard, and they are proud of their history and their heritage. I watched as my community was ravaged by terrorism, and I now see those who protected the community being ravaged by vexatious attempts to rewrite history.
These men and women wonder whether it was worth shedding the blood that was shed. I say: yes, it was worth it. I look at my six grandchildren and believe it was worth it, and that all is not lost. In them is the hope of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which works hard, plays hard, keeps calm and carries on. In them will the stories of war heroes such as Blair Mayne live on. We will teach them that they need not be ashamed of their pride in being British, and need not apologise for being Ulster Scots, or for being who they are. We talk of the greatest generation; we have the potential to build our young people into being the best generation. That is why it was worth it. That is why it is worth this Chamber deciding that the lessons of the world wars and the Holocaust should be taught in every school in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why it is worth this House remembering and celebrating those men and women, and I do so today, along with others who have spoken.
I think of those men and women and I thank God for what they did. I ask God for his help in raising tomorrow’s young people—my grandchildren and yours—so that they are proud to be British, to stand against oppression, and to undertake to be inclusive. We in this House should listen to the veteran Alec Penstone. He served his nation with courage and watched his friends being killed on D-day. We need to restore British values, British justice and British pride. The battle is as essential to the future of this nation as any that we have ever fought. I will fight alongside others for Crown and country, freedom and democracy, justice and liberty, and the future of my children and my grandchildren, and everyone’s grandchildren. We remember the past—of course we do—but we also look to the future, with grateful thanks for the sacrifice that gave us freedom, liberty and democracy. That, we can never forget.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a real privilege to close this debate on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I think we can all agree that it is even more special for falling on Armistice Day.
I place on record my thanks, and the thanks of Conservative Members, to the Royal British Legion, our armed forces personnel and their families. Over this remembrance weekend, they stood in the cold and rain—something I think we all endured this weekend—organised parades, supported services in every community, and ensured that people across the country could remember with dignity and pride. We are grateful for their service—not only this weekend, but every day.
One hundred and seven years ago today, the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The first world war, which was said to be the war to end all wars, came to an end. The cost was unimaginable: millions of men and women never returned, and millions more came home forever changed. Families were torn apart, futures were rewritten, and a generation carried grief that shaped the century that followed. Remembrance is our solemn promise to that sacrifice that we will never forget it. But remembrance is not exclusive. It belongs to all of us. Today, we honour those who served in our armed forces in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth from every nation, every faith and every background. We honour the families who bore the silent burden of fear and separation.
In the past 18 months, we have marked significant milestones in our national history, including the 80th anniversary of D-day, and we once again heard from the extraordinary men and women who served in the second world war, but we all know that that living link to history is fading, and as it fades, our responsibility to carry their stories forward only grows stronger. We do not remember to glorify war; we remember to understand its cost. We remember so that future generations understand why peace matters, and why it must be protected with everything we have. We all know that the world is becoming more volatile, more unpredictable and more dangerous. History teaches us something simple and profound: when nations forget the true price of conflict, they become far more vulnerable to repeating it.
We have heard many strong and heartfelt contributions from Members from across the House, starting with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked about how our armed forces personnel are deployed globally every day of the year, and how they truly represent the best of British. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an issue relating to the Falklands campaign and the Sir Galahad faced by her constituents from the Welsh Guards. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, can shed some light for the hon. Lady.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) talked about the bravery of one of his former units, the special forces, which saved lives in Iraq and other conflicts around the world, and the dangers of lawfare for morale. We heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), whose constituency has been the foundry and beating heart of defence. I pay tribute to her constituents, who really are at the forefront of keeping us safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke powerfully about his time in Afghanistan on Herrick 11. It was heart-wrenching to hear the young ages of his fellow soldiers who lost their lives on that battleground.
We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the 85-foot granite tower that provides a constant and visible reminder to his constituents of the cost of war. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) raised the important point that this time in November, around Remembrance Day, is one of the only times in the calendar that civil society gets the chance to look at the members of our armed forces, and it is imperative that we strengthen the link to the armed forces wherever we can. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about military personnel transitioning into civilian life; I hope that this Parliament can ease that transition as much as possible.
I think we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was decorated in multiple wars. He is an experienced soldier and officer, and I really hope that the Government will listen to his words. We heard brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who, as we all know, is an expert on security and defence matters, and who really enriches debates when he talks about those issues. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and from the hon. Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew).
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is an experienced aviator from the RAF, raised the salient point that remembrance belongs to all of us. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the significant contribution of her countrymen and countrywomen from Northern Ireland. I align myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) about our formidable Gurkha force.
We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) —a fellow south-west MP—who said that defence can be a real engine for growth, and I look forward to working with her on that in this Parliament. Finally, we had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger).
I want to take the last few minutes to raise an important aspect of remembrance that I believe this House must confront more openly. Remembrance must not be limited to the conflicts that are easy to talk about— the ones where history gives us a clean narrative and a clean moral outcome. When we talk about the second world war, the story is instinctively understood: it is democracy and freedom prevailing over fascism and tyranny. Although the human cost was unbearable, the outcome was unambiguous. It is a conflict we can speak about with pride and respect. The challenge for our country going forwards is how we remember with the same respect and dignity conflicts in which the outcome was less clear.
I rarely speak publicly about my service, but now that I am in this House, I feel a responsibility to speak up for my generation of soldiers—friends who were sent to war as a result of decisions made in this House. I believe that the British state needs to talk more openly about the recent conflicts we have asked our young men and women to serve in, including but not limited to Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. These are conflicts without victory parades, without neat endings, and without a universally agreed narrative, and because they are complex, we sometimes avoid speaking about them altogether.
That silence has consequences. There is a growing feeling in parts of the veteran community that I hear when I meet former Royal Marines who served in places such as Northern Ireland and when I speak with those I served alongside in Afghanistan. The feeling can be summed up in two painful questions: “What was it all for?” and “Does my country still have my back?”
As someone who served in Afghanistan during a period that is now under intense legal scrutiny, I cannot pretend that those questions do not sting. I served my country, and I have pride in the way in which we conducted ourselves, yet sometimes it feels as though the country I served now wants to paint me and others like me as something we are not. We risk creating a culture in which those who served feel judged rather than honoured and where stereotypes replace understanding and assumptions replace gratitude. There is a deep and genuine fear among veterans that the nation no longer stands behind them. I know that the Minister responding also served, and I hope that she will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered—from one veteran to another.
I will not turn this remembrance debate into a debate on current politics, but as has been mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members, a letter was written yesterday by nine four-star generals warning about lawfare and its impact on our armed forces. That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Legislation affecting those who served deserves full and open debate in this House.
Most people who join our armed forces do so out of service to our country. We must remember that. Let us be clear that the courage shown in recent conflicts is equal to the courage shown in any war in our national history. The sacrifice is the same. The cost to families is the same. These young men and women went there because this House sent them. They answered the call of Parliament. They put on the uniform knowing the risks. Some returned with life-changing injuries. Too many did not return at all. We must not allow the complexities of a conflict to diminish the honour of those who served. Their courage is defined not by the outcome of a war but by the character they showed when our country asked them to go.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Today we have honoured generations of servicemen and women who have put their lives on the line for their country. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have spoken with such passion and feeling about a subject that I know they value so highly.
On Remembrance Sunday, millions of people come together—ordinary men and women standing in the silent autumn air bound by common values and shared grief, just as they did in November 1921 when the first poppy appeal was launched. Back then, 9 million poppies were sold. Today, over 40 million poppies are distributed each year. That unity is our strength. It is a unity that is reflected in this House today.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces began the debate with a powerful reminder of the 80-year legacy of freedom and prosperity inherited from that greatest of generations who battled the tyranny of Nazism in world war two. We have heard many heartfelt contributions from Members across the House, who stressed how fiercely proud they are of the people who serve in our military and across defence.
I was hugely honoured to represent Defence, alongside Scotland’s First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, at the Stone of Remembrance on Sunday. As I stood there, I felt the same bond of allegiance shared with people across the whole of the UK who had gathered on the 11th hour that day. I thought of my constituency of North East Derbyshire, where every town and village—from Clay Cross to Dronfield and Killamarsh—has at its heart a war memorial with names carved in stone. I thought of my constituent, Corporal Liam Riley, who grew up in Killamarsh and lost his life fighting for our country in Afghanistan. I thought of the time I attended a memorial service when I was at school for Second Lieutenant Jo Dyer, a previous pupil, who was killed in Iraq alongside Corporal Kris O’Neill, Private Eleanor Dlugosz and Kingsman Adam James Smith.
I thought of my own time in uniform. I have attended many different remembrance services over the years. I can recall my first Remembrance Sunday in the Army on exercise in Wales—myself and my fellow young officer cadets pausing from a hectic schedule of platoon attacks to gather in an empty farmyard for a simple drumhead ceremony. Standing there shoulder to shoulder in the Welsh rain, belting out “Bread of Heaven”, I really felt a deeper connection not just to the men and women stood beside me but to all those who had gone before and all who would follow after. I also think of the remembrance event I attended while deployed to Afghanistan, gathered around the memorial in the British embassy in Kabul—that time in the bright sun—to pause and reflect with the sounds of the city all around us.
I will take a quick moment to reflect on the MOD teams who do such vital work to ensure that all those who have fallen in foreign fields and remain missing are traced and brought back home. I know that some colleagues have talked about that. That thread of service runs unbroken through a century of profound change. The young men and women who fought at the Somme could scarcely imagine the nature of conflict today with cyber-warfare, autonomous weapons and operations conducted at the speed of light, yet the fundamental commitment remains constant: to defend our nation and protect our freedoms.
At a time when threats to security are rising, it is incumbent on us all to consider the weight of responsibility on our military and to do what we can to share the burden, no matter how big or small. For example, our reserve and cadet forces perform a vital role connecting defence with wider society. I was particularly proud to see so many cadets doing such a fantastic job at the remembrance events that I attended. They were joined by reservists across the country, who are twice the citizen for giving up their free time to serve the nation in uniform. Indeed, I am hugely humbled in my job to meet such an extraordinary number of people and organisations who do work all year round to support our armed forces and veterans, such as the Royal British Legion and the 40,000 volunteers who sell poppies; the charities that raise critical funds and provide so much support to veterans in the armed forces community; and those who work with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to maintain military graves to the highest of standards all around the world. We thank them all for their outstanding contribution.
I am also proud that yesterday—the day between Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day—we announced our new veterans strategy, which is a milestone in our plans to reset the nation’s contract with the remarkable men and women who have served and ensure that all their service is properly honoured. We will help veterans after their military service is over and support them in key areas like health, housing, employment and justice.
Let me turn to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. and gallant Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke movingly about the marked increase in the number of people attending ceremonies, which I have noticed and recognise. I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for speaking so movingly of her best friend, lost in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke well about the cadet Joshua and the role he played, and the Lord Mayor, Councillor Martin Rowley.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke movingly about the broad spectrum of conflicts, many of the forgotten we have lost, and how we must ensure that we strengthen our armed forces to face the threats of today and tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke movingly of the importance of the support we must give to our veterans regarding housing. Indeed, he also spoke of the harassment of some women in the armed forces, which I take very personally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an important point about representing the Welsh Guards who served on Sir Galahad. We can arrange for her to meet the Minister responsible. The right hon. and gallant Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and indeed the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), referred to the letter by the nine four-star generals. My colleague had offered to meet those generals, and they declined. I reiterate that offer to meet the generals to offer a balanced point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) spoke movingly of her late grandfather and the vital work that her constituency does. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for his moving speech. When he read out the names of those who had fallen in Afghanistan, it brought home the power of how they really do not grow old as we who are left grow old.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) spoke movingly of the stories from his constituency and the importance of remembering all those who have fallen. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) spoke well of his constituent Major Joe Martin, who does such valuable work to support the cadets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) spoke powerfully about the importance of our war memorials and the Erskine charity in her constituency that offers employment support. Again, it was great to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) the powerful story of Margaret Fleming and her family, and of what she lost. I also thank the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for recognising the service of women and men in the wider war effort. That is something that we must always remember.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke powerfully about the importance of historians and of remembering our local, as well as our national, history. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) spoke about the war widows’ service. I have never felt more privileged in this job than when I was able to attend that service and stand alongside so many strong women. And who could forget Lennon and Ruby at the festival of remembrance, walking in memory of their father?
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) spoke very movingly about the Grimsby Chums, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) also spoke movingly about the stories of his constituents, particularly that of the unmarked grave. It was fantastic to hear about the heroic efforts of RAF Biggin Hill from the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) spoke well about Q Central, which I am particularly interested in given my service history.
It was great to hear about the “Pedal to Ypres” fundraiser from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). That is no small distance. I was also particularly proud to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a man of remarkable service. It was fantastic to hear him talk so movingly about the importance of black servicemen and women.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) is a proud voice, speaking about the proud history of service in her constituency. That proud history of service was emulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), with a mere 2,000 years to recognise. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke powerfully about a number of issues. I will, of course, meet her to discuss them; I am sure she appreciates that I cannot go into them now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) spoke movingly about her family and Scotty’s Little Soldiers, which is a fantastic charity. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke well about the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit, whose courage is indeed immense. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for the powerful accounts of the history of his family and for recognising the service of Jewish service personnel.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) spoke well about the importance of Welsh veterans and was a powerful advocate for the importance of supporting those veterans. I take her points on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) spoke movingly about her family history. I know that she is proud of her serving son and a proud advocate for Portsmouth and the Royal Navy.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke movingly about what remembrance is about. As a veteran who has also washed up here, I appreciated his words. They were authentic and heartfelt. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) again spoke movingly and I wish William Spiller a happy 100th birthday for December—by text.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) spoke well of her constituency’s strong links to the armed forces and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) gave a powerful account of Robert Quigg, exemplifying the huge importance of selfless service. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) spoke of his constituency’s huge military presence and the importance of defending veterans, and I note that we are specifically stopping cold calling of veterans. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke well about making sure that the next generation is the best generation. I can wholeheartedly agree with that.
Lastly, I thank the shadow Minister for his heartfelt speech about the lasting impact of world war one. He is also right as a fellow veteran of Afghanistan. I find it quite difficult to speak about that conflict and its wider significance, and I know that it is important that we do.
Today, we have come together to say thank you to those who have served and to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I thank all Members who are here today. They have upheld this House’s proud tradition of honouring the service and sacrifice of our armed forces on the anniversary of Armistice Day. We will always remember them.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), made a statement. During the statement, he said:
“Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.”
He went on to say:
“I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.”
I pressed the Secretary of State on whether the information had been cited by the WASPI women, or whether the information had been cited by the Department for Work and Pensions, and was unable to get a clear answer. However, WASPI women have since contacted me and told me that they provided the report to the court proceedings. The report that was provided by the WASPI women, the Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 434, is called “Attitudes to Pensions: the 2006 Survey” and it was published in 2007.
During the speech in December 2024 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—now the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—announcing that the Government would not be compensating WASPI women, she said that the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
“does not properly take into account…research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]
The numbers about the 90% of women aged 45 to 54 come from the research report that was published. This is a document that the former Secretary of State did not have, according to the current Secretary of State, and therefore new decisions now need to be made and this needs to be looked at again. I am struggling to understand how we can get more information on whether this was indeed the report mentioned, whether the former Secretary of State did have that report, and if she did not have the report, how she was able to quote the report when she made her statement to this House in December 2024.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having given notice of her point of order, and I take it that she has notified both the Secretary of State at the DWP and the former Secretary of State at the DWP of her intention to refer to them in the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker
This, as the hon. Lady will know, is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point very much on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her comments.
Petitions
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 600 of my constituents in Stourport-on-Severn in Wyre Forest whose lives and services are being adversely affected by unwelcome development in the neighbouring Malvern Hills district council. Because Malvern Hills district council has no local plan, the Planning Inspectorate is allowing otherwise refused planning applications to go ahead within the wider reach of Stourport.
The petitioners
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings…and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Stourport-on-Severn,
Declares that the community of Stourport-on-Severn has been severely impacted by excessive building applications on agricultural land; and further declares that the first site which crossed district boundaries was refused by both Wyre Forest and Malvern Hills District Councils but was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, resulting in speculative building applications causing stress to our community and placing severe pressures on our medical, educational and highway resources.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings, Stourport-on-Severn, and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003122]
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This evening I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Hartlepool to register their total opposition to the current council tax system. Council tax is deeply regressive and a tax on deprivation, and it hammers towns like Hartlepool. It simply does not work, not for councils, not for Government and certainly not for the 1,276 people from Hartlepool who signed this public petition. I am proud to present their signatures and their voices here today. They are demanding change, I am demanding change and we must deliver change. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to look into all appropriate measures to fix the broken council tax system to establish a fairer system for residents and local authorities.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Hartlepool,
Declares that the current system of Council Tax is no longer fit for purpose given the substantial variations in property band prices across different local authorities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to look into all appropriate measures to fix the broken council tax system to establish a fairer system for residents and local authorities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003123]
Blood Transfusions during the Falklands War
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the debate we just had in this House on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces, and to have joined the public in marking Remembrance Sunday at St George’s Hall in Liverpool this weekend.
I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on blood transfusions during the Falklands war. The reason I have secured the debate is primarily to tell a story—a rather remarkable story on behalf of one of my constituents, a veteran of the Falklands war. It is the story of blood transfusions that saved his life, but, as he later discovered, came at a profound cost.
My constituent, who prefers to remain anonymous, was a young man with 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment. In 1982, his life was on the cusp of a new chapter —he was engaged to be married—but the outbreak of war put his future on hold. In the early hours of 12 June, during the fierce overnight fighting for Mount Longdon, he was severely wounded. After a 10-hour wait, he was evacuated to the hospital ship SS Uganda.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate, and I spoke to him beforehand. Does he not agree that the story of these British servicemen saved through blood donations from the ARA hospital ship is one of those times when honour in war was demonstrated? Does he not further agree that we must ensure that every man and woman trained to serve under our flag knows the obligations of duty and honour when they wear that noble uniform?
Dan Carden
Absolutely, and I will develop the hon. Gentleman’s points.
To return to the story of my constituent, after that 10-hour delay and his move to the SS Uganda, he recalls waking from surgery to a nurse at his bedside who told him—I am quoting from his own testimony—that he had been
“filled up with Argentine blood”.
At the time, he thought nothing of it. He was simply grateful to be alive, surrounded as he was by those who were more seriously injured and knowing that many of his colleagues were not so lucky. He accepted it and got on with his life. He eventually married in 1985, and he and his wife have just celebrated 40 years of marriage.
However, the consequences of that lifesaving transfusion emerged years later. In 1993, after donating blood, he was diagnosed with hepatitis B. His wife and children were required to undergo preventive vaccinations. Later, he endured a brutal battle with kidney cancer, losing both kidneys and surviving five years on dialysis until a lifesaving transplant in 2017. Throughout that, the question of the origin of his hepatitis B lingered.
Reports about the infected blood scandal back here at home resonated deeply with my constituent, yet he finds himself in a cruel paradox: the Ministry of Defence, the institution he served, has so far refused to even acknowledge the fact that he received Argentine blood, saying only that it does not hold any recorded information related to blood transfusions during the Falklands war. Determined to get to the truth, my constituent began to conduct research into the events surrounding his blood transfusion. I must say, the evidence that he has gathered is astonishing. It includes records, telegrams, photographs and testimonies from all the people involved. That evidence pieces together a timeline of events, which I wish to share with the House tonight.
First, we must understand the logistical reality aboard the SS Uganda prior to my constituent’s injury. On 28 April 1982, the ship took aboard 360 units of blood from the Army blood supply depot at Ascension Island. Records kept by the ship’s crew, and obtained by my constituent, show that by 10 June, after expiries and transfers to other units, the SS Uganda was left with just 46 units of blood.
On 4 June 1982, the senior medical officer of the SS Uganda, Surgeon Captain Andrew Rintoul, met the captain of the Argentine ship Bahía Paraíso. Captain Rintoul’s own written account confirms that the Argentines
“generously offered to supply Uganda if urgently needed”
in accordance with Geneva rules. That urgent need arrived just days later, when the SS Uganda received 160 new British casualties, mainly from the bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad on 8 June. The numbers speak for themselves: how could 46 units possibly treat so many severely wounded patents?
Secondly, we have testimony from the medical professionals involved. From the British side, a senior nursing officer who served aboard the SS Uganda, told my constituent that she was aware that
“some supplies came from the Argentine hospital ships.”
Another former SS Uganda nurse recalls the “unique encounter” with the Bahía Paraíso, stating that blood was obtained from it for British patients.
From the Argentine side, the evidence is even more direct. My constituent has contacted several doctors who were aboard the ARA Bahía Paraíso. The biochemical lieutenant stated that the Argentines provided a considerable number of sachets of blood to the SS Uganda. He said:
“I swore the traditional and ancient Hippocratic oath. For that reason, both you and we treat the wounded regardless of which side they belong to.”
Another Argentine doctor, who physically visited the SS Uganda via the Bahía Paraíso’s Puma AE-506 helicopter, was asked whether English patients received Argentine blood. His answer was simple and definitive:
“Yes, sir, they received Argentine blood. We brought it to them.”
My constituent also managed to contact the sergeant aboard the helicopter, who confirmed:
“On 10 June 1982, we transported 250 litres of blood from hospital ship ARA Bahía Paraíso to hospital ship SS Uganda. We met several times to exchange wounded and medicines—a great example of military medical care in combat.”
In fact, the exchange was commended in Argentine media as part of the 40th anniversary of the war.
My constituent has dozens of photographs showing the Puma AE-506 helicopter landing on the SS Uganda; British and Argentine doctors and crew members together aboard the SS Uganda; and the SS Uganda plaque gifted to ARA Bahía Paraíso in thanks. It is important to state clearly that my constituent holds no ill will towards the medical staff—British or Argentine—who saved his life. He is grateful. They acted under the extreme duress of war, making a humanitarian choice in the best interests of their patients. Yet, that act of salvation also had lifelong consequences for him, and if it happened to him, it is likely that others among the hundreds of casualties treated after that date were similarly exposed. Should there not be an effort to identify and contact those veterans, to ensure that they too are aware?
The exchange between the ARA Bahía Paraíso and SS Uganda is no secret; it is a documented historical event. The evidence provided by my constituent is overwhelming, credible and drawn from multiple sources. All he is asking is that the Ministry of Defence acknowledges what the evidence so compellingly demonstrates. The refusal to do so is a heavy burden for him; it prevents him from achieving closure and, potentially, from seeking the specific recognition and support that may be available to him for a service-related illness.
My ask of the Minister this evening is simple: for the truth to be officially recognised. I urge her to meet my constituent and me to review the extensive dossier of evidence that he has so painstakingly assembled over the years. Then, we may finally recognise what the historical record already shows: that he and others received Argentine blood transfusions on the SS Uganda.
This is about according a veteran the simple dignity of truth. He served his country with great honour. He bore the physical and psychological wounds of that service. The very least he deserves is for his country to look at the facts and acknowledge what happened. I hope the Minister tonight can give him and this House a commitment to do just that.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for raising the case of his constituent. It is rather apt that we are holding this debate on Armistice Day and so soon after Remembrance Sunday, when people the length and breadth of the UK came together to commemorate the fallen. As a veteran myself, I would like to start my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend’s constituent for his years of service to our country, in particular his contribution to the Falklands war and to restoring sovereignty to the people of the Falklands, which came at a huge personal cost. His courage, and the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by all those who served in the Falklands war, shall never be forgotten.
I need to be clear at the outset that I am limited in the extent to which I can go into the particular case of my hon. Friend’s constituent. While the information I have can never undo the harms caused by infected blood, I hope it will provide some measure of reassurance to his constituent that there is a clear route to compensation for members of our armed forces who received infected blood. The infected blood inquiry’s report, which laid bare the details of the national infected blood scandal, explicitly set out that the infected blood compensation scheme includes provision for individuals who received infected blood during armed forces treatment overseas, which includes veterans of the Falklands war.
As I say, no amount of money can undo the damage caused to people’s lives. However, this Government are determined that the infected blood compensation scheme will be there to bring redress to those who have been impacted. It is important to note that the compensation scheme does not have hard cut-off dates for determining whether a person is eligible based on when their infection was acquired and that all evidence will be assessed independently, on the balance of probabilities. While the scheme does acknowledge that screening for hepatitis B was introduced in December 1972, before the start of the Falklands war, it does not preclude claims that demonstrate they fell outside of the screening programme.
In terms of process, the infected blood compensation scheme is delivered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which is the body responsible for handling claims and making payments. The assessments that it makes are based on the scheme’s regulations, and it operates independently of the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments. The authority began making payments to infected people in 2024. Last month, it launched its registration service for those who wish to make a claim. I encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent and any other Falklands veterans who believe they may have been infected through blood transfusion to register with this service.
It is important that I address the issue of veterans’ medical records and acknowledge that historical records from the early 1980s are not up to modern standards and are often incomplete. That should not discourage affected veterans from applying for the infected blood compensation scheme because, I repeat, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will consider all available evidence.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I would like to confirm, in support of what the Minister is saying and the advice she is giving, that the contact I have had with IBCA has been very positive. It seems to want to engage on a personal basis with people who have suffered in this way. The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) really should advise his constituent to take up this offer to engage with the authority; I think he will be pleasantly surprised at the positive response he will get.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.
In relation specifically to blood transfusions aboard SS Uganda during the Falklands war, the MOD has made extensive inquiries and concluded that it does not hold information in relation to these. I reiterate that I am speaking about MOD files rather than other forms of evidence that exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton said. It has also concluded that any detailed information on the source of blood used is unlikely to have been recorded in medical records during this period.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Minister and to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for their guidance. My constituent is frustrated; he has done extensive research, spoken to many people and been able to amass evidence, and I think what he would really appreciate is the Minister committing departmental time and energy to look at some of the evidence that he has acquired.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will come to that point in a moment.
To reiterate, the MOD veterans welfare service supports veterans and their dependants with increasing needs around disability, housing and subsistence, and the war pension scheme is available for service-related injuries and conditions.
When I served, I wanted to know that I would receive the best possible medical treatment for service-related conditions, and I expect the same for those who serve today. I can reassure the House that the UK Defence Medical Services is now a global leader in operational blood management, providing world-class assurance and governance of blood products, including in deployed settings. The centre of defence pathology monitors and evaluates the blood management system to ensure the safety of blood products in deployed settings, including recording full details of the transit, storage and use of every unit of blood. This level of tracking and governance was not in place during the Falklands war, but it is now standard practice.
To conclude, I will summarise the key points. Veterans of the Falklands war are eligible to claim compensation from the infected blood compensation scheme, and there are no hard cut-off dates that would automatically exclude claims based on when an infection was acquired. Evidence will be independently assessed on the balance of probabilities, and incomplete medical records do not automatically disqualify a claim. I would encourage my hon. Friend’s constituent, and any other veterans in a similar position, to register with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s registration service. Of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to talk about the work that he has undertaken and to hear his story.
The sacrifices and service of Falklands veterans like my hon. Friend’s constituent will never be forgotten. This Government are committed to supporting all our veterans. They have served our country with courage and dedication, and they deserve our support in return.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for my first time leading a debate on a statutory instrument. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025, and I will begin by setting out their background. They concern radio equipment, which today includes a wide range of products, including smartphones and many other smart and connected devices.
The radio equipment directive 2014/53/EU continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland maintains dual market access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. In 2021, the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which supplements the radio equipment directive and applies additional essential requirements to certain categories of radio equipment; that came into force on 1 August this year.
The additional essential requirements apply to certain internet-connected radio equipment, such as connectable consumer electronics and smart devices. Radio equipment must be constructed in a way that protects networks, safeguards users’ personal data and privacy, and prevents fraud. In addition, whether internet connected or not, radio equipment that is covered by the EU toys directive, or that is either a childcare device or a device designed to be worn on the body, must also be constructed so that it protects users’ personal data and privacy.
The radio equipment directive was implemented in UK law by the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. Those regulations apply to the whole of the UK, but some provisions apply differently to Northern Ireland. The draft regulations amend the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland to ensure effective implementation of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland, and to enable its enforcement.
Let me explain in more detail how the draft regulations meet their purpose. The 2017 regulations set out essential requirements for radio equipment before it can be placed on the market. The draft regulations add the additional essential requirements mandated in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 to the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland, thereby enabling the relevant authorities to take steps to enforce the delegated regulation.
Manufacturers will need to carry out the appropriate conformity assessment process. The EU recognises three technical standards that address cyber-security requirements for radio equipment that manufacturers may use to demonstrate compliance, but using those specific standards remains voluntary. The 2017 regulations make it an offence to fail to comply with the essential requirements when supplying radio equipment or placing it on the market.
As the draft regulations add to the essential requirements of the 2017 regulations as they apply to Northern Ireland, they extend the scope of an existing offence. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that it considers such an amendment to the scope of existing offences proportionate, and it does not believe that it will have a detrimental effect on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
I assure members of the Committee that enforcement authorities will continue to take a proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement activities, in accordance with the regulators’ code. In almost all cases, we expect that, by working with and supporting business, compliance will be achieved without legal recourse to the use of criminal penalties.
Many UK businesses supply the EU market as well as the UK market, so they have already taken steps to comply with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30. In discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations, my officials have not identified any significant impacts from the draft regulations, as manufacturers and importers in scope of these requirements are generally trading across the UK and the EU, so they will be coming into compliance or have already done so. We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
In addition, manufacturers of CE-marked EU-compliant radio equipment can continue to place those products on the GB market. As is already the case, consumer products that connect to internet or a network placed on the GB market will continue to need to comply with the existing regime of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, which came into effect in April 2024.
Manufacturers in Northern Ireland producing qualifying goods in scope of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 continue to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK internal market, as set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. While we expect the impacts to be limited, we will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market.
Improving cyber-resilience in the UK remains a Government priority, and the Government continue to review the operation of cyber-security regulations applicable in Great Britain. We are looking at further options for securing digital devices, as evidenced by our recent call for views on enterprise-connected devices, and will take into account arrangements in Northern Ireland. The Government also intend to review the operation of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, with an initial post-implementation review to be conducted in 2026.
We are taking steps to support industry to comply with these new requirements. My officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards published a factsheet for businesses earlier this year, providing information on how to comply. The OPSS will also provide further guidance for industry for this instrument.
The statutory instrument enables the effective implementation in Northern Ireland of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. The instrument amends the UK’s 2017 regulations and will enable the EU delegated regulation to be enforced effectively. Implementation and the effective enforcement ensures our compliance with international law, which facilitates Northern Ireland’s continued unique dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. Here we have another egregious example of how my constituents are disenfranchised when it comes to making laws that govern aspects of their lives. All of us in the United Kingdom were subject to the EU regulations on radio equipment through the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark wish to intervene?
Jim Allister
It is only in Northern Ireland, however, that without any consent or consultation, additional laws under the 2022 legislation are going to be enforced.
The basic premise of this House and of a democratic society is that people get a say in the laws that govern them. That is not so for my constituents. These are laws being imposed courtesy of the Windsor framework, which simply decrees that the United Kingdom has abandoned all claim to make laws in over 300 areas, and has subjected itself to imposing whatever laws are made in those areas by a foreign Parliament and a collection of foreign Ministers. That is the absurdity of how my constituents are governed in those 300 areas of law, of which the draft regulations represent but one.
The draft regulations apply to everyday items: the baby alarm in the bedroom down to the living room—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am the Chair of this Committee, not the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. If he wants to intervene, he should do so by rising—if I see him. I was allowing the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim some leeway, but could he keep within the scope of the regulations?
Jim Allister
The scope of the regulations includes baby alarms, the alarms that hang around an elderly person’s neck, and the smartphones in our pockets—any internet-dependent radio device. That is a vast array of things. The upshot is that laws that do not apply in the United Kingdom, and that have not been instigated or approved either by the devolved institutions or by this sovereign Parliament, are to be imposed upon my constituents. Would any Member of this House sit silent if it were their constituents who would be affected? I suggest that they would not; they would think that they were sent here to make the laws that govern them. That is the essence of the matter.
Indeed, this has illustrated just how much in subjection we are. In paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that they did not carry out a consultation. They did not carry out a consultation because a consultation could make no difference. They have signed up to enforcing whatever Brussels wants, not what those they might consult—the people affected—want. The absurdity is illustrated by the Government saying in the explanatory memorandum that they have
“not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instrument’s provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework”.
In other words, “We have to do it. It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not. It doesn’t matter whether those to whom it will be applied like it or not. Just lump it, because we have to do it, courtesy of the Windsor framework.” That is why I began my remarks by talking about the disenfranchising of my constituents, of which this is but another example. Neither this Government nor the last, who put this upon us, ever want to face up to that.
The Government admit that the measure will affect small business. In paragraph 9.3 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that the instrument
“does impact small or micro businesses”,
and add in paragraph 9.4 that
“we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses.”
What are the Government saying? “We can’t help you. Yes, it’s going to have a negative effect on micro and small businesses, but we can’t do anything to help you. Suck it up.” That is no way for a sovereign Government to treat any part of their own country, yet that is the tragedy of how my constituents are being treated.
The Government try to dress it up by saying, “Oh, but you have dual access.” Dual access is a joke. It has not produced one job in Northern Ireland. That has been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but the raw materials we need for anything we want to manufacture have to come through an international customs border, nullifying any effect of dual access. That is no excuse whatsoever, and it is another sorry commentary on any Government that they come before a Committee such as this and plaintively say, “We didn’t write this law. We can’t change this law. We’re just going to impose it on those who had no say whatsoever in it.” That is absurd and wrong.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the relatively new Minister to her first delegated legislation Committee; I am sure there will be many more. It is a great pleasure to see her for the first time in her place.
I welcome the opportunity to address this statutory instrument on behalf of the official Opposition. As the Minister helpfully set out, the instrument gives effect to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland and allows it to be legally enforced. The radio equipment directive requires that the radio equipment sold or used within the EU market must meet what are known as essential requirements. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland remains subject to EU regulations in this area, specifically on radio equipment. The Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 have been amended on numerous occasions, as the Minister will be aware. Today’s instrument makes further amendments to requirements relating to internet-connected radio equipment such as smartphones and fitness trackers.
The Minister alluded to this in her speech, but the Department for Business and Trade states that these regulations enhance cyber-security, and that many businesses are already compliant with the regulations because they export to the EU; therefore, in the Department’s view, there should be no significant impact on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Despite that assessment, let me ask for clarification on two points. The explanatory memorandum says,
“Many UK businesses also supply the EU markets…and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive.”
What estimate does the Minister have of the percentage of radio manufacturers who are likely to be compliant? It would be helpful for colleagues to have an understanding of the progress made already, without this regulation in place. Secondly, will the Minister outline whether the standards are in keeping with those in other international markets, in particular the United States? What assessment has the Department made of the competitiveness of these regulations in relation to those other markets? Other than that, we will not oppose the measure and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his warm welcome and kind words; I look forward to working with him. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for his contribution. As I explained, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of the Commission delegated regulation that applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment. I hope my introductory speech laid out why we are bringing this SI today, the reasons behind it, our intentions and our work with stakeholders and businesses so far, many of whom have already prepared to comply with the new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year.
The shadow Minister asked about the precise percentage. We have worked with the stakeholders and trade associations that have come into compliance. Although I am not able to give a precise percentage today, we will keep him updated, as we are keen to continue discussions with industry stakeholders, including the trade associations. As I mentioned, we have not identified any significant impacts of this instrument, as many businesses have already adapted. Crucially, we expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be limited. He also mentioned the impact of our work with the US and other competitive markets. Again, we will be happy to discuss that further with him.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim will be aware that we remain committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith, and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people in Northern Ireland. We are keen to work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that.
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member spoke for a considerable time, but I will be kind and give way.
Jim Allister
The Minister talks about implementing in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. How can it be in the interests of people to impose laws that they are not consulted about, that they did not make and cannot change? How can that be in anyone’s interest in a democratic society?
Kate Dearden
Regarding this instrument, it is an essential requirement that as products are developed, we ensure that they do not harm networks and that we protect personal data and guard against fraud. As devices become smarter and more connected and embedded in daily life, we have to keep pace with the regulatory framework. That is why this instrument is so important to protect consumers and networks.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim as he makes the case for his constituents. Is the Minister able to set out whether there is practical regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of this SI? What is the practical implication for the principal concern the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituents? Quite often the regulatory alignment remains the same, even if the base legislation for that regulation may derive from different places.
Kate Dearden
There is divergence but little impact in practice, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks. The draft regulations are crucial to ensuring our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I thank the shadow Minister for his support and would be happy to write further to him about competitive states. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and am pleased to commend this SI to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 October, and their purpose is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within their scope, introducing a new equivalents provision and removing Government ships from the scope of the legislative regime.
In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counter-pollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the United Kingdom implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-USA mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thereby opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.
The draft regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations, and will make three changes to the UK’s marine equipment regime. First, they will bring the type approval of ballast water management systems into the scope of the regulations. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organisation requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. Those regulations included the type approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the marine equipment regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.
Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalents provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.
Thirdly, the regulations will remove Government ships from scope of the marine equipment regime. That is due to the broader change in approach to Government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post-EU exit. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that is being done using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. That will facilitate the amendment of the regulations in future if required.
Since the UK’s departure from the EU, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies that are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other Departments and maritime trade organisations. That provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which respondents expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report including responses to comments received.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister is describing a really good example of draft regulations being shaped by responses to a UK consultation. Is that a Brexit benefit?
Keir Mather
Throughout the legislative process, both before and since Brexit, we have always worked hard on a departmental basis to engage with a broad range of stakeholders. We do so through this process as with any other, but if the hon. Member wishes to designate this as a Brexit success, I certainly will not stand in his way.
The MCA issues industry guidance through marine notices to assist the industry in understanding the requirements of the regulations, and new notices will be published alongside the regulations.
I have set out the purpose and scope of the regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, thereby bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring our legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU-exit context. I therefore commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.
Maritime regulations are critical to maintaining high standards at sea and ensuring our compatibility with the many international maritime treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The safety, integrity and reputation of our maritime sector depend on a clear, consistent and modernised regulatory framework. It is therefore essential that our regulatory regime is updated periodically, in line with international standards, not only to ensure compliance but to make certain that it remains workable and effective for those across the industry who rely on it. The shipping and maritime equipment sectors are vital to the UK’s trade and economy, and they deserve a regime that helps them to prosper, innovate and compete on a global scale.
Broadly, as I understand it, the Government’s proposals are technical in nature and introduce only limited changes to the existing regulations. One of the more consequential proposals appears to be the approval regime for ballast water management systems. It may not be a great surprise to the Committee that my expertise does not extend to the finer points of ballast water management, so I defer to the judgment of the industry which, when consulted, indicated its support for the proposed changes, with only minimal comment. Given the lack of concern from those most directly affected, it seems reasonable to conclude that the changes are sensible and proportionate.
I wish to press the Minister on the equivalents provision in the regulations. The provisions allow for the installation of non-UK-approved equipment in certain circumstances. Will the Minister outline whether discussions have taken place with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the expected frequency and scale of such requests? Will he also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be used as a back-door route to circumvent post-Brexit approval requirements, but will instead apply only to genuine case-specific situations, thereby maintaining both the integrity and the safety of our regulatory regime?
I note from the consultation that the MCA has said that the UK’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is expected to provide an additional supply of UK-approved maritime equipment, while offering British manufacturers greater opportunities to export to CPTPP member states. That in itself is a positive development. However, although steps have been taken to maintain co-operation with EU-notified bodies, will the Minister confirm whether there are plans to engage proactively with partners across the Pacific region to ensure that any streamlining or mutual recognition of standards is carried out on a genuinely global basis? Doing so could help to reduce regulatory burdens while strengthening the United Kingdom’s position as a world leader in maritime excellence.
I hope the Minister can provide clarity on those few points so that we can continue to ensure that the UK’s maritime regulations are clear, effective and internationally aligned, and that our maritime industry remains as competitive and innovative as possible in the years ahead.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I put on the record very briefly the Liberal Democrats’ support for the proposed updating and expansion of maritime regulations.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for their contributions to this debate. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said that he supports defending the need to ensure that our regulatory regime in the maritime space is as modern as it can be, both to facilitate UK trade and to ensure the safety of our seafarers. Those are sentiments that we share across the House, and it is great to hear his support for those principles.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked me about discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and the frequency and scale of requests for equipment that lies outside UK production. Wherever possible, we would of course like to see UK equipment being used on UK ships. I am happy to pick up with the MCA the question of the frequency with which it expects that non-UK manufactured equipment will be used on a case-by-case basis. However, it is my view, as a UK Government Minister, that wherever possible, we want to see British equipment being used on British ships.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked me whether the regime, which is meant to be used on a case-by-case basis, will be used not to undermine post-Brexit arrangements, but instead to pursue the safety of our maritime industry. That is absolutely the intention of the regulations. They exist to ensure that wherever possible, we have world-leading equipment in place to protect our seafarers. Modernising the regulations, in the context of leaving the European Union, to ensure that we can continue to work with European allies and to meet our British regulatory obligations is the purpose of the statutory instrument, and it is the modus operandi of what we are seeking to achieve today.
Finally, on the mutual recognition of standards with like-minded nations in the Asia-Pacific and elsewhere, we seek alignment wherever possible on the incredibly high regulatory standards that the United Kingdom seeks to set. Whenever I go on to have discussions with Maritime Ministers from other countries about the notion of regulatory alignment, I will make the case that the UK is a world leader in this space and that, wherever possible, alignment is preferred.
I believe that I have addressed everything that hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, but if not, he can tell me afterwards and I will put it in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Plan for Neighbourhoods Funding
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
Support for Dyslexic Pupils
(1 day, 6 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
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for dyslexic pupils at school.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and hon. Members from across the House for supporting it. I thank all the young dyslexic pupils, their families and the campaigners for their tireless work to raise awareness. They are all such inspirations.
Dyslexia is a neurological difference that affects around one in 10 of us. That is more than 1 million children in classrooms across the UK. It presents in a range of ways and with different degrees of severity. For me, words float on the page—Members may be able to tell that they are doing so at the moment. I struggled with reading, writing and spelling, and I have the reading age of a 12-year-old, so I ask Members to bear with me through this speech.
Dyslexia is not a flaw or something to be ashamed of; that is the most important thing we can take away from the debate. It breaks my heart when I hear young dyslexics say, “I wish I never had it”, “I feel ashamed”, “I felt stupid” or “I will never achieve anything”. Intelligence and poor behaviour are not linked to dyslexia. Being dyslexic just means that one learns and expresses oneself differently. That comes with challenges, but it also often comes with strengths in problem solving, resilience, creativity or practical work. That is my message to all dyslexic young people: they can do anything in life, and it is the job of schools and the Government to help them achieve that.
Unfortunately, support for dyslexic pupils at school is still not where it should be. I have said this before, but in Somerset, chronic underfunding means that support has got worse since when I was at school, despite the hard work of educators. I left school in 2008, and I had more support in school then than there is now. We have gone backwards as a country, and it is not good enough.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on a very important subject. Early diagnosis is key for dyslexic students to access the necessary support and assistive technology, yet as the hon. Member pointed out, 80% of dyslexic children leave school without a formal diagnosis. Does he agree that a universal screening programme could help to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have their needs recognised and talents nurtured by our education system?
Adam Dance
I totally agree, and I will come to that later. The hon. Member has probably seen my ten-minute rule Bill about getting support, and I ask him to sign it.
The biggest problem is identifying dyslexia. Although three children in an average class likely have dyslexia, four in five dyslexic pupils leave school without having their needs properly identified. There is no NHS pathway to diagnosis for dyslexia as it is not a medical condition. That means diagnosis and support is based on a postcode lottery and family income. The average cost of diagnosis is £600, which is unaffordable for too many of my constituents and creates real inequality. Some 90% of dyslexic children in higher-income households are diagnosed compared with 43% in lower-income households. That is not good enough.
If we cannot identify needs, how can we support young dyslexics through education? For those whose needs are identified, it often comes far too late. Even then, the support they need may be unavailable. Our councils are in desperate need of financial support to keep up provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Our brilliant teachers just do not have the appropriate training or proper resources to support all their pupils’ needs. Teachers should not have to learn about dyslexia and work out classroom adjustments in their spare time. They should be supported from day one.
Even simple things just are not available. In this day and age, getting access to assistive technologies such as word processors should not be a challenge, yet the British Dyslexia Association has found that only 18% of dyslexic people reported having access to assistive technology at school. Without support, the classroom becomes inaccessible for dyslexic people. The curriculum is too narrow and not developed with dyslexia properly in mind. Exams such as GSCEs test written ability and recall in timed environments, rather than testing knowledge. That ends up punishing dyslexic people who do not have enough alternative qualification pathways.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
It is an incredibly important subject. I left school before I was 17, and that was the end of my education. I have had a fantastic business career, I have written lots of novels and I am now an MP. That is despite no help at all from the educational system, and society as a whole putting across the message that people such as me at school are not on the same level as more intellectual people. The subject is close to my heart. Does my hon. Friend agree that society should better recognise people such as him and me, to help people get on with their careers?
Adam Dance
I agree with my hon. Friend. The impact is devastating on young dyslexic people’s education and their mental health. We know that 26% of 11-year-olds leave primary school below the expected reading standard. At GCSE, only one in five pupils with dyslexia achieve a grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with over half of pupils without special educational needs.
The British Dyslexia Association’s most recent research found that 70% of young dyslexic people report feeling bad about themselves because of their dyslexia, and that 78% report having experienced people assuming that they are not as clever as others due to their dyslexia. That is not true—we have heard that today in the interventions.
I know that if I had not had the support I had at school, I might have ended up in prison or even taken my own life, like too many others who never get the help they need. Sadly, young people with dyslexia are three times as likely to be suspended from school and twice as likely to be repeatedly absent from school.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
My son is dyslexic, and the statistic that shocked me is that 80% of people with dyslexia leave school without it being diagnosed, and that is the concern—that people will go through life not even realising why they struggle with certain things. Does the hon. Member agree that that needs to change?
Adam Dance
I definitely agree and I thank the hon. Member for her comment.
Young people with dyslexia are also three times as likely to not be in employment, education or training by the age of 16 to 17. Research suggests that about half of people in prison may have dyslexia, compared with one in 10 in the general public. I have heard from people who have come out of prison and found out that they were dyslexic. They realised that had they had the right support, they may not have given up on school and ended up where they were. That tells us all we need to know about the dire consequences of not getting support for dyslexic people.
What can we do? Action is long overdue. We have to make dyslexia and other neurodiversities—such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and dyscalculia—a priority by having a national dyslexic strategy, and a national body for SEND to oversee it. Any changes must start with early identification and teacher training. That is why I proposed my Bill on universal screening and teacher training. The idea is simple: that the Department for Education uses its expertise and resources to work with us all to create a universal screening programme for neurodiversity in primary school-aged children to identify their needs, and to provide statutory guidance on training on neurodiversity in initial teacher training and continuous professional development. The screener can be classroom based and the assessment done in a cost and time-effective way. That will allow teachers to better recognise the signs early.
With better training, teachers can make those all-important in-class adjustments, such as using more visual, auditory and physical aids, as well as offering tailored support. Teachers also need to be taught how to use assistive technologies throughout teaching and assessment. That targeted early intervention can move some children at risk of being adversely impacted by dyslexia to no or low risk. That is important.
More broadly, we need to rethink assessment design, so that assessments focus on measuring understanding, not memory recall or spelling accuracy—and I make many mistakes with spelling—except where essential. That has to start by looking at other forms of assessment beyond exams, and strengthening vocational education. I hope that V-levels will offer some of that. Access to assistive technology must be standard, and how to use it must be properly taught through key stage 2, to support independent learning.
I cannot end without addressing the elephant in the room—the now delayed SEND White Paper. I think the Minister and her team will have heard the fear and anxiety about the reports of cuts, and the real frustrations at the delay. Will the Minister address reports that dyslexic children may lose one-to-one support and extra teaching staff support? If that is the case, I urge the Government to think again. Cutting costs at the expense of young people’s futures is never worth it.
Ultimately, I think we all want the same thing—an inclusive and fair education system that gives young dyslexic people the chance to shine. With the changes I have set out, we can take a big step towards that future. I hope the Minister will take these ideas on board and work with us as the SEND White Paper is finalised. Without the changes, I fear this will be another missed opportunity and an entire generation of dyslexics will be failed by the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call Juliet Campbell.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Butler. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), my co-sponsor of the debate, for his continued support and tireless campaigning on the issue of dyslexia. I rise not only as the Member of Parliament for Broxtowe but also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dyslexia, a group I have been a member of since 2016—some eight years before becoming an MP—and now have the pleasure of chairing.
After my son was diagnosed with dyslexia, I set up a not-for-profit organisation to raise awareness of dyslexia and to train educators in how to identify dyslexia in the classroom, and to offer support to dyslexic children and their parents, which is something that my family did not receive. Sadly, despite that being many years ago, in the UK we are still remiss at early identification of dyslexia. Many children and young people are still not being identified and are still struggling. Too many children go through their childhood feeling disempowered, confused and sad because they do not receive the support, the understanding or recognition of how hard they are working because dyslexia has not been identified.
In the UK, around 10% of the population is dyslexic, yet despite its prevalence, dyslexia remains underdiagnosed and parents often struggle to get their children the support they need. Dyslexic people often face barriers that affect their self-esteem and educational outcomes, result in a loss of the love of learning, reduce their earning potential and mean they are over-represented in the prison system.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that in our children and young people dyslexia frequently co-occurs with other special educational needs like ADHD or developmental language disorders. With fewer than half of education, health and care plans issued on time last year, too often families are left struggling to secure the support they desperately need for their children. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving dyslexic pupils the right support means ensuring access to EHCPs is absolutely essential?
Juliet Campbell
I absolutely agree that the support that young people need is crucial, not just for their education but across and throughout their lives.
The challenges that dyslexic people face should not be an inevitable part of being dyslexic. The British Dyslexia Association’s recent report “Set up for somebody else” was a disheartening read. It identified that 70% of young people said their dyslexia makes them feel bad about themselves; 78% said people assume they are not clever because they are dyslexic; 59% had been bullied or teased about their dyslexia, and 65% hide their dyslexia. It does not stop there. Parental income makes a difference: 90% of young people in high income households are diagnosed, compared with only 43% in the lowest income households; and only 30% of young people in lower income households say the support they receive in school is good, compared with 86% of young people in higher income households.
Embracing the strengths of dyslexia is essential to changing the trajectory of the lives of the current and future generations. People with dyslexia often shine in creativity, problem solving and verbal reasoning, and have excellent entrepreneurial skills. During Dyslexia Awareness Week this year, I called on the Government to introduce a national dyslexia strategy to even the playing field for dyslexic people by reforming the teacher training curriculum so that educators are equipped to recognise and support dyslexic learners; standardising dyslexia identification and interventions across schools; and prioritising early identification and assessments so that tailored support can be given as early as possible in a child’s educational journey. Those steps would help create a more inclusive and effective education system that recognises that neurodiversity can also be a strength.
It is 130 years since Rudolf Berlin coined the term dyslexia, which means “difficulty with words”. In 1970, a report entitled “The Dyslexic Child” identified developmental dyslexia as an issue requiring urgent official attention. In 1972, another scholar argued:
“Preventive and supportive steps taken early are immeasurably more humane and fruitful than attempts to remedy a problem which becomes increasingly complex as the child grows older.”
That is still relevant today. Precise definitions of dyslexia have changed over time, but it is agreed that those with dyslexia struggle to break down words into their smallest constituent parts, making the use of phonics in school close to useless for dyslexic pupils.
It was the last Labour Government who set out how to understand and improve provision for dyslexic children. In 2008, they tasked Sir Jim Rose to lead a review to make recommendations on the identification and teaching of children with dyslexia. In 2009, the final report of the Rose review defined dyslexia as
“a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed.”
It is poignant that Sir Jim Rose provided that clear definition under the last Labour Government, and fitting that this Labour Government should produce the first national dyslexia strategy to take forward what he began back in 2008 and 2009.
Dyslexics face inherent societal inequalities, which fall into four categories: educational attainment, career progression, over-representation in the criminal justice system and proportionately higher use of mental health services. In education, children fare much worse. In the 2023-24 academic year, only 22% of pupils with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia achieved grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with 52% of their peers. A strategy would significantly upgrade the teacher training curriculum, in partnership with universities and unions, so that teachers are properly equipped to teach dyslexic children.
Turning to career progression, it is clear that the 15-year-old Equality Act 2010 has largely failed dyslexics in the workplace. A strategy would outline specific expectations of the public sector and other sectors in terms of what adjustments need to be made, and what difference those adjustments are expected to make, with the opportunity to review.
Our prison system fails to recognise and address the deeply troubling statistic that between 30% and 50% of our prison population are dyslexic, which is way higher than the 10% of the general population who are dyslexic. Dyslexia does not predispose people to crime, but a lack of early support can lead to educational failure, social exclusion and loss of confidence, all of which heighten vulnerability.
Finally, on mental health outcomes, many dyslexic people experience high anxiety and low self-esteem, with many of them also experiencing depression. These outcomes are preventable. With early identification, understanding, adjustments, support, and a culture that supports neurodiversity, we can prevent a lifetime of avoidable emotional, educational and workplace distress.
Those are the reasons why I am calling for a national dyslexia strategy. Such a strategy would call on the Government to set out how they can improve the life chances of dyslexic people, supporting schools and workplaces, and in that way also benefit our health system and our criminal justice system. It would focus on early identification, consistent standards in the classroom, and greater teacher training in kinaesthetic and adaptive teaching methods, and it would ensure that those born with a learning difference are not socially excluded.
This is about investing in our children and young people. I ask the Minister to commit to a national dyslexia strategy, so that we begin the process of changing so many people’s lives. Enabling people to have the best start in life is a key ambition of this Government and I hope the Minister includes dyslexic people in that ambition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I would like to get to the Front-Bench speakers by 12.28 pm, but I do not want to impose a formal time limit yet.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing this important debate.
On a conservative estimate, there are on average three children with dyslexia in every classroom, including in Bath. That is three children in every classroom, or perhaps even more, being let down by our education system, unable to receive the support that they need to learn and succeed.
People with dyslexia are often failed at the very first hurdle: 80% do not receive a diagnosis until after they have left school, and some never receive a diagnosis at all. I am freewheeling slightly here, but I have a suspicion that I am dyslexic. I was never diagnosed; I just always struggled with spelling. Once I had finished bluffing my way through spelling tests in German, which is my mother tongue, English came along and the same thing happened again. All I can say for all those who are dyslexic is that the feeling of being slightly at sea all the time will never go away. For those who manage to get a diagnosis, that is only the starting point. With increasing pressure on school budgets and a lack of teacher training about how best to support neurodiverse children, getting a diagnosis is just the first of many challenges.
Without proper support, children with dyslexia often find themselves falling behind in school, because they struggle to learn at a similar pace to their peers. I was a secondary school teacher, and because teachers have to rush through the curriculum, often there is little opportunity to support children who are struggling. Often all we do is to punish those who have a neurodiverse disposition, rather than supporting them. That absolutely must stop. We must stop punishing young people with dyslexia in the classroom simply because we—including me, when I was a teacher—do not know how to respond to their needs.
Only one in five pupils with dyslexia achieve a grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with more than half their peers. That gap is unacceptable. Far from being a reflection of pupils’ academic ability, it demonstrates that our education system is failing those who need it most. Dyslexia often affects children’s ability to spell, read and write, which are fundamental parts of almost all examinations. As a result, many students struggle to navigate lessons and assessments that have not been adapted to their needs. Identifying dyslexia early in children and offering them support will help to close the attainment gap and ensure that dyslexia is never the reason that a child is prevented from learning.
Dyslexia’s wider impact on a child can be severe. It affects not only academic performance but mental health, which I think is the most important thing for us to concentrate on. For a lot of young people, the sense of humiliation and exclusion that they feel if they are dyslexic and not being properly supported has a severe impact on their mental health. Too many children begin to feel as though they are “stupid” or “dumb” as they fall behind in school. Over time, those difficulties may contribute to more serious mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.
Jamie Oliver is one of many remarkable campaigners who have highlighted the struggles that many dyslexic children face in the education system by powerfully sharing their own experience. For someone to see an experienced, strong, successful businessman almost shuddering as he remembers his time at school, when he faced such humiliation, is so moving. I am proud to have supported him in his campaign and will continue to do so. If anyone is yet to watch his documentary “Jamie’s Dyslexia Revolution”, I strongly advise them to do so. It is a powerful testimony.
To truly support children with dyslexia, the Government must reduce the steps required for an official NHS diagnosis while increasing funding to reduce waiting lists. Both measures would allow dyslexia to be diagnosed earlier. We Liberal Democrats are also pushing for increased training for teachers—as I mentioned, it is essential that classroom practitioners understand where to go with support—so that they can confidently identify and know how best to support all neurodiverse individuals, including those with dyslexia. These steps would ensure that we support every dyslexic child to realise their full potential and stop punishing them.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for leading on this very important issue.
In the short time that I have, I want to give a perspective from Scotland, where the Government state that one in 10 children are dyslexic. I am so glad that we are joined by so many young people—I count 20 or more, which means that perhaps two of them suffer from dyslexia. I am sure that far more of us speaking today have encountered the condition.
Dyslexia is widespread. We have a lot of data, but the gaps are quite wide in Scotland. We know that a boy who is fortunate enough to be diagnosed will be 13 before that happens, and a girl will be 15. That is too little, too late; as the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) mentioned, being identified late in school is no good. We went to school at roughly the same time, although his skincare regime means that he looks a lot younger than I do.
While there is no doubt that dyslexia did not go recognised in our school days, I was shocked to find out from Donna MacLeod of A Dyslexia Life, an advocacy group in my constituency, that young people and their parents, not just in the Western Isles but across Scotland, are still not dealt with properly in Scotland’s schools. Donna MacLeod has not just worked tirelessly to have her own child assessed and supported, but, having witnessed at first hand how the education system can fail pupils, asked for mandatory screening for pupils and mandatory training for teachers in Scotland to recognise dyslexia in younger children. That would come through a dyslexia screening and teacher training Bill in Scotland of the sort that Jamie Oliver campaigns for here; Donna MacLeod would like to complete in Scotland the work that he has started, and for good reason.
As has been pointed out, some 40% of the 70,000-odd schoolchildren in Scotland with dyslexia are not receiving support. Studies by Made By Dyslexia show that 80% of dyslexic children leave school undiagnosed, and only one in 10 teachers have a good understanding of dyslexia. There is clearly a need for change, but in Scotland there is a lottery in the availability of support. While the Scottish Government publish statutory guidance for dealing with dyslexia under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and children with dyslexia are given additional support, there is no mandatory provision. There is support—£200,000 of core funding goes to Dyslexia Scotland to promote free online resources and a professional toolkit for teachers to support dyslexic learners aged three to 18—but Dyslexia Scotland and the Scottish Government both acknowledge that more must be done. Specifically, the Scottish Government must move away from guidance and towards mandatory support.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth MSP, recently wrote to all executive directors of education and children’s services in Scotland, urging them to provide appropriate support for children and young people with dyslexia in schools, but urging and issuing guidance is not enough. The Scottish Government do a lot of that—putting systems in place and thinking the mission is accomplished. Actually, the mission is accomplished only when we measure successful implementation and delivery.
There needs to be far more scrutiny of the work of Dyslexia Scotland and of the work and support that the Scottish Government provide to pupils. It is only with mandatory screening and training that this issue can be properly addressed in Scotland’s schools and schools across the UK, so that many children do not leave school unsupported and still suffering from the effects of dyslexia.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for securing this vital discussion of dyslexia. Dyslexia is an evolving issue, with the definition being discussed as we speak. One in 10 children—more than a million—are potentially dyslexic, but the definition itself is too narrow to address the issue, which we have to work on.
Dyslexia diagnosis is difficult at the best of times, but unfortunately it is even more difficult for some than it is for others. There is real inequality of diagnosis. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, for too many families diagnosis depends not just on the child’s ability, but on the parents’ bank balance. The figures are really stark. Work done by the Sutton Trust and others shows that 90% of dyslexic children in households that earn more than £100,000 have a formal diagnosis, while only 43% in households earning less than £30,000 receive one. The inequality continues even after diagnosis, with just 30% of young people from lower-income households describing the support that they receive at school as “good”, whereas for children from wealthier families, that figure rises to 86%. When private assessments by a specialist teacher cost £540 on average, and by an educational psychologist £720, they are frankly out of reach for too many people. I read something many years ago in which a commentator summed it up very painfully:
“Rich parents have dyslexic children; poor parents have thick children”.
That is something we need to address.
Another issue widens the gap: race. Unfortunately, many children from black, Asian or ethnic minority communities simply do not know what the term dyslexia means. Expert Jannett Morgan notes that more than 80% of young, black British people who are dyslexic are not diagnosed
“until they are in university and are pushed to their limits.”
She has spoken about the burden of labels, such as being black and being female, and asked whether they need “another label” of being dyslexic. We see then how visible and hidden differences together compound disadvantages even further. Early research into neuro- diversity ignored race, and the experiences of many children were written out of the story altogether. That too must be addressed.
As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, studies have shown that approximately 30% of our prison population have dyslexia—the true figure could be as high as 56%—so we need to help our children in order to help ourselves. Our schools also need adequate training resources. Teachers are doing their best, but the truth is that many do not have the capacity to identify and support dyslexic pupils effectively. Special educational needs co-ordinators are often overstretched and provision varies significantly between schools. There are currently no consistent national standards for SENCO training or for the level of support children should receive. Teachers want to help, but without time, funding and specialist guidance, their ability to do so is limited.
We also need more clinical research into tools and aids that actually assist our dyslexic population. I declare my interest here as an optometrist. We have provisions available for children, such as changing background colours, coloured overlays and tinted lenses, and it does work. I have seen grown men crying when, for the first time, they have been able to read to their children. Such measures are really effective, but the evidence is still incomplete. The Government should commission research to identify which tools genuinely make a difference, so that schools can adopt the evidence-based approaches, rather than just relying on anecdote and trial and error.
I am very lucky that in my constituency of Leicester South we have Every Cherry Publishing, which offers a specialist range of books for dyslexic children and adults, bringing classics like “Frankenstein” and “A Christmas Carol”, among other stories, to be enjoyed by people with dyslexia. Their books incorporate senses, signs and images to cater for students. That is the work of educator turned publisher Emma Steel, and these books are changing lives.
The British Dyslexia Association is calling for urgent and practical action. We need a national strategy for dyslexia, universal assessments and screening tools, a national standard for SENCO provision, greater investment in research, and real, sustained support for our schools.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Ms Butler. I thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), not only for his powerful speech drawing on his deep personal experience, but for his steadfast campaigning in this place. He is a strong advocate for children and adults with dyslexia. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) should also be given credit for her fantastic speech, particularly her call for a national dyslexia strategy, which I echo.
When I speak to people in my constituency, often self-employed or small business owners, I am struck by how many are very open about their experiences going through school with an unidentified learning disability, often dyslexia. Many say they felt stupid, and many were actively treated that way, yet what they needed was not dumbing down; it was simple and more inclusive, tailored ways of working. They have gone on to thrive in professions that they have a talent for, which I think shows us two things: that dyslexia does not limit what you can go on to achieve despite how limiting it can feel in a restrictive school environment, and that we as a nation are missing out on a wealth of talent and success if we fail to give children with dyslexia support in their formative years.
The Government’s “Curriculum and Assessment Review” is an important and ambitious step towards ensuring that every young person in this country benefits from a rich education. It is an ambitious, evidence-led piece of work led by Professor Becky Francis, which rightly recognises the importance of equipping young people with the skills and understanding they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world. The review makes it clear that the curriculum must work for all pupils, and not just those who fit neatly within traditional measures of attainment. I confess that I was one of those highly academic schoolchildren, but in a way, that made me more acutely aware that I was in a minority and that much of school life did not inspire my peers in the way it did me.
The review emphasises inclusion, high expectations for all learners, and the need for a coherent system that supports both academic and personal development—principles that I am sure every Member of this House welcomes. However, if we are to truly build a world-class curriculum, it must work for children and young people in all our schools. One area where we can clearly go much further is the experience of those with dyslexia.
As we have heard, one in 10 children in the UK is thought to have dyslexia. For many of them, the difference between thriving and struggling depends not on ability, but crucially on whether their needs are recognised early and supported effectively. While the review refers to special educational needs and disabilities more broadly, it does not explicitly mention dyslexia, and I hope that will be addressed by the Department as it responds to Professor Francis’s findings. We cannot afford to overlook the very real challenges these learners face in a system still too reliant on one-size-fits-all assessments.
Charities like the British Dyslexia Association and Made By Dyslexia are clear that we must strengthen teacher training, ensure early identification and screening, and expand access to assistive technologies that will help pupils to demonstrate their knowledge without being held back by barriers in reading or writing. They also remind us that dyslexic thinking, creativity, problem-solving and innovation are skills our modern economy needs, and that we should celebrate them.
These are not criticisms of the review, but opportunities to build on its work. Its commitment to evidence-based reform, professional development and raising standards aligns perfectly with the goals of improving support for neurodiverse and dyslexic learners. By embedding dyslexia awareness and practical strategies into teacher training and curriculum design, we can ensure that every child is able to access and benefit from the knowledge our curriculum seeks to deliver. I therefore welcome the review’s ambitions and ask the Minister for School Standards to ensure, as I am sure she will, that as implementation begins, the Department works closely with charities, schools and experts to ensure that inclusion is not just a noble principle, but the lived reality in every classroom.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing this debate. I thank them for their excellent speeches, and I echo their calls for a national dyslexia strategy.
Within six weeks of starting primary school, pupils are tested on their literacy, communication and maths ability, and they are pushed to meet the expected standard in phonics by the end of year 1. Those who fail are pushed in year 2 and re-tested at the end of that year. This pressure, and thoughtless comments by staff or pupils, can make a dyslexic child feel stupid or thick because they struggle to read and write, but they are not; they are different.
My constituent Neil contacted me earlier this year about improving SEND provision, giving the example of his dyslexic 15-year-old daughter, Lucy. He told me that Lucy will leave school with,
“low self-esteem and low expectations, because the world will judge her based on her grades. She will assume that there are just things that are not within her capability.”
That is shocking. Our education system must do better than that. If a child is not diagnosed at an early stage, support is not put in place and students struggle further—albeit we know from Lucy’s experience that even pupils who have been diagnosed with dyslexia do not always get the support they need. They then go on to sit their exams, often remaining undiagnosed, and as we have heard, only one in five dyslexic pupils achieves grade 5 or above in English and maths. As they move into sixth form, they are then further impeded in their sixth form studies because they have to resit English and/or maths.
Neil told me this morning that Lucy is sitting two mock exams today, and that she was extremely distressed at the mere thought of going through such a stressful process. I am sure colleagues will join me in wishing Lucy the best of luck today, and in all her exams. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to give dyslexic pupils a fair chance in the assessment process? Will she update us on the steps the Government will take to improve reasonable adjustments for pupils in exams? If we make early diagnosis the norm, we will not only give children more support in the classroom but boost their educational attainment.
Teachers too need support to be able to spot the signs of dyslexia from an early stage, and to support dyslexic pupils in their classroom. Neil told me that his wife spends a lot of time emailing Lucy’s teachers to give them constructive feedback on how a dyslexic student learns. No parent should be expected to bear that additional burden, nor should teachers for that matter. What will the Government do to support teachers and better equip them to support dyslexic pupils? I discovered that the Government do not publish data on levels of dyslexia among school-age children, so we do not actually know the full scale of the problem. Will the Minister commit today to exploring this option further?
We have heard that many dyslexic people lead successful lives—famously, Richard Branson, Jamie Oliver and Zoë Wanamaker, to name but three—but too many do not. Somewhere between three and five in 10 prisoners have dyslexia, compared with one in 10 in the population as a whole. We see from the many entrepreneurs and brilliant artists that dyslexic people have valuable skills to share. We need an education system that identifies dyslexic pupils early and supports their learning, so that they all have the chance to succeed in life.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What a privilege it is to serve under you today, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for introducing this debate, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell).
As others have noted, dyslexia affects around 10% of the UK population, with 4% experiencing severe dyslexia. Up to 80% of children with the condition leave school without a diagnosis or the support they need to reach their full potential. When I was at school, dyslexia was understood even less than it is now. I was one of those kids who took a long time to progress through English. Some people might not be surprised to hear that it took me three attempts to pass my O-grade English, which was Scotland’s equivalent of O-level English. It was not until I became a university lecturer and encountered kids with a proper diagnosis that I started to understand the condition and how it affected me. I developed coping strategies that enabled me to try to sit my higher English at evening college. I did succeed, but it was not a journey I entirely enjoyed.
As a university lecturer, I met students who had been really well supported at school, and that had helped them to reach their full potential. I taught civil engineering, a subject that often attracted students with good mathematical skills but perhaps not the best English skills. I also encountered students who had not been diagnosed at school, and it was not until their first set of exams that they started to be flagged as needing extra support.
Adam Dance
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone with dyslexia has not been identified and fails English at GCSE level, and then has to go to college and retake it, that puts them off going to university? It certainly put me off.
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. Particularly if the condition is not understood, they just assume—let us face it—that they are not the smartest kid in the class, whereas often the opposite is true. Through working with dyslexic students in my job as a lecturer, I know they are often real problem solvers, as we have heard, and systems thinkers able to see the bigger picture. Once they had a diagnosis, we were able to support them in their studies.
I worked in the sector for a long time. I started lecturing in the late ’90s, and when staff back then discussed dyslexia we had spectacularly uninformed debates about the condition. I remember one well-intentioned colleague talking about his hope that a student could shake off dyslexia by the time they left university. If only that had been possible, that lecturer would be world renowned by now. He is still a great person, though.
In Edinburgh we are lucky to have organisations such as HealthCare in Mind stepping in to help parents in Edinburgh South West to secure a recognised diagnosis, so that their children can finally access the support they deserve. But receiving a diagnosis and the associated help should not be down to a postcode lottery. It should come early enough in a child’s life to allow them to adapt their style of learning and make the most of their school experience.
A recent survey by Dyslexia Scotland showed that dyslexia is still widely misunderstood. Many parents, and I dare say some teachers, still think it is something that children can grow out of, that it affects only boys, that it is about eyesight, or that children can overcome it if they just try harder.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not the case that people just become better at bluffing and finding coping strategies? But that does not really deal with the dyslexia.
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. I became very good at avoiding being given the pen to write on the whiteboard at school, and that was a coping strategy.
As we have heard, at the heart of the differences in diagnosis is a real inequality. We are all here, from all parties, to reduce inequality, and it makes absolute sense to focus that lens on dyslexia. We have a duty to try to bring justice for everyone affected by dyslexia.
I am proud that researchers from the University of Edinburgh are leading groundbreaking work to help to us better understand and identify dyslexia at an early stage. The university’s recent study involved over 1.2 million people—probably people from the constituencies of everyone here today—and identified 36 new gene regions linked to dyslexia, confirming it as a neurodevelopmental brain difference.
I hope that the confirmation of dyslexia’s biological basis can help to reduce the stigma, alongside fantastic campaigns like Dyslexia Scotland’s “Busting myths” initiative. By challenging the stigma, equipping educators and supporting young people early, we can ensure that children with dyslexia are not left behind. By understanding early intervention and proper support, we can transform thousands of young lives throughout the UK and help them to reach their full potential.
I want to end by talking about strategies. The idea of agreeing today to take forward a strategy is fantastic, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for proposing it. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), we have a strategy in Scotland, but when we compare what is happening in Scotland, where we have is a strategy, with what is happening in England, where we do not, there is not a substantial difference. If we are going to agree a strategy, we have to ensure that it is properly funded and that there is real accountability for ourselves, for parents and, most particularly, for young people, to make sure they get the maximum benefit from it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than personal stories, and both Members gave us their thoughts on where we should be. By doing so, they inspire others out there who have dyslexia, and perhaps other issues, who can maybe say to themselves, “If he or she can do that, perhaps I can do the same.” I know that is the ambition of both Members and hope it will be the case.
I am pretty sure I am the oldest person present; I can look back to the early ’60s as a child at Ballywalter primary school. I remember it well. The boys all tended to play together and the girls played together—maybe that was the way it was back in those days—and there were young boys who definitely had issues. I never knew what they were and never once understood their problems, but I do understand that they had some of the symptoms of dyslexia, and perhaps other things as well. Looking back, I do not think anybody knew what dyslexia, autism or any other issues were. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) referred to people saying, “They’ll grow out of it”—I heard those words often from the teachers—but they did not.
I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do in these debates, because it adds to the information and helps the Minster—who has no responsibility at all for Northern Ireland—to understand what we have there. The issue of dyslexia impacts every region of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland does not fall under the direct remit of the Department for Education, sharing information and best practice is vital to ensure that we arm those with dyslexia to fight their way to their chosen career, without the limitation of how they learn affecting their outcomes. The fact is—we all believe this—that they can achieve their goals and job expectations. That is what education should and must do.
In Northern Ireland, studies suggest that unfortunately some 25% of pupils may have some form of dyslexic-type difficulty, while around 10% require additional support. Similar to what others have said, in the 2020-21 school year, over 9,300 children in Northern Ireland were officially listed as having dyslexia or specific literacy difficulties.
The way we view dyslexia has changed massively in recent years, and that is good news. They know what it is now. They did not know when I was at school, back in the ’60s and early ’70s, but it is good news that they know now. Dyslexia is no longer a barrier to education, but we must see it as a different route within education so that people can achieve. This debate is about how that happens, and how they do it here on the mainland.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referred to Jamie Oliver and his event in the Churchill Room; just listen to the story he told and the success he has had. It is not just him; we should look at Lord Sugar and Richard Branson, who are very successful businessmen. Holly Willoughby is successful as a presenter, as is Keira Knightley as an actress. Even our own Princess Beatrice, who delivers speeches so beautifully, speaks eloquently on this issue. When we look at the examples of those who have done well, we must say, “If they can do it, then I’ll tell you what: we can do it as well!” We can see that there is no barrier—and there should be no barrier—to success when we give children the tools to their own learning to help them to succeed and achieve.
It is important to focus on early support and intervention. When it comes to dyslexia, identifying the signs early can make a world of difference. By spotting indicators early, we can create the tailored pathways that help children to thrive in their education and personal development. A bit more time spent now will help them to achieve their dreams and goals. This can and must happen.
I wish the Minister well in responding to the debate. I do not doubt for one second her commitment to try to do better. Schools also need support. Reading recovery schemes are essential, as is ensuring that early years teachers can spot the signs and signpost for assessment and help. The earlier we can spot the need, the easier the intervention will be. The hopes are that by high school time, the child will understand their needs and get support, ranging from a scribe to simply getting their tests on a different kind of paper—something so small can make a big difference.
I conclude with this, Ms Butler, because that cough of yours is getting worse—I say that very kindly. [Laughter.] Schools need the funding and expertise to get the tools right for each child, and that can come only with a confident system in place. We all look to the Minister to provide guidance and support for schools; will she also share that with us in Northern Ireland?
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate. He has raised the topic consistently and I know it is personally very important to him, as well as to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell).
As we have heard, dyslexia is a common, lifelong difference in how a person processes language that affects reading, writing and spelling, but not intelligence. In fact, many people with dyslexia excel at creative thinking, problem solving and seeing patterns that others miss. As we have heard, it is estimated that up to one in 10 people in the UK are dyslexic—this is not a rare condition—yet too often the system treats those strengths as an afterthought.
Families wait months, sometimes years, for an assessment; in the meantime, children are told to try harder, when what they need are simple, evidence-based adjustments. Teachers do their absolute best, but without the training and resources to confidently support different styles of learning, provision can become a postcode lottery, and school budgets that are already stretched leave little room for specialist staff, assistive tools and the protected time that inclusion requires.
For many, diagnosis comes too late. If a child is not diagnosed early, they can find they are already years behind other students when it comes to reading and writing. Early identification and practical support can change the trajectory of a child’s education and their life beyond school.
What should we do? First, we must put early identification at the heart of special educational need interventions. That means streamlining NHS processes so that families are not stuck before support need is recognised. It means investing to reduce waiting lists—constituents of mine in Frome and East Somerset struggle to get timely diagnoses. Crucially, it also means empowering schools to implement reasonable adjustments at the first signs of need, without forcing children to wait for a piece of paper before help arrives.
Secondly, we need to equip teachers and schools to include every child, every day. That starts with initial teacher training and continuous professional development that is practical, hands-on and focused on what works for dyslexia in real classrooms. It continues with a national inclusion framework, so that every school has a clear, evidence-based blueprint for inclusive practice. It includes a national parental participation strategy, recognising that families are experts in their children and must be partners from the start, not last-minute consultees.
We must also strengthen the role of the SENDCO. They should sit on senior leadership teams and have protected time to do their work. They are the bridge between strategy and practice, and they cannot do their job effectively if they spread impossibly thin. We should reform Ofsted so that inspections look seriously at inclusive provision, not just exam results. Inclusion is not a footnote: it is the mark of a great school that every learner is seen, supported and stretched.
Thirdly, we should normalise simple adjustments and assistive technology. This is not about lowering standards; it is about measuring understanding, not just handwriting speed. Coloured overlays or paper, clear fonts, chunked instructions, alternatives to copying from the board, text-to-speech and speech-to-text tools—that is incredibly difficult to say—help students to access the curriculum and express what they know.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I used to be a teacher, and I know from my own practice that many of the measures that were originally introduced to support students with special educational needs, including dyslexia, actually support all children to learn better in the classroom. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need much more focus on inclusive teaching practice, because that will support everyone in the classroom, including, most importantly, those with additional needs?
Anna Sabine
As a parent of children who are not dyslexic but had other ways of learning, which were well supported in schools, and as someone who recognised later in life that I had different ways of learning and would have benefited from different and inclusive practices, I totally agree. It would have helped me to say the words “text to speech” as well. As the hon. Member said, adjustments can benefit many learners, not just those with a diagnosis.
We can use artificial intelligence to help us to create text that those with dyslexia can use. A constituent of mine from Peasedown St John told me last week that she has an older child with dyslexia, who was diagnosed later in childhood and is now suffering from a lack of age-appropriate resources. He enjoys “The Legend of Zelda” computer games, so my constituent asked AI to write a story based on that for a person of his age with dyslexia with his characteristics. She said it was the first time he has been able to read something he is really interested and engaged in. AI can be a tool to allow a whole new group of people to access something they never normally would.
We must make sure there is a fair deal for families. Too many parents feel that they must fight the system to secure basic support. A parental participation strategy should set out clear points of contact, transparent timelines, and co-produced plans that follow the child through school and into further education or apprenticeships. Families should not need to be experts in bureaucracy just to get their child the help that they need.
To achieve the changes that I have set out, we need to work cross-party—I am pleased to hear the cross-party consensus today—and with families, educators and employers. The result would be a system that sees every child, supports every learner, and opens the door to a lifetime of contribution and success.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Conservative party on support for dyslexic pupils at school. I congratulate the hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) on securing such an important debate.
Probably every family in the country has been touched by dyslexia, and mine is no different. The personal experiences described today have been powerful, and it is right that they should inform our work as MPs, as well any future Government policy. The themes that we have discussed today—diagnosis, the curriculum, training and support for teachers, the life chances of people with dyslexia—were well covered in the contributions from Members on all sides. Those who spoke about their own dyslexia are not only great role models but evidence—as if it were needed—that dyslexia is certainly not at all about intelligence. I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her work with people with dyslexia before she was elected to this place.
Reforming SEND is one of the most pressing challenges facing our education system. I can see in my constituency, and it has been proven in this debate, that there is serious strain across the country. The Education Secretary has previously said that she
“won’t shy away from what’s difficult and long term”
when it comes to SEND reform, and that “there is no responsibility” that she takes more seriously than that task. Those are welcome words, and we await the proposals from the Government.
Ministers originally promised a SEND White Paper for this autumn, but it has been broadened into a fuller schools White Paper, and it will not be published until next year. I do not want to overdo it on that matter, because it is obviously a complex issue, and we do not want anybody to rush ahead with the wrong policies, but we would like there to be time for the Government’s proposals to be thoroughly studied. I hope that Members from across the House will have the opportunity to work constructively with Ministers to get the best possible outcomes for children with SEND.
It is an issue that has been growing for quite some time. We have seen a massive increase in demand for EHCPs—up 140% since 2015. In January 2024, there were more than half a million children with EHCPs. SEND support in schools is now being given to well over 1.1 million children, which is a 14% rise since 2015. A National Audit Office report shows that there is a significant gap between funding and spending for SEND, growing to around £3.4 billion by 2027-28. Data also shows that two in five councils will be at risk of financial failure by 2028-29 without intervention from central Government.
Dyslexia affects people in all our constituencies, and we have heard it said today that it affects one in 10 people across the country. The British Dyslexia Association found that 80% of people believe they are not clever because they have dyslexia, and 70% say it makes them feel bad about themselves. It affects children’s self-confidence and self-worth, as much as what and how they learn, which demonstrates the sensitivity and care that we must take on this issue. We have heard some stories about teachers and those in positions of authority who have got things wrong in the past. As the hon. Member for Yeovil said, there is no relationship between dyslexia and intelligence or behaviour, and people with dyslexia learn resilience and important problem-solving skills.
Most worrying are the disparities in how people with dyslexia are diagnosed. Some 90% of dyslexic children in households with an annual income of over £100,000 receive a diagnosis, but as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) said, the figure is closer to 43% for dyslexic children in households with an annual income below £30,000. Although a diagnosis does not guarantee an EHCP, it can at least help parents and teachers to understand a child’s condition better and find the most effective ways to support them.
There is certainly a case to be made for rethinking how we teach the curriculum to children with dyslexia, and how we organise their classrooms and structure their time. We must also explore the best teaching tools available, as many Members have noted. Most of all, we need to get a grip on diagnosis. Clearly, there are parents who can afford to go private to find out whether their child has dyslexia, but that option is just not there for many families, and I encourage the Minister to discuss that problem with her counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to help to resolve that inequality.
There is no reason why a child with dyslexia should not have the best possible start in life. We are not talking about how smart a child is but about overcoming the obstacles to their learning and development. Going through this journey will shape who they later become as adults. That raises another issue about how education and health cannot be viewed separately or in isolation. As many as 54% of people with a learning disability have a mental health problem, according to the Mental Health Foundation.
EHCPs sought to bind education and health together for that reason. There are difficulties and much more progress to be made with EHCPs, but remarks made by the Education Secretary and by Christine Lenehan, who is the Government’s SEND adviser, have sparked some concern among parents. Christine Lenehan has said she is
“considering whether EHCPs are the right vehicle to go forward.”
We have yet to see what the White Paper will say about the future of EHCPs, so perhaps the Minister can give parents more certainty.
This debate has been highly informative and fruitful, and it has helped us all to understand better the challenges faced by children with dyslexia and the broader reform agenda that should best help them in their education. As I have said before about SEND more generally and about children’s social care, some things are far bigger than politics and party politics. When Ministers are ready to put forward their plans for the future of SEND, I hope that serious attention will be given to children with dyslexia, taking on board what has been said today and what parents and teachers across the country believe we need to do to help future generations of children.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, and inform her that I would like to allow two minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Yeovil to wind up.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am sure you will cough at the appropriate time if I am going on.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate. As others have said, they are both really important champions on this issue. The hon. Member for Broxtowe has huge experience from their previous life in training teachers and parents, and they have brought that into their work for the APPG. Since I have had the privilege of taking on this role, I have seen the hon. Member for Yeovil at almost every debate, which I think says something about their passion. The way that they speak about their own experience and the challenges they have overcome is inspiring for many young people. As we have heard from many across the Chamber, dyslexic people and parents of dyslexic children are important voices in the debate, and this place is stronger as a result.
I appreciate the constructive tone of everyone in the Chamber. As has been said, this is a critical issue for many young people around the country. In my own experience as a council leader, I have seen the huge challenges in the system and am deeply motivated to change it. We are not waiting for the schools White Paper: interventions are already happening to support the SEND system. Mention was made of Ofsted; changes to include inspection on inclusion are already happening. Changes are being made to teacher training to help teachers support young people with SEND, in particular on adaptive teaching. We have invested an extra £1 billion this financial year into the high-needs block and an extra £740 million into specialist places across the system. Those changes are happening, but we recognise the need for wider reform. I support the desire to work cross-party and we wish to hear from Members across the House to help us shape those proposals and to scrutinise them as we go forward.
On the issue of dyslexia, which Members spoke about powerfully, recently I attended a parliamentary reception hosted by the British Dyslexia Association, where we heard some of the stark research referred to in the debate. The statistic that stays with me is the 70% of children and young people who feel bad about themselves because of their dyslexia. Earlier, we heard a powerful story about Lucy and her experiences. At the event, I spoke about my dad’s experience. He was severely dyslexic and failed his 11-plus, later leaving school with only one A-level. He talked to me about how he felt like a failure at school, but he was one of the most creative and brilliant people I have known.
I have heard from too many young people who still feel that same way so many years on—that sense, which someone described as humiliation, that they are not good enough and that their huge creativity and contributions are not recognised. That has to change. This debate and the ideas we have heard are important within that. On Thursday, I will visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who was present earlier, where the British Dyslexia Association is based, to meet young people to hear their experience, to feed into the White Paper. As I said, however, we are not waiting and work is already happening to improve things on dyslexia while we look at the wider reforms.
I want to start with the focus on reading that we heard about, and on identifying needs around reading. Many MPs talked about early identification, which is vital. We heard about phonics and some of the great successes with that: 80% of young people pass their phonics screening checks, but 20% of young people do not. Putting in more support and intervention for those young people is a key priority for us. In the curriculum assessment review response, we set out a new reading test for all pupils in year 8. That is focused on identifying young people who are struggling at key stage 3, because given some of the statistics, by the time we get to GCSEs, it is too late.
Adam Dance
On reading, does the Minister agree that teaching assistants are vital? Without teaching assistants, I would not have got through education. To this day, if someone gives me a book to read, it daunts me; I have probably only ever read one or two books to the end in my whole life, because it takes me so much time. Does she agree that teaching assistants are important to help with reading?
Georgia Gould
I do agree. Teaching assistants play a vital role in supporting children with special educational needs, which can include reading, and there is good evidence that that support is working. Today, we have heard about some of the huge challenges, but I want to mention a school I visited in Amber Valley, which had brilliant support for young people struggling with reading.
I spoke to a child who said that, in the transition into year 7, he had had the reading age of a four or a five-year-old. He talked about trying to access the curriculum, but getting increasingly frustrated and not listening. The school had put in place a small nurture group, focused on supporting young people with reading, with a range of children—some had dyslexia and some did not. He is now 14, and that extra support and intervention means that he is fully accessing the curriculum and thriving. That was a teacher-led intervention.
Wera Hobhouse
We must also not forget that there is so much pleasure from reading, when we can read. Not to take away from attainment, but people receive a whole world of pleasure from reading and we should not forget that.
Georgia Gould
I could not agree more. As the daughter of a publisher, that was very much the mantra that I was brought up on. Reading gives us access to so many different worlds and brings so much joy; the Government are taking forward the National Year of Reading to inspire young people to enjoy reading, as well as accessing the full curriculum. That is why we are strengthening existing programmes and introducing new ones to ensure that all children can secure the essential skills of reading and writing.
I have talked about phonics; in the academic year 2024 to 2025 the Government launched a new Reading Ambition for All training programme for primary school teachers. The programme aims to improve reading outcomes for children who need additional support, including those with dyslexia, drawing on the latest research about how children learn to read and the effective approaches to teaching those who need specific adaptions. Following its pilot year, we are now working with the British Dyslexia Association to refine the programme to further support children with dyslexia. We expect the new programme to reach more than 600 schools.
The Government’s reading framework, which was updated in 2023, includes guidance on teaching reading to pupils with additional learning needs and offers guidance for schools on providing pupils with timely, focused support related to their needs. We are also working on a writing framework. Those who saw the curriculum assessment review will have seen the focus on oracy within it and the links between reading, writing and speaking.
The Government’s Reading Ambition for All programme is delivered by our 34 English hubs. It was launched in 2018 and builds on the work of the last Government. Those English hubs are dedicated to improving the teaching of reading, with a focus on supporting children who are making the slowest progress in reading, many of who come from disadvantaged backgrounds—as we have heard today. Those hubs are outstanding at teaching early reading. Since its launch, the English hubs programme has provided targeted support to over 3,000 schools across England. This year, the English hubs are delivering intensive support to over 1,200 partner schools, reaching over 140,000 pupils in reception and year 1. Some £26.6 million has been committed for the English hubs programme this academic year. We know how important the transition from primary to secondary is and that is a key area of focus for support.
Today’s debate has focused on early identification, intervention and the importance of early support. We know how critical that is for outcomes. The SEND code of practice makes it clear that meeting the needs of children with SEN should not require a diagnostic label. We want teachers to be able to offer support at the earliest possible point and where it is needed regardless. In an inclusive education system, settings should be confident in accurately assessing children’s and young people’s learning and development and meeting their educational needs with evidence-informed responses. We have had a good discussion about some of the areas where the evidence is strong, but also areas where we need to see more evidence, including around assistive technology. I welcome the focus on evidence and research, which is something that the Government are committed to.
Recently published evidence reviews from University College London will help to drive inclusive practice. It highlights what the best available evidence suggests along with the most effective tools, strategies and approaches for teachers and other relevant staff in mainstream settings to identify and support children and young people with different types of needs. The What Works in SEND research programme, led by a research team from the University of Warwick and supported by SEND academics from the University of Birmingham, is researching tools that settings can use to identify the needs of neurodivergent children and young people.
In closing, the depth and thoughtfulness of this debate has been incredibly important. As we look to reform the special educational needs system, I hope to discuss all these issues further. I am meeting the hon. Member for Yeovil tomorrow, and I hope we can have further conversations about some of the ideas that were set out today. As we move towards publication of the White Paper, which sets out a broader strategy for young people with special educational needs, I hope that it will build on the important issues raised today about teacher training and early intervention. We are determined to deliver reforms that stand the test of time, rebuild the confidence of families and, crucially, ensure that all young people are thriving at and enjoying school, and getting the support that they need.
Adam Dance
I, too, thank my co-sponsor of the debate, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell). It has been absolutely fantastic to hear so many supportive remarks about dyslexia from across the House. It is important to get across that this issue should not be political; it should be cross-party, because we want the best for our young people and their future. It is clear that in Parliament, dyslexia is on the agenda; that is great news, but it has to stay there and translate into real change. We need to make sure that it does not come off the agenda, so I will carry on pushing. I am sure that the Minister will get fed up of me eventually, but I look forward to meeting her tomorrow. We need to make sure that school is not somewhere dyslexic people fear, but somewhere to set them up to do what they want in life.
Something stays with me; we all, as Members of Parliament, visit schools in our constituencies, and the other day I visited a rural school to talk about my life and background, and why I got involved in politics. At the end, two lads asked their teacher whether they could stay behind. The teacher said, “You’re not going to say anything you shouldn’t be saying to Adam, are you?” They said, “No, we just want to talk to him,” and I said, “Let them stay behind.”
Those two lads were primary school-age children, and what they said stuck with me: “Thank you. We both have ADHD and dyslexia. We keep thinking we’re going to fail in life, and you’ve taught us that we’re not going to fail in life. We want to thank you for that.” Just before that, the teacher had said to those children, “What do you want to stay behind for?”. Children are already hearing, “Oh, you’re going to stay behind to say something you shouldn’t.” That is the perception we have to change in our education system. I will follow those two lads’ careers and see where they get to, because that really has stuck with me. I think they will succeed.
Let us keep working together on this. As I will say to the Minister tomorrow, “Let’s get on with it, move positively and make real change together.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for dyslexic pupils at school.
Sixth-form Provision: Bolsover
(1 day, 6 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
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sixth form provision in Bolsover constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.
Residents of Bolsover must feel like they have déjà vu. My predecessor, Mark Fletcher, first raised the need for a sixth form in Bolsover in Parliament on 2 March 2020. On 7 March 2023, he spoke in this very Chamber about the need for Bolsover to have its own sixth form. On 6 September 2023, the then Prime Minister congratulated Mark on getting a sixth form. So the question that residents rightly ask is: why are we here today? Why have I raised this issue in Parliament five times in the past year? Why have I met Ministers and the Education Secretary to make representations? Why are Andrew Burns, the chief executive officer of Redhill Academy Trust, and Richard Pierpoint, the regional director, here with us to see this debate today?
As one resident succinctly put it, getting the promise is one thing, but making sure that that promise is delivered is another thing entirely. Despite Mark’s determined campaign and the tireless work of The Bolsover school executive headteacher Matt Hall, who sadly cannot be with us today because he has an Ofsted inspection, the previous Government’s promises have not been delivered.
Although I wish I was here congratulating Mark as new pupils enter North Derbyshire university academy, I saw as soon as I was elected that I needed to take up the baton. I will not rest until the young people of Bolsover, Clowne, Shirebrook, Creswell and the surrounding villages have the sixth form that they so desperately need.
Why is this so important? For far too many of our young people, Bolsover today is a story of unfilled potential. Bolsover covers a huge area, from Pinxton to Whitwell, Shirebrook to Wessington, yet there is no sixth form. When it comes to barriers to opportunity, surely one of the biggest is that the closest sixth form is a 30-minute bus ride away at a cost of £25 a week. The inability to access any form of education past the age of 16 without getting on one or two buses and travelling for up to an hour is why so few teenagers attend a school sixth form—only 25% from The Bolsover school, 13% from Heritage high school in Clowne and just 8% from Shirebrook academy do so. For those who live anywhere else in the country, the average figure is three times higher than for Shirebrook.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for her campaigning in this Chamber, which has clearly been instrumental—the people here and those at home watching will be greatly inspired by her, so well done. In my constituency in Ards, we need to ensure that our teenagers have support and sound career advice for the next steps, including in the sixth-form college at Regent House school and the South Eastern Regional college; the King’s Trust works alongside schools there. I know that the Minister is always looking for examples of good work, so may I suggest, through the hon. Lady, that he looks at the good things we are doing in Northern Ireland that could address the very issues she is working so well to address for her constituents?
Natalie Fleet
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
Students are less likely to get A-levels in Bolsover than in any other part of Derbyshire. Some students do really well in their GCSEs and go on to a really good sixth form in Chesterfield, but it is more than 10 miles away. They have to get two buses: one to Chesterfield town centre and one to the Newbold area. The sixth form has a private bus, but it is £1,000 a year and takes about 50 minutes each way. That puts the school out of reach for students whose families cannot afford the travel, and the long travel times do nothing to encourage anyone to go there.
I want to talk about two brothers who recently left The Bolsover school and started at the nearest sixth form. Both dropped out in the first year because of the cost of the bus. One of the brothers tried to run the five-and-a-bit miles to sixth form and back every day, but with a bag full of books, and winter weather and darkness, he could not sustain it. They have both dropped out of their level 3 studies, and we believe they are no longer in education at all.
When we fail our children, there are lifelong consequences. Not having a sixth form is a large part of why only a quarter of 18-year-olds in Bolsover enrol at university, compared with the UK average of 36%. It is why, on education, skills and training measures, Bolsover is the 99th most deprived constituency in the country. It is also why people’s wages in Bolsover are £100 less per week than the UK average. Having less money and less education affects people’s ability to live long and healthy lives. A quarter of our residents only have GCSEs, but a quarter have no qualifications at all. On every measure I have looked at, Bolsover could and should be doing better. We have to give people the same opportunities that children living in larger towns and cities take for granted.
The young people I see when I visit their schools blow me away. On a recent visit to Shirebrook academy, they told me that they did not want to be called disadvantaged because it is another label that holds them back. Instead, they are funny, they are polite, they are smart—and my God, they are full of potential. They make me so happy just being around them. Ridiculously, they treat me like I am a big deal. It is them who are the biggest of deals. It is our job as a Government to put a world of opportunity in front of them, just like the last Labour Government did for me.
I grew up seeing more people I know going to prison than to university. I was really lucky to have a Government with the slogan, “Education, education, education”—a Government determined to be ambitious for me before I even knew what ambition was. The Labour Government gave me opportunity that I never expected to need and smashed down barriers that I could not have anticipated. Instead of writing me off as a young mum, they paid for childcare for my newborn, meaning that I could drop her off at nursery and take the short bus ride to West Notts college. They invested in brilliant education that I will forever be grateful for and supported me to get the grades that meant I could go to university with my second baby on the way.
The first time I visited The Bolsover school, I asked where the teenage mums were, and I was told that they did not have them. I panicked, because I worried that teenage mums were being excluded from education. Instead, I was told that they did not exist, at least not in the same way that they used to, because the same Government who had supported me had also implemented a teenage pregnancy strategy. That strategy meant that my area, which had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe when I had my baby, saw the biggest issue facing us and tackled it. That is incredible. I am here to make sure that we leave an equally impactful legacy for the next generation. We must give Bolsover’s young people access to quality education in our area.
I promise that I am not just being a difficult woman. In the last 12 hours, I have received well over 100 emails, messages and comments on this issue from parents, former pupils, current pupils and teachers who live in the area—anyone with a connection to the school, young people and education. They are desperate for this sixth form to go ahead.
Sky, a former Bolsover student, said:
“I finished Bolsover School in 2023 and had to move to another Sixth Form, but I didn’t think it was worth the experience. The education felt like a downgrade—if Bolsover School had a Sixth Form, I would have stayed and had a better experience, like I did in my secondary years.”
Alysha, another former Bolsover student, said:
“After my GCSEs, I would have loved to continue my studies somewhere familiar and local. I now travel over an hour each day to Sixth Form, but if Bolsover had one, I’d have stayed. I hope future children can have that chance”.
Parents of young children are already looking for the best option for their child to gain a higher level of qualification, and they know that a local sixth form would help them to achieve those goals. Victoria, a Bolsover mum, said:
“My daughter is a hardworking and bright child in year 8 at The Bolsover School. Her dreams and ambitions should not be cut short because Bolsover is deemed not to be worthy of such a basic requirement, the investment in education, by some.”
Another mum said:
“My oldest son is currently in year 10, he’s a high achieving pupil predicted 8-9 grades in all subjects. He does however have severe anxiety, particularly social anxiety. If he needs to get a bus to school for sixth form, he simply won’t go.”
Other parents of children with special educational needs have echoed this sentiment, telling me that their children need the supportive and structured environment of a sixth form at the school they know and are familiar with in order to continue their education.
However, this is not just an issue for SEND parents. A teacher from my area told me that many students feel daunted by travelling to a big college and often give up on their ambitions because there is no local option. That teacher said that a sixth form in Bolsover would be transformational: inspiring young people, raising aspirations and showing them that their community believes in their potential.
Parents can see that the playing field is not level and that their children have an undeserved disadvantage because of where they live. One dad, Sammie, wrote:
“The difference to growing up on the outskirts of Nottingham 20 years ago to living in Bolsover today is quite scary. The opportunities around Bolsover for young people to grow and develop are dire.”
Another dad, who has two children, said:
“The sixth form would raise aspirations, build on the strengths of one of the best schools in the area and ensure our children have the best educational start in life, so they can help contribute to the financial and economic prosperity of our district for generations to come.”
That is key. If Bolsover people are already leaving the area to get their A-levels, they are more likely to move away to pursue a career, and a cycle of low attainment and low aspiration continues for those who are left.
As a child of the last Labour Government, I am determined to deliver for the children of this Labour Government. I hope I have shown that what I speak of today is really personal to me. However, this is not just about me; I have a community behind me, and they are desperate for this to happen. This is important, and this is why politics matters. I leave that very special community and my family behind every week to be here because I cannot let it be only me who benefits from the last Labour Government’s investment in my education. I want these children—the children of this Labour Government—to benefit in the same way. I am thrilled to see us smashing down barriers to opportunity, making sure that no child is ever too hungry to learn and that our little ones are ready for school on that special first day.
I have an extra ask of the Government, on behalf of the young people of Bolsover. Let us show these incredible children that we will not leave them behind any longer. I ask that we get spades in the ground and open the doors of North Derbyshire university academy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on securing this important debate on post-16 education in Bolsover, and on championing the needs of young people in her constituency. She is a tremendous advocate for the people who elected her.
Every young person deserves access to high-quality post-16 education and training options. It is essential that we provide clear, ambitious pathways for all children across the country. By investing in diverse education and training options, we unlock the potential of our young people, and we meet the evolving needs of employers and the wider economy. I commend my hon. Friend’s continued advocacy for securing post-16 education in Bolsover. Her commitment ensures that local voices are heard loud and clear, and that her constituents get the best chance of meaningful change as soon as possible. From her speech, I recognise the strength of local feeling on this matter.
Young people across England should have choices after their GCSEs, but those choices are currently unevenly spread across our country. The Prime Minister, at the Labour party conference earlier this year, announced a new ambition that two thirds of young people gain higher-level qualifications, which will set them up for a fulfilling career and life. This new ambitious goal will be challenging to meet for the Government and the country, but in meeting it, we will create incredible life chances for children and young people in progressing not just to university but to higher-level qualifications through other routes.
Our skills strategy puts the detail on how we will go about achieving that to deliver fantastic outcomes for young people when they turn 16. It includes a targeted system that prioritises training pathways where skilled labour is needed and demand is growing. We will ensure high-quality routes for young people at all levels of attainment, including the new vocational level—the V-level—and the recently introduced T-levels, as well as A-levels, which have a really important role to play.
Let me directly address the proposal for North Derbyshire university academy, which my hon. Friend put so well. I recognise her tireless support for the new academy in Bolsover, which would provide much-needed academic post-16 education in a town that currently has none.
I also recognise that participation rates for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency going into some form of education or training at 16 or 17 are below the national average. The anecdote she shared about £25 a week bus costs and 30-minute bus journeys resonates with me personally; I represent a constituency in rural, post-industrial Cumbria, where transport links to colleges and opportunities have a big impact on young people’s chances. The story of the young boy needing to run, or to consider running, to college paints a vivid image of the challenge faced by young people in Bolsover. I commend Redhill Academy Trust for its work and perseverance in developing its exciting proposals.
I will now say a little about the mainstream free school review that we are undertaking. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are reviewing 44 free school projects that are in the pipeline, including the college in question. I understand that she and the proposers of the school—Redhill Academy Trust, Derbyshire county council and families in her constituency—want certainty about the project as soon as possible, and I thank everyone for their continued patience. Our review has a clear rationale: we want a school system in which all children and young people can achieve and thrive.
The previous Government spent substantial amounts on free schools, despite evidence that they would create surplus capacity, diverting resources from much-needed work to improve the condition of the existing school estate. The image of crumbling roofs and the RAAC crisis was a vivid demonstration of the previous Government’s failure to keep on top of the school estate. We want children everywhere to have the excellent places they need, not extra places they do not. We must drive efficiency and reduce wasteful spending so that we get the best bang for every pound that we spend.
That is why, in October 2024, the Secretary of State for Education announced a review of mainstream free schools planned by the previous Government that have not yet opened. We want to ensure that the places are needed in the local areas where they are proposed, and that they represent value for taxpayers’ money. We recognise that academy trusts play a vital role in fostering collaboration and improving education, especially in disadvantaged areas. They have an essential role to play in the future of new schools and colleges as well.
We have been carefully evaluating evidence-based recommendations for all 44 projects in scope of the review, which has been a substantial exercise. In taking final decisions, we are considering all projects in the round. We are also taking into account the recent multi-year spending review and competing priorities across the Department. I am happy to personally assure my hon. Friend that I will provide her with an update on the matter before Christmas, and as soon as possible, so that we can answer the questions put by her and her community.
I again commend my hon. Friend’s continued commitment to improving outcomes for those in her constituency, and her desire to see 16-to-19 provision in the town of Bolsover. Education is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage and give every young person the best start in life, no matter their background. We know that potential is spread right across the country, especially in places such as Bolsover, but that opportunity is not. We need to make sure that it is.
Question put and agreed to.
Autistic Adults: Employment
(1 day, 6 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
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered employment opportunities for autistic adults.
It is a real pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. This is an important issue, and one which has risen in prominence with the increased awareness and diagnosis of autism. We have also seen extensive press coverage of the case of Tom Boyd, an autistic man who has been working at Waitrose in Cheadle Hulme, near my Hazel Grove constituency. I could not ignore the many variations of the same conversation I have had with constituents about the problems that they or their family members, like Tom, have faced getting or keeping work or thriving in their career. That so many people are facing the same issues means we are getting something wrong as a society. As the National Autistic Society says,
“Autism influences how people experience and interact with the world. It is a lifelong neurodivergence and disability. Autistic people are different from each other, but for a diagnosis they must share differences from non-autistic people in how they think, feel and communicate.”
An autism diagnosis should not be a barrier; it should help autistic people find how to be the best version of themselves.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In my constituency, I recently held a roundtable discussions on the state of special educational needs and disabilities education—which we know is dire. Does my hon. Friend share my belief that we should be promoting opportunities in employment for autistic people —who we know can be among the sharpest minds—so that those in education have roles to work towards?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short.
Lisa Smart
I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of getting the right education suited to each young person to enable them to flourish in their lives and contribute meaningfully to our community.
Clearly, the issues that my constituents have faced are not the same as every autistic person’s experience. When someone has met one autistic person, they have met one autistic person—that is a key point. All too often, autism is viewed in just one way, and it can be seen as a burden that employers have to overcome to employ that person, rather than as a range of differences and strengths.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My niece successfully secured a place on a civil service internship. She was then able to go on and train as a work coach and is helping people who face similar challenges with neurodiversity or health conditions to get back into work. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that other employers set up these bespoke internship schemes, particularly to give opportunities to young people?
Lisa Smart
People with lived experience are often the best trainers and best able to explain a situation and enable employers to adapt to get the best out of their employees. I very strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s point.
I see it in my own area of Stockport, where the council delivers training for employers on how best to welcome neurodiverse employees into their workforce. That training is delivered by those with lived experience. Stockport council also provides adapted spaces at inclusive job fairs. That enables it to support attendance by those for whom busy, noisy spaces do not necessarily bring out the best in them.
As a Liberal, I want to ensure that people are viewed as individuals; that they are given a platform to be the best version of themselves; that we give our fellow citizens opportunities and not barriers; and that we ensure they are not limited by someone’s view of a category in which they happen to fit.
I thank my constituents who have shared their experiences with me and who have very different lives, needs and experiences, but who have faced very similar problems when entering the world of work. My constituent, Bradley from Marple, has had several voluntary jobs in the past. He has done them well and he now volunteers as a digital champion in the local library. Bradley is autistic and has a speech and language condition. He is capable, reliable and determined. I was really pleased that he and his mum came to see me at my advice surgery a few weeks ago, and that they are here today. He is now on universal credit, including the disability element, but tells me that what he wants is the independence and dignity that comes with having a paid job.
For Bradley, the problem he faces is getting over the hurdle of having a chance to prove his worth. He has applied for over 100 jobs. He has been given interviews and has passed tests, and yet is never given the job. All too often he tells me he hears the same refrain: “We have another candidate who we feel best suits the post.” Although that is said to anyone who applies for a job and they hear it from time to time, Bradley hears the same thing every time, after every interview and every successful test. That is what stings.
Another constituent has had two jobs with the same organisation. He has been diagnosed as high functioning with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He has a master’s degree and a range of awards and accolades that attest to his brilliance. He also struggles to know what day of the week it is or how to cook a pizza. He fits many of the stereotypes that people have about autism. In the first job, although he was given support to help him, it did not take account of the way he processed information. Instead, he was put on a performance improvement plan, which gave him no time to embed the enabling strategies that his mentor had helped him with. Instead of being supportive, it fed into his anxiety, and such was the stress it caused that he ended up with autistic burnout and on medication.
Fortunately, with support from his parents and some courses of cognitive behavioural therapy, he was able to start again. However, such was the lack of confidence in his own abilities that his first experience caused, he applied for a much less senior role. This time around, though, the experience was a world apart. He had a structured induction that gave him all the information he needed to settle into a new role. Similarly, when he starts a new project or task, he is introduced in a way that gives everyone the information they need to work well with him, such as sharing with any new colleagues how he prefers to receive information related to the task. He is now a valued high-performing member of staff ready to step back up the career ladder, and his mental health is in a completely different, far more positive place.
Those two wildly different experiences are with the same organisation, the civil service, which shows the need for best practice to be implemented much more consistently. My constituent is someone who has the potential to do things that few other people can, and when his job is built to get the best out of him, he flies. When it fails to take account of his needs, he crashes. I suggest that in a world where we hear all too frequently from some politicians demeaning descriptions of the lives that autistic people will have, we instead need to work on removing barriers that stop them living the right life for them.
A Stockport council officer working in this area reports interesting conversations with employers about the fact that adapting the business to be more inclusive is really, in his words,
“about looking at what skills a person can bring to the role and that isn’t as difficult as people first think. It’s about listening and understanding. It certainly doesn’t stop you being successful and profitable and it might actually help you!”
Two of my constituents faced challenges when starting and running their own businesses. Both of them set up their own companies—one supporting people with autism and ADHD and the other a small business selling games and toys. In both cases, their efforts to run their companies were undermined when they were in what we could term an irregular part of running a company. In the first case, it was going through the set-up of the company, which took longer than expected. In the second, it was when they missed an email they were not expecting from Companies House. In both cases, my constituents struggled with the sorts of activities that too often people and processes take for granted: making calls, sending emails and completing documents.
Katie, who joins us today, was allocated funding for a virtual assistant through Access to Work payments. But when her caseworker retired, her case was not reallocated and she was left facing mounting bills. To resolve it, she was forced to pursue her funding through a labyrinthine process. Were it not for her fantastic mum advocating on her behalf and further support from my superstar casework team, she would not have got it sorted out. As her mum said,
“The process to claim completely failed to recognise her disability. It was like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”
When someone has communication issues, layering inaccessible processes on top causes a struggle that is cruel. The irony is that Katie was caught out by this when she was setting up a company helping people with neurodivergent conditions. In a further twist, it was systems designed to help people like Katie into work that failed to take account of her autism.
Those are just four examples of people’s lived experience of trying to get into or on with work. Disabled people with autism are among the least likely to be in employment of all disabled people; 34% of disabled people with autism are in employment, compared with 55% of all disabled people and 82% of non-disabled people. The Buckland review of autism employment found that adjustments for autistic employees are highly variable, and that the onus is normally on the autistic employee to identify and advocate for the adjustments that they need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for there to be obligations on employers and local authorities to provide appropriate care assessments and support. To repeat the words of Katie’s mum, not doing this is
“like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”
All too often we are building employment practices and processes that are one size fits all, but that size is too small. People are different, and we need to take account of that. It is only by recognising the differences between people, and by allowing for them and working with them, that we will get the future workforce that we need. I look forward to the Minister telling us what more the Government plan to do to make employment work for autistic people more easily, whether that is businesses employing autistic people, who can bring so much to a workplace, or changing processes so that autistic people can work in a way that suits them and gives them a platform to thrive.
Schemes such as Access to Work, Connect to Work or Disability Confident certainly exist, but my inbox suggests that too many people with skills and talents are falling through the gaps. I am particularly keen to hear when the Minister expects to publish a response to the recommendations made by the independent panel of academics led by Professor Amanda Kirby.
I really want to thank my constituents who have taken the time to share their experiences. Some of them are here today, and others are watching online. I hope that this place will change things for the better, so that we can do real justice for all the autistic people who just want the same opportunities as everyone else—to work, to live their best life and to thrive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this debate, and to her constituents for joining us today in Westminster Hall.
I am proud to be a member of the Labour party—it is the party for workers; it recognises the dignity that we get from work, and that work is the foundation for independence, confidence and wellbeing. I have heard many stories in my constituency about how stable and secure employment has transformed the lives of people with autism and other disabilities. The key words there are “stable” and “secure”; to unlock people’s potential, we must ensure that work is consistent, meaningful and fulfilling.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
When given the right tools and support to succeed, we know that members of the autistic community can thrive in the workplace. Despite research showing that the majority of working-age autistic people want to work, the reality is that only about three in 10 do so. Local to me, Autism West Midlands champions autistic communities and supports service users into work, both by providing coaching and by making workplaces better for them.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. This is supposedly an intervention. If you want to ask him a question, please do so, but do not read a speech.
Baggy Shanker
Thank you, Mr Turner. Does my hon. Friend agree that services such as those are vital in building the skills and confidence that help these people work?
Mike Reader
I agree that those services are critical—we are seeing that at first hand in Northamptonshire; when placements and employment opportunities collapse, when local provision disappears, and when funding dries up, people lose trust in the system.
The reality is that, across the country, the support network available to autistic adults is fragile. We rely on a patchwork of charities, specialist employers and often the good will of large organisations to make the investments needed to open up the opportunities that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke about. When part of that network collapses, the impact is immediate and devastating, and that is exactly what we are seeing in Northampton.
For over 40 years, Workbridge has been a lifeline to many in my community. It is a place where people with autism, learning difficulties and mental health challenges are able to build confidence, learn new skills and contribute to our community through meaningful employment and volunteering. It provides a café, garden centre and workshops for many. But it is all set to close. Last week we found out that St Andrew’s Healthcare had withdrawn funding from it to try to patch up its main business, which is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission. I have been contacted by residents—by email, by letter and, actually, quite a lot on Remembrance Sunday—who are shocked and, frankly, devasted that this community institution will be closing. It is quite unforeseen.
The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), visited Workbridge in July and described it as a shining example of how social prescribing programmes work and of what we need across our country. There are many questions, including: how can the organisation go from promoting itself to the Government as best in class to closing within six months? I am meeting the chief executive officer next week to ask the questions that constituents are asking me about how this has happened and why Workbridge is being sacrificed to prop up the rest of the business.
Before I finish, I will highlight a positive example from Northampton. Nordis Signs, a business supported by Kier Group and Kier Highways, is a local employer that has operated in my constituency for the best part of 50 years. It provides work for adults with disabilities, including autism, by providing signs for the highways network right across the country. It is a great example of how secure work has enabled people to create careers. When I visited this summer, I met people who had worked there for over 30 years and were so proud of the work that they deliver. To have a business like that making such a positive contribution to our community is fantastic. It is a great example of how being both commercially sound and socially responsible can make sure that businesses deliver.
The lessons are clear: when we invest in supported employment everyone benefits, but when that support disappears, the fragile system will struggle to replace it. I stand by to support those who will lose their jobs or volunteering opportunities through the closure of Workbridge, and my office is working hard with West Northants council and local groups to try to re-provide that provision in Northampton. I hope the Minister will make time to meet me to discuss this issue, particularly as her Department visited and praised the work of Workbridge in July. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove again for securing this critical debate, and I thank her constituents for joining us in the Public Gallery.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this important debate. Like many other Members, I have met many neurodivergent adults and their families in my constituency who are desperate to contribute to society and really do want to work but are still struggling to access the same opportunities as their neurotypical peers.
As other Members have said, it is heartbreaking to hold roundtables and hear of autistic individuals who, having volunteered for five years with some of our corporate chains and been told that it would build their experience, find that there was really no pathway to paid work. On the very day that their work experience finishes, after five years, they are told to go home. That leaves them with a real sense that they do not belong anywhere. They thought they were working and did not realise that, after five years, they would simply be told to go home. That is not equality. Our companies need to do much better and show a sense of responsibility.
Across the UK there are approximately 700,000 autistic adults of working age, yet only three in 10 are in employment. Only 15% are in full-time paid work. Just 35% of autistic graduates find work within the first 15 months, which is half the rate among non-disabled graduates. This is not just an autism issue; for people with learning disabilities, the picture is even starker. Of the 950,000 working-age adults with a learning disability, only 27% have a paid job.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that closing the disability gap—indeed, the specific employment gap for people with neurodiversity—will mean opening up opportunities in different ways, so that autistic people do not have to go through interviews and other barriers that a normal application process requires of neurotypical people?
Shockat Adam
I wholeheartedly agree. We have to think expansively and not follow the rigorous rules that we have for abled individuals.
Some 77% of unemployed autistic people say they want to work. They are not unwilling; what is unwilling is the system, which creates barriers at the crucial first step, the transition into work. Many of them have never had any work experience at all. We need a structured supported internship and greater flexibility. The minimum 420 hours required by the current Access to Work scheme is simply too rigid and too difficult for many people, and unrealistic for small employers—and employers, too, need support. The Keep Britain Working review identified a culture of fear among managers and staff, which discourages open conversations about disability.
Many people from autism and disability backgrounds find that a lack of visible role models affects their transition into work, and there is inconsistent guidance for employers trying to make reasonable adjustments. That is why I agree with Mencap, which is urging the Department for Work and Pensions to go further and create a central online hub of best practice for employers, provide training and peer-to-peer support for businesses, and ensure that autistic people themselves are consulted. Currently, two thirds say they have never even been asked what support they need.
We also have to look at the benefits system, because for many autistic people it remains an obstacle to work, not a bridge. People fear losing their safety net if they cannot meet their job recommendations and commitments due to a lack of reasonable adjustments. We need a system that rewards their effort rather than punishing their vulnerability.
Helping autistic people and people with learning disabilities into meaningful employment reduces welfare costs, raises living standards and unlocks enormous economic potential. It gives people purpose, dignity and belonging. There are great examples in my constituency of what can be done when we get things right. Leicestershire Cares is a fabulous organisation that assists people with autism and learning challenges into the workplace. Eyres Monsell Club for Young People gives young autistic adults real-world experiences in community pantries and food banks. Café Neuro, which is specifically but not exclusively for people from ethnic minorities, offers supported placements where participants learn teamwork, customer service and confidence. Millgate school is developing leadership and life skills through student-led committees, creating the role models of tomorrow. Finally, charities such as Jamila’s Legacy are showing how conditions like autism intersect with anxiety and mental health, reminding us that holistic pastoral support in schools is essential to preparing young people for employment.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is great to hear of these commercial companies doing so much good work. I think of FinTrU in Derry, which is actively recruiting autistic people because of the skills and values they have. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to much more effectively match those companies with people with an autistic background?
Shockat Adam
I wholeheartedly agree, and the companies will be rewarded for it.
The evidence is clear: we have the talent and we have the will; now we need the systems, the flexibility and the leadership to make employment truly inclusive for autistic people.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing the debate. She outlined some fantastic best practice in Stockport, where I know she was a local councillor for many years. I am sure some of that work is down to her powerful advocacy for her constituents—those who are here today and those who are not.
I thank all the families, campaigners and organisations who fight every day for change, not least because those in my own constituency, including our local branch of the National Autistic Society, who I meet regularly, have told me time and again about the sheer exhaustion that comes from trying to get a system that is supposed to help people to actually do what it is meant to do and what it promises. Many people face a broken path from school to work, with the journey from childhood from adulthood a series of locked doors. We hear of many families waiting for months—often years—for autism assessments, and we hear about teachers, undertrained and underfunded, struggling to provide the right support. One mother in Harrogate told me that by the time her son was finally diagnosed he was already told he was lazy, disruptive and difficult. How is any child meant to come back from that? That line has stuck with me because if we get things wrong in school, we do not just risk a bad exam result; we risk shaping how young people see themselves for years to come, into adulthood.
That is why the Liberal Democrats believe fixing SEND is not just about education; it is about setting children up for life, too. We need early identification, we need properly funded support plans that do not depend on parents shouting the loudest, and we need schools to be judged on how inclusive they are, not just on pupils’ grades. If we want autistic adults to thrive in work, we have to start by helping autistic children thrive in school.
Mike Reader
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we do need that reform, we should recognise the brilliant organisations in our communities that are working so hard to support people—particularly, in Northampton, SEND Mummas, West Northants SEND Action Group and SENDS 4 Dad?
Tom Gordon
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is highlighting some fantastic work. I completely agree; there are great examples out there. What we need is a system that holds those up and champions them, and encourages people to do the same and do better across our country.
That brings me to Access to Work, a system that is currently shutting people out. This is another part of the broken pipeline, and I want to be really clear: it is not fit for purpose. Everyone I speak to tells me that it is failing them. It was designed to support people but simply falls short. It is also failing the employers who want to do the right thing but cannot navigate the red tape. I have heard examples of businesses that reached out to try to secure training for staff, but that fell on deaf ears and was never taken up. And it is failing the economy by wasting talent that we desperately need.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My constituent John has experienced prolonged periods of unemployment —he has been employed for only four of the past 14 years—and I think his experience is redolent of that of many other people with autism who feel that they are not getting the support that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do potential employees need support, but employers need education to help them facilitate economic independence for adults with autism?
Tom Gordon
I completely agree. This comes back to one of the systemic barriers that people face throughout the Access to Work system, and the barriers to employment for autistic people.
Access to Work sounds good on paper. In practice, it has become a bureaucratic maze that far too many autistic people simply cannot navigate. I have spoken to constituents who waited six months, nine months and even more than a year for applications to be processed. It is simply not good enough. I have heard from people who have lost job offers because the scheme could not provide basic adjustments in time, from others whose support was suddenly cut back without explanation, and from employers, especially small ones, who gave up trying to help because the process was so unclear and too slow.
Let us be honest: if Access to Work was a business, it would have gone under years ago. It is inefficient, unaccountable and detached from the lived reality of the people it is meant to serve. There is no consistency, no urgency and seemingly no understanding of autism. Many of the assessors have had little to no training in neurodiversity. Applicants are repeatedly asked to prove their condition and justify basic needs, and to fill in complex forms that would test the patience of anyone, let alone someone who suffers from communication or executive function issues that are daily challenges. It is not empowering; it is humiliating.
The worst part of all is that people’s lives are on hold while they wait. I met one man who was offered a job by a local company. He was up front about his needs, honest, open and hopeful, and the employer was supportive, but trying to get adjustments in place through Access to Work took so long that he ended up losing the job offer. His confidence was shot. There is nothing about that that is acceptable, in any way, shape or form. Worryingly, that is not an isolated story. This is happening up and down the country, and it is something that people regularly email me about. What makes it worse is that we have known for years how to fix it. Backlogs can be cleared with proper staffing and resourcing. Delays can be reduced by digitising the system and simplifying forms. Training can be improved so that assessors actually understand neurodiversity. But the Government are seemingly sitting on their hands.
The Buckland review made sensible suggestions and recommendations: awareness campaigns, better recruitment practices, inclusive workplace design and real career progression support. None of that requires new legislation. What did we get instead? Nothing. A review was launched and delayed, and now we are told that we might not get a proper Government response at all. It is really frustrating. Autistic people, who have waited long enough for change, are seemingly left out in the cold again.
I have heard about recruitment processes that are commonly exclusionary and job adverts with open-ended interview questions that just make it impossible for people. When I met the Harrogate branch of the National Autistic Society, we spent about an hour and a half talking through these barriers. What really resonated with me is the desire and passion of people with autism who want to contribute, and we are simply not letting them.
People’s fear of disclosure was also raised. They do not want to explain or even talk about their autism because they are not convinced that employers will help. One constituent of mine had been happily in employment for seven years, with the support of a really helpful line manager. When that manager left, there was seemingly a breakdown in the relationship with the workplace, which left her without the necessary adaptations and support. She ended up losing the job and has now been struggling to find alternative employment for two years.
What needs to happen? We need a complete overhaul of Access to Work—not tweaks or new guidance, but a root-and-branch rebuild. That means clear targets for processing times, so that people are not left waiting for months; dedicated neurodiversity teams who actually understand the conditions that they are assessing; transparency, so that applicants can track their progress and appeal decisions easily; automatic continuity of support, so that when people change roles, they are not thrown back to square one; and, above all, trusting autistic people that they know what they need. If we did that, we would not only help thousands into work, but restore faith in a system that currently does the opposite.
This is not meant to be about schemes and structures; it is about people. A woman in Harrogate told me that she had recently given up looking for work altogether—not because she does not want to work, but because the last time she tried to get support, she was made to feel like a fraud. She said:
“I can cope with being autistic. I can’t cope with being disbelieved.”
That sentence should haunt this Government. We talk endlessly in this place about productivity, growth and getting more people into work, yet we actively exclude people who want and are ready to work, because our systems are so rigid and slow.
Fixing Access to Work will not solve everything, but it is one of the easiest, quickest and most practical steps that could make employment fairer for autistic people. If we linked that together with a proper SEND strategy that captures early need, supports families, trains teachers and equips young people with confidence, we would finally have a joined-up system that might be better at supporting people with autism from childhood into adulthood. That is what inclusion really means.
I will end with this thought. Another constituent told me that what makes work hard for them is not being autistic, but the world around them not understanding what they need to thrive. There is a thread running through everything we have heard today. Autistic people do not need to change who they are. It is the systems, services and structures that need to change. Access to Work could be a bridge between ability and opportunity, but right now it is a barrier. Until that changes, we will keep on losing potential, wasting talent and letting people down. I urge the Minister to fix Access to Work and SEND, and to start building a society that sees autistic people not as a problem to solve, but as part of the solution.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this afternoon’s very important debate, and I likewise welcome her constituents to the Chamber.
It is clear that we all have the privilege of representing autistic adults and children. The debate has brought to mind one particular gentleman in my constituency, Alistair, who I have known for a couple of years. He likes to tell me that he enjoys campaigning for the Labour party, which is fine—I am still very kind to him, obviously—and he sends me little tweet messages every so often, asking me very direct questions, to which I give very direct answers. He is brilliant.
Alistair had been volunteering at the Box—for those hon. Members who have not been, that is Plymouth’s award-winning art gallery and museum. The other day, I bumped into him at work in the Grayson Perry exhibition, and I said, “Oh, are you still volunteering, then?”. He said, “No, I’m actually now working here.” That was a really great example, bumping into him a couple of Saturdays ago and seeing what he is doing.
As Conservatives, we believe that meaningful work is the surest route to success. We believe in the power of aspiration and are committed to ensuring that everyone in this country gets a chance to pursue purposeful employment. Having a job means more than earning a wage; it means that we have somewhere to belong, a place where our contribution matters and a route to financial self-sufficiency. I am proud of our Conservative record of supporting people into work. We oversaw the creation of millions more apprenticeships and cut youth unemployment by nearly 44% between 2010 and 2023, but right now autistic people continue to face especially high barriers to entering and staying in work, leaving them unable to fulfil their potential, as we have heard time and again this afternoon.
Concerningly, only 16% of autistic adults in the UK are in full-time employment, compared with 31% of neurodiverse people and 55% of disabled people overall, according to the National Autistic Society. That is despite the fact that three in four unemployed autistic people would like to be employed, according to Autistica. An estimated 40,000 people with autism said that they were looking for full-time employment in 2024-25.
We have already heard about the Buckland review of autism employment, published under the Conservative Government in February last year, which painted a sobering picture of the daily challenges that autistic people face in seeking to access and thrive in work. It found that autistic people face the largest pay gap of all disability groups, receiving on average a third less than non-disabled people. Autistic graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed after 15 months as non-disabled graduates, with only 36% finding full-time work during that period. When they do find employment, autistic graduates are most likely to be over-qualified for the job they have, most likely to be on zero-hours contracts, and least likely to be in a permanent role.
Many of those problems stem from employers’ misunderstandings about autism and neurodivergence more generally. Sadly, 59% of line managers did not know how to make a reasonable adjustment to support a neurodivergent employee, according to ACAS. One in five neurodivergent employees have experienced harassment or discrimination at work. The possibility of such discrimination is one reason why around only 35% of autistic employees are even fully open about being autistic. As the Buckland review highlighted, during many interview processes, where the focus is on social rather than job skills, autistic people
“feel they must mask their autistic traits to succeed.”
To complicate matters further, many people with autism do not have a formal diagnosis, due to a fear of negative reaction from others, long NHS waiting times and so on. The current situation means that everyone loses out. Autistic jobseekers are being denied the opportunity to contribute their valuable skills to the workplace. When they do find a job, they often feel unable to bring their whole selves to work. Employers, on the other hand, are missing out on that wider talent pool we have discussed this afternoon, which comes from creating an inclusive environment for autistic employees.
Autism remains an untapped asset in the UK workforce. Autistic people often have remarkable cognitive abilities, including pattern recognition, sustained concentration and exceptional attention to detail. When matched with suitable roles, autistic employees can deliver productivity improvements ranging from 45% to 145%. As the Buckland review notes, many reasonable adjustments intended for autistic staff tend to benefit the wider team, such as noise-cancelling headphones and a designated quiet space if a co-working area becomes too noisy.
The number of autistic people out of work is also contributing to the overall unemployment rate, which is set to reach 5% by 2026, at a time when the Chancellor is facing immense financial pressure in the upcoming Budget. Obviously, getting as many people as possible into work at this point will help with the growth challenges she faces.
As has been mentioned, the Buckland review identified 19 key recommendations for ensuring that autistic people receive the support they need at work. Those include creating autism-friendly workplaces, via design guides for a range of industries; improving recruitment processes and career advice for autistic jobseekers; encouraging employers to join the autistic and neurodiversity employers’ index; and enhancing IT systems to meet autistic employees’ needs. I welcome the bipartisan nature of this challenge. I do not think anyone here would disagree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that it is about the individuality of each individual. I do not think that is just a Liberal thing; I think it is something we could all agree on.
In the Government’s response to the Public Services Committee’s October 2024 report on transitions to work for disabled young people, many of the successes listed included work that had already been started under the previous Government. For example, this Government are on track to double the number of supported internships, originally a Conservative Government initiative announced in 2023. It is good to see that almost 800 employment ambassadors have now been recruited to advocate for supported internships within businesses.
I look forward to scrutinising the findings of the Government’s independent panel on neurodiversity in the workplace, to ensure that it adequately addresses autism specifically. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already confirmed that the panel’s conclusions will build on the Buckland review, which is encouraging. However, I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how she plans to take forward the Buckland review more fully.
I finish by paying tribute to programmes that serve my constituents, providing a vital bridge into work for many autistic people across Devon. Project SEARCH Derriford is an award-winning scheme, enabling young people with autism or learning disabilities to complete work placements at the University Hospitals NHS trust’s Plymouth sites over the course of an academic year. Nationally, Project SEARCH has seen more than 60% of its interns enter full-time employment after completing the scheme, creating a win-win situation: the interns gain real-life employability skills and an enormous confidence boost, while employers gain committed, well trained staff, helping to reduce hiring costs and improving retention.
More broadly, Pluss in Plymouth and elsewhere across the country delivers specialist employment support for people with autism or learning difficulties, including work trials and ongoing mentoring, something I have been able to witness over the past 10 years or so. These organisations are brilliant examples of how effective job coaching can be.
To conclude, we must ensure that autistic people are not sidelined from the workplace. They are disproportionately out of work. Most of them want to be in work, yet many employers are poorly equipped to create inclusive environments. The Buckland review was a much-needed start in identifying areas for improvement, and I look forward to hearing how things might progress over the coming weeks and months. We must continue breaking down barriers to opportunity. Every individual deserves the chance to contribute their talents; when we unlock their potential, workplaces become richer in every sense.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
As a fellow Hull MP, it is a real pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Turner.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this important debate. I thank her and all hon. Members who have spoken or intervened for their thoughtful contributions, and of course I also welcome her constituents who are with us today in the Public Gallery.
The hon. Lady made a very powerful case, talking about how a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. She referred to some of her constituents, Bradley, who is volunteering but rightly wants paid work, and Katie, who has to navigate a system that is supposed to help her, but has found that sadly it did not help her at all.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) about Workbridge. I was really disappointed to hear what he said, and of course I will meet him to discuss what, if anything, I can do to assist. However, we also heard about the very positive example of Nordis Signs, which has been providing careers for people for more than 30 years in some cases. That is excellent.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) spoke about the need for businesses to be supported in working with and employing autistic people or other neurodiverse people, and how important that is. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, talked about the importance of getting SEND issues right, and I absolutely agree with him on that. He also talked about Access to Work, which I will make some comments about in a moment.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke for the Conservative party and it was really good to hear from her about Alistair—it is excellent that he now has paid work. However, she was perhaps wearing rose-tinted spectacles when she described what had happened for 14 years under the previous Government and what they had actually achieved.
As the Minister with responsibility for employment, every day I see how good work can transform people’s lives. It gives people purpose, independence, pride and, crucially, a sense of belonging. We have been really clear that we want to achieve an overall 80% employment rate and that that is the key to delivering economic growth and prosperity for all of citizens. To achieve that ambition, we must address low employment rates for disabled people and people with health conditions. Until we do so, disabled people who wish to work will be denied the opportunities to participate fully in society. That has to change.
If we look more closely at the employment prospects of neurodivergent people, the picture worsens. For example, only 34% of autistic people are in any sort of employment, compared with around 55% of disabled people overall. We need to understand the workplace barriers that neurodivergent people face, and the support that employers require to create workplaces that are inclusive for neurodivergent people.
We need to do all this for those people who are currently being denied the opportunity to work and to enjoy all the benefits that we know work can bring. As has been said, there are benefits for employers, who are missing out on a significant source of talent at a time when there are over 700,000 vacancies in the United Kingdom, and there are benefits for our economy, because a more inclusive labour market, with more people in good work, is vital to delivering this Government’s No.1 mission, which is growth.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to the case of Tom Boyd, which has received quite a lot of media attention and coverage. I will say again that people such as Tom are vital to the UK’s workforce, and volunteering can play a vital role in preparing people for work. I imagine that Waitrose is regretting the way it handled the situation with Tom, and I hope it might consider progressing on its Disability Confident journey, which I will talk about in a moment. It is important to recognise the valuable role of volunteering, and how it can play an important part in getting people ready for paid work, but that should not be at the expense of finding sustainable paid employment for everyone who wants to work. I hope that is something that Waitrose, and all employers, will reflect on.
We want to ensure that neurodivergent people, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions are fully considered and supported to participate and remain in secure, sustained paid employment. That is why we are providing £1 billion to fund the voluntary supported employment programme, Connect to Work, across England and Wales. That will assist up to 300,000 people by the end of this decade. The programme follows internationally recognised evidence to deliver holistic, personalised employment support to disabled people, those with health conditions and others with complex barriers to work. It also works with employers to support participants once they are in work.
At this point, I should also mention that last week I had the great pleasure of meeting Laura Davis from the British Association for Supported Employment. We had a really interesting discussion about the diverse needs of neurodivergent people and the importance of the personalised, inclusive approach that Connect to Work can provide.
On the current offer from the DWP to employers—which I know hon. Members are particularly concerned about —we already have a digital information service that guides employers through workplace scenarios, including supporting neurodivergent employees or employees with learning disabilities. In addition, the DWP oversees the voluntary Disability Confident scheme, which I just referred to in relation to Waitrose. That encourages employers to create disability-inclusive workplaces and to support disabled people to get work and to get on in work. However, we know that there is much more to do, and the DWP is actively engaging with stakeholders to look at how we can best strengthen that scheme.
Some employers are already doing well. Microsoft has a neurodiversity hiring programme, making adjustments to its recruitment processes to be more accessible for neurodivergent people. GCHQ has not only adjusted its recruitment processes, but made specific adjustments in the workplace to help neurodiverse people to thrive. As a Government, we want that to become the norm, not just an example of good practice.
That is why in January this year, we put in place an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity. The panel, led by leading academic expert Professor Amanda Kirby, has been reviewing the existing evidence on neurodiversity in the workplace to consider why neurodivergent people have poor experiences and a low overall employment rate. Part of its work has focused on how employers can better support neurodivergent people in the workplace.
Several hon. Members have referred to the Buckland review. The independent Buckland review on autism employment reported to the previous Government, as we have heard, in February 2024. I agree that it was a valuable piece of work, and my predecessor and the Minister for Social Security and Disability met Sir Robert Buckland last autumn to discuss its findings and to outline our plans to raise awareness of all forms of neurodiversity.
I am really pleased that we have now received the independent expert panel’s findings and recommendations, which we want to consider alongside the Keep Britain Working review. That review, which came out last week and was led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, represents a pivotal moment in our mission to create genuine opportunity for all—fundamentally reshaping how we support people to stay healthy, stay in work and build better futures for themselves and their families. It is about creating a system with greater clarity and support, and where employers feel confident and empowered to act to support their employees to deliver greater productivity. It is also about helping more people to stay and thrive in work throughout their working lives, whatever health conditions or disabilities they may face. We want to work in partnership with employers to create workplaces that support health and wellbeing. We all know that successful businesses and healthy workers go hand in hand.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, talked at length about Access to Work. That scheme currently supports thousands of disabled people, including people who may have hidden disabilities, to start or stay in work. I do not accept the picture that the hon. Member painted. I do accept that the scheme needs to be looked at, and we have been working directly with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to make improvements to it. I hope to be able to report back on that in due course.
I will seek your guidance, Mr Turner, because I have been speaking for more than 10 minutes now. Is it the case that there is no time limit because we can sit until 6 pm?
Dame Diana Johnson
Then I will carry on, because there are a few other issues that it might be helpful for hon. Members to be aware of.
Since August this year, there have been the full-time equivalent of more than 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers in our jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales. I wanted to highlight that because the DWP and Jobcentre Plus committed to making sure that the personalised work advice that we talked about earlier is available to individuals. We also have 700 disability employment advisers and 90 disability employment adviser leaders supporting work coaches, or customers directly, to deliver that holistic and tailored support.
Rebecca Smith
I seek clarification on those numbers. When I have heard them in the main Chamber during questions and statements, I have wondered whether those people are new members of staff or existing members of staff who have moved into a slightly different role. When we say that there are 1,000—or the other numbers that the Minister has just read out—are they brand-new members of staff, who previously did not work for the DWP, or are they members of staff who have changed jobs?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with the details about that, but what is happening is that we are realigning the needs of individuals who come to jobcentres to ensure that they get a much more personalised, tailored approach. That is why the work that people do has shifted around. Some of those posts will of course be new, but other people will have been moved in. I am happy to get the details of that, but I want to recognise how important it is to have that personalised approach and specialist support.
We are going further by reforming, as I said, the employment support service into the new jobs and careers service, with much more personalised support. We have a pathfinder in Wakefield that is testing what that personalised offer would look like. Of course, the findings from the academic panel that I talked about will be a valuable addition to the evidence base available when we are looking at how we reshape the jobs and careers service for people whom we want to ensure get the support that they need.
I want to make some comments about young people, because we know that tailored support is equally important for them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, work or training—that is more than one in eight of all young people in this country—and we expect that a significant number of those young people may be neurodivergent.
It is important that there is an effective careers education approach and programme during school and college for all young people, including those who are neurodivergent. That should particularly ensure that autistic young people gain the necessary employability skills and learn about themselves, while accessing tailored opportunities to prepare for adulthood and move into the workplace. Some excellent work is already going on in some of our special schools. In my constituency, Northcott in Hull North is an outstanding special school and does amazing work with young people in Hull and the East Riding.
We are testing and delivering eight youth guarantee trailblazers around the country for localised, tailored support for 18 to 21-year-olds. They will have the flexibility to tailor support and interventions to meet the specific needs and address the barriers faced by young people in those areas. The Chancellor announced that every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered guaranteed paid work. That forms part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be announced in the Budget.
To conclude, I hope I have made the case that getting more autistic adults into work is the right thing to do economically in reducing the disability employment gap and helping us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate. Fulfilling that ambition would be a major driver for economic growth, but of course it is also the moral and right thing to do. We should never lose sight of how much this matters to every single neurodivergent person who is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We all want that chance in life, and that is no different for neurodivergent people.
We have a huge challenge on our hands, but it is a great opportunity. By pressing on with the work we have begun—and by working with employers and autistic people—I have every faith we will be able to grasp it.
I will also add that many of the 1,000 individuals who I talked about earlier in my speech are existing staff but there will be additional funding to create new roles, so it will be a combination of both. The key thing is those staff are offering personalised support to groups for whom the one-size-fits-all approach of the past that I referenced at the beginning did not work.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to the debate, particularly those who brought stories from their constituents. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) suggested changing the way that some people enter employment, and we should take seriously the idea that interviews are not right for everybody. I was disappointed to hear about Workbridge closing from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). That underlines the fragmented nature of the support that is available—it can look different in different parts of the country.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and the Minister, made the important point that employers need support, particularly some small employers who do not have a whole fleet of HR colleagues to work with. A number of hon. Members talked about how valuable work experience is; it absolutely can be, but there is a reason the campaign to end unpaid internships has been successful. That success has brought a sense of justice—that someone cannot go on volunteering their time without a pathway to paid employment, or a clear view as to what they are gaining from it or how they can contribute.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for talking clearly about the exhaustion that can come from fighting against and within a system that does not work well enough. He talked about how Access to Work, although it exists, is not working for too many people. He made a point that was echoed by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith): of course this issue is about individuals, but it is also about growth, productivity and our whole economy.
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the work that is going on, but also that more needs to be done. We have not quite nailed this as a society just yet. We are missing out on the skills and talents of too many autistic people, and there is more we can all do to fix that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered employment opportunities for autistic adults.
Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access
(1 day, 6 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
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
I will call Helen Morgan to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of step free access at rural railway stations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
In constituencies such as North Shropshire, access to public transport is poor. There are just three fully operational railway stations in North Shropshire, along with two very rural request stops. Shropshire’s second and third largest towns do not have a station at all. Whitchurch, home to around 10,000 people, does not have step-free access from the southbound platform. The station is a vital hub, particularly for the eastern side of the constituency and for those needing to connect with west coast main line services at Crewe or on to Chester or Manchester and southward to Shrewsbury, Birmingham and Wales. This has been an issue for a very long time. Every time I go out and knock on doors in Whitchurch, inadequate access to the railway is brought up by countless people.
Residents of Whitchurch who want to access the southbound platform to travel down to the county town of Shrewsbury or to exit the station when travelling down from the north are forced to tackle 44 steps up and down a footbridge. Those who are disabled or elderly, in a wheelchair or with heavy bikes, prams or large suitcases are often physically unable to access half of the trains going out of the station, or exit the station into the town when coming in from the north.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the challenges that train users face when they have mobility issues. In my own constituency, for example, someone can come back from town into Bredbury but not get into town from Bredbury. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a broader point about staffing? If the gap between the train and the platform is such that someone needs a staff member to help with the ramp, does she agree that there is an infrastructure and a staffing issue to address so that people can access our railways completely?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I ask for interventions to be short, please.
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She raises a good point because none of the stations in my constituency is staffed on a regular basis, which adds an extra dimension for people struggling with their mobility or carrying heavy items.
The nearest alternative stations in Shropshire are Prees and Wrenbury. Both are request stops, where we have to stand on the edge of the platform and hail the train for it to stop. They are six and seven miles away respectively. To get from Whitchurch to Prees, which is southward—the way someone wants to go if they cannot access the platform—a person must travel over an hour by walking and taking the bus if they do not have a car. There is not an alternative option to get to Wrenbury. There is no parking at Prees station—just a widening in the grass verge by the road.
One Whitchurch resident told me that 10 years ago, sadly, they developed a neurological condition, which led to their retiring from their profession and needing to use a four-wheeled walking frame. They had to make frequent trips to the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery in London, but were not able to use Whitchurch station. Instead they had to drive over 17 miles along a poorly maintained road to Crewe to access the station there. It is absurd that we must have a car to access the railway. Public transport is for people who do not have cars. The nation and the Government are trying to move towards more sustainable forms of travel, but preventing large numbers of people from using the railway will not help achieve that objective.
Nearly two years after I first wrote to the Department for Transport, shortly after I was elected, and after countless letters, questions and meetings, Whitchurch station was finally announced as one of the stations where feasibility work for a step-free solution would be carried out under the Access for All scheme in May 2024, shortly before the election. As one would expect, the announcement gave rise to hope in the town that work would finally be completed, and yet what followed was a chaotic confusion of mixed messages.
Shortly after the general election the new Labour Government indicated that they would pause the projects while they sorted out the nation’s finances. Over a year later, a press release identical to the May 2024 one was published by the Government, stating that feasibility studies had been given the green light, further adding to the confusion about the timeline for the work. In August, Lord Hendy then confirmed that the initial feasibility studies had been completed, and that a decision would be made on which of the 50 stations would be put forward for work to start in the context of the spending review 2025, which took place in July.
Almost two months later, we are still waiting to learn the Department’s decision. The Government’s answers to pleas from Members across the House for approved stations to finally be released have made full use of the phrases “will be announced in due course” and “will be announced shortly”, but there has been nothing in the way of clarity, either in terms of the timetable or the stations to be included.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Wivelsfield station in my constituency was also promised money in January 2024 under the Access for All scheme, and to date no more information has been forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Conservatives did in 2024 was nothing more than pork barrel politics?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think there is an element of pork barrel politics and of making undeliverable promises shortly before the election. That is not forgivable, because it has created an expectation among constituents that cannot be fulfilled.
As I was saying, the lack of clarity has added to the frustration of residents in places such as Whitchurch—especially in Whitchurch, because the plans for the lift are in place. It has been designed and Network Rail is keen to start work on the project, having designated it as a high priority for delivery in control period 7. All we need for step-free access at Whitchurch is a green light from the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s timeline for delivering step-free access to Whitchurch station, so I may share that with my constituents.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration but would like to say what a luxury it is to be so far down the line with an Access for All bid. Despite having £100,000 pledged by Dorset council and local developers to support step-free access, Dorchester South station is still waiting to hear whether it will even be considered for the bid. Does she agree that more should be done to create transparency in this process?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend is right: there should be more transparency, but there also needs to be more attention to the issue of step-free access in rural areas. I am about to come on to that in more detail.
Improving the accessibility of Whitchurch station will bring more people to the town via rail. That obviously could boost tourism—Whitchurch is Shropshire’s oldest continuously occupied town and is well worth a visit, along with the other beautiful and historic towns in my constituency—and bring customers to local businesses, workers to job vacancies, critically, and families to their loved ones.
Rural towns and villages have been consistently deprioritised by successive Governments and this Government, I am afraid, are no better, continually focusing investment into mayoral combined authorities’ coffers. Those areas do not face the same fundamental issues that rural areas do. They have regular buses that come within minutes, even on Sundays, and train services that are more frequent than every two hours. If people choose to drive, they can do so without the risk of damaging their tyres because they have bumped into a huge pothole. In a town like Whitchurch, if the bus turns up the round trip to someone’s destination is likely to be more than two hours—even if it is only to Shrewsbury, which is 20 miles away. Investment like the Access for All scheme in rural areas is part of the solution to improving economic growth—to more businesses thriving, more people spending and more money flowing into our economy.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
What the hon. Lady is describing sounds very familiar to the market town of Baldock in my constituency of North East Hertfordshire. Baldock is due to double in size, but does not have any step-free access. Would she join me in urging the Minister to ensure that rapidly growing rural communities receive a fair share of infrastructure funding?
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Whitchurch, like, I would imagine, many of the towns mentioned in today’s debate, has seen a huge amount of development. The criteria that might have been applied for step-free access some years back probably need reassessing now, because far more people are living there.
The investment would help revitalise our market town high streets, which have withered after years of the previous Conservative Government’s taking rural areas for granted. This Labour Government need to acknowledge the importance of rural parts of the country because they risk pushing the urban-rural divide to breaking point. I welcome the £373 million scheme to deliver Access for All projects over the next five years on a £70 million annual rolling basis, but it is key that that money is distributed to places where access to the railway network is currently poor and where it will have the most impact.
The only criteria that we could find for the provision of step-free access to railway stations come from joint code of practice created by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland in 2015—a decade ago. It recommends that
“stations that have a daily passenger flow of 1000 passengers or less…are not required to have lifts or ramps”
if a station within 50 km of the same route provides a step-free route. I am sorry, but once someone has got in their car and driven 30 miles to access a step-free station, they may as well drive the rest of the way—I certainly would; that completely negates the point of public transport. Will the Minister please set out whether his Department intends to update those outdated and ineffective criteria to ensure that rural areas are not left forever without accessible stations?
Of course, I understand that installing accessibility upgrades for urban stations may reach more people, but the people there already have other forms of accessible transport, often as well as a usable taxi service. In an area such as Shropshire, that is often not the case. If the Government want to achieve their mission of stimulating growth across the whole country, they should ensure that everyone has proper access to public transport, not just those people who are lucky enough to live in an urban area. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the needs of our rural areas are understood and prioritised to turn the tide on decades of persistent under-investment in public transport and take the first step to making the railway step-free in rural areas, and especially in Whitchurch in North Shropshire.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Accessibility on our railways is not simply a question of engineering and infrastructure development; it speaks to the kind of society that we want to build: one that enables independence and provides equality of opportunity and dignity for every passenger, regardless of their mobility.
Rural stations in particular can be lifelines for those who would otherwise find travel difficult, but as we have heard many remain inaccessible to those who need them the most. That is why I am delighted to mark the progress being made at Par station in my constituency. For many months, I have worked with Network Rail, Cornwall council and the Department for Transport to ensure that the long-promised accessible footbridge at Par remains part of the Mid Cornwall Metro scheme despite the significant pressures on the national Access for All programme, which may have proved useful.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
In my constituency, in Bookham, access to the train to London is via an uneven path through the woods. Network Rail has not prioritised accessibility upgrades. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must do more with accessibility schemes, like those he just mentioned?
Noah Law
I certainly agree that the Department for Transport and Network Rail must look where there are gaps in funding those schemes to see what can be done to help plug those gaps. As we have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber, the Access for All scheme has sadly come to represent the kind of pork barrel politics that characterised the last Government’s approach —and approach that said, “We will make plans that you will love but we’re not going to tell you how we will fund them.”
Happily, the outline work on the Par station project is completed, and local residents in Par are delighted, but project partners are preparing for a key go or no-go decision in December. There remains the £1.5 million additional funding gap that must be resolved if the scheme is to proceed to full design and delivery. I urge Cornwall council to make a final push to secure that investment so that much-needed step-free access can finally be delivered for local passengers. I urge the Minister to do everything that he can to help us get this project over the line. It represents not only an important improvement for residents but a clear demonstration that we can deliver the kind of change that so many have long hoped for.
Cornwall, with its dispersed population and its growing demand for greener and better-connected travel, stands to benefit greatly from that ambition. Investment in accessibility is not just an afterthought; it is central in ensuring that every part of the country, in urban and rural areas alike, shares equally in the economic and social opportunities that modern inclusive transport can unlock. Accessible public transport should not be seen as a luxury or an optional add-on; it is a basic expectation for every community, however rural. It deserves continued support across the rail network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner.
It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on rail accessibility in rural areas, which plays a vital role in opening up our railway to people who do not happen to live in towns and cities, regardless of their mobility, their age or the fact that they are travelling with heavy luggage. Accessibility is a core priority for this Government and will continue to be for Great British Railways. We are committed to delivering a rail system that allows disabled people and others who might need assistance to travel easily, confidently and with dignity; of course, this applies equally to those living in rural areas.
We know that too often disabled people’s experience of travelling by rail falls short of what is expected and what passengers deserve. We are not waiting for GBR to be established to deliver improvements to facilities and to the passenger experience. Our short to medium-term ambitions are set out in the accessible rail road map, which we published last week alongside the Railways Bill. The road map includes a wide range of accessibility improvements across seven priority areas, such as station and train accessibility, consistency and reliability of both assets and information, ticket retailing, monitoring, culture and training. The road map also announced that eligibility for the disabled persons railcard will be extended in two phases next year. This will make the application process simpler and reflect a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse barriers that disabled people face when travelling.
The accessible rail road map is a practical transitional plan focused on delivering immediate improvements to accessibility, while laying the foundations for longer-term transformation under GBR. It is the beginning rather than the end of delivering a more accessible railway for the future. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her ongoing work in making the case for improved accessibility in rural areas, particularly in her own constituency, which I will address in the course of my remarks.
The Government remain fully committed to improving accessibility across our rail network. Like Members in all parts of the House, we recognise the significant social and economic benefits that accessible transport brings to individuals, families and of course communities. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access to more than 270 stations right across Britain. This work has included providing lift installations, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes, all of which make a real difference in the everyday lives of passengers. Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations. This work has included providing everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. That is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway, or were unable to use it at all. We are also continuing to invest in improving station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.
I now turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at rural stations. Like all taxpayer-funded programmes, Access for All needs to demonstrate value for money. Funding is therefore targeted at the busiest stations to benefit the maximum number of people. Consequently, stations in rural areas that are used by fewer people are unlikely to be prioritised for accessibility upgrades, although I should also make it clear that that is equally applicable to stations in towns and cities that are less used than other stations.
It might be helpful to our understanding of the issues around accessibility in rural areas to reflect on the accessibility of stations in the North Shropshire constituency, which is a largely rural area. On a positive note, I think that Prees, Gobowen and Wem railway stations in her constituency already provide step-free access to all platforms. All three of these stations are categorised as B1, which means that step-free access is provided to all platforms, albeit it might be via a steep ramp. In the case of Gobowen—I checked the pronunciation beforehand, but still cannot manage it; apologies to constituents there—and Wem, I am aware that access can also require the use of level crossings. If a passenger arrives when the barrier is down, they might not be able to reach their platform in time to catch the train.
Helen Morgan
I want to re-emphasise the point that to a person who lives in Whitchurch, Gobowen is a long way away; they have to drive there. There is no parking at Prees. It is in the middle of nowhere—literally, because the station is not in the village. At Wem, the barrier is down for seven minutes when a train comes in; it is really inaccessible. Although fewer people use those stations, they have fewer options for public transport. I wonder whether the criteria are the right ones.
Simon Lightwood
I am reminded that Cumberland is one of our bus franchising pilot areas. So far, from just looking at our city regions as discussed earlier, we are investing money in those franchising pilots to ensure that the major improvements promised under the Bus Services Act 2025 can also be realised in more rural areas.
Passengers’ access to parts of the railway via level crossings is an extensive feature of rural railways across Britain, and while we would all like to see a world where that is not the case, I regret that such changes will take many years to achieve. For now, it is important for passengers to plan their journeys carefully and arrive at the station in plenty of time. I also urge passengers in North Shropshire and other rural areas to make use of the railway Passenger Assist service, which allows those with mobility requirements to book assistance for their journeys from all stations, including rural ones that may not have full-time, on-site staff, as the hon. Lady mentioned.
Whitchurch station is categorised as B3, meaning step-free access is available only to one platform—platform 2, for trains to Crewe and further north. Access to platform 1, for trains to Shrewsbury and for those travelling back from the north, is via a footbridge with 44 steps. Clearly, that limits which passengers can make use of Whitchurch station.
Turning to our plans for further accessibility upgrades at railway stations across Britain, in 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Whitchurch station. That nomination was supported strongly by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The previous Government announced that initial feasibility work would be undertaken for 50 of those projects, and, as the hon. Lady knows, Whitchurch was one of them. I am pleased to confirm that those initial feasibility studies have now been completed. I know that she and the hon. Members representing the other 49 stations are keen to understand the next steps. I thank them for their patience while we carefully consider these important matters, and I can confirm that we plan to provide that information in the coming months.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for talking about Par station. The Government have invested more than £50 million in the Mid Cornwall Metro project, which is funding a new bridge and lifts. I am delighted with the progress that has been made toward delivering better accessibility across that part of Cornwall, and with the really collaborative approach taken by Network Rail, Great Western Railway and Cornwall council. Crucially, that demonstrates that there are potential funding sources other than Access for All to improve accessibility at rural stations.
During the debate, hon. Members have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility in rural areas. Drawing on examples in the North Shropshire constituency , we have identified challenging factors, such as the need to use level crossings for step-free access to some parts of the railway. We have also discussed stations such as Whitchurch, which, frustratingly, is only partly accessible—a legacy of the Victorian railway, which did not consider such issues.
This Government are absolutely committed to improving the accessibility of our railways, and we are in no doubt about the social and economic benefits of doing so. That is demonstrated by the £280 million that the Chancellor made available for the Access for All programme in the recent spending review. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for leading this important debate, and I thank her and other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their patience before we announce which new Access for All projects will progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector
(1 day, 6 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
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to colleagues for attending this evening’s debate. A bit of background and heritage: the United Kingdom has long been a global hub for beers, wines and spirits. Dating back to 1698, with the founding of Berry Bros. & Rudd, we are the largest exporter of spirits in the world and the second largest importer of wine by both volume and value. The sector represents some of the very best of British enterprise: from heritage distillers to pioneering new producers who continue to innovate and support our economy. Behind every bottle on the shelf is a small family business, a logistics worker or a hospitality employee whose livelihood depends on the trade.
Each year, the United Kingdom imports the equivalent of 1.7 billion bottles of wine, accounting for 99% of all wine consumed here. This vibrant culture of responsible enjoyment sustains our high streets, supports independent retailers and provides essential income for pubs and restaurants that continue to face difficult trading conditions. In 2024, more than £12 billion was paid to the Treasury in alcohol duty, with wines and spirits contributing £8.5 billion—around 70% of that total. The wider wine and spirits sector generated more than £76 billion in economic activity in 2022, supported £22 billion in gross value added and sustained more than 400,000 jobs.
However, when more than 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is tax, we must ask who is truly being squeezed—the consumer, the publican or the common sense of good economic policy? The reality is that the margins for producers and retailers are tightening. There is a limit to what the British public are willing to pay before they simply choose to stay at home. Changes in duty directly alter prices on the shelf and on restaurant wine lists. Every percentage point of duty may appear small in Whitehall, but for many businesses, it is the difference between survival and closure. Treasury Wine Estates, the producer of brands such as 19 Crimes and Penfolds, has warned that further tax increases will deepen pressure on hospitality. Its managing director of global premium brands, Angus Lilley, stated that higher costs mean tougher choices for local pubs, higher prices for consumers and less money circulating through the hospitality sector, which keeps our towns and cities vibrant.
A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association found that one in four regular drinkers will buy less alcohol from shops if prices continue to rise, and two in five will reduce their consumption in pubs and restaurants. In my constituency, we have excellent local brewers such as Tilford and Kilnside, and craft distillers such as Hogmoor distillery; I had the pleasure of visiting the team recently and sampling their locally made spirits. Those are small creative producers that bring jobs, pride and flavour to their communities, but they will not survive if the alcohol industry continues to face relentless pressure from Government policy that fails to support its long-term sustainability. If we price people out of the pub, we do not just lose the sale; we lose the cornerstone of British community life.
Turning to the current picture, sales data illustrates the scale of the problem. In the 12 weeks to mid-June this year, volume sales for wine were down by 3% in the off-trade, rising to 5% for spirits. The picture in the on-trade is even more severe, with wine volumes down by 7% and spirits by 8%. Hospitality has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy since the Budget, accounting for nearly half of all job losses. We are now taxing our way to lower revenues. That is not sound economics; in fact, it is counterproductive. As one industry voice put it:
“Britain is becoming the most taxed place to raise a glass and the hardest place to sell one”.
Colleagues will recall that in 2023, the UK moved from the inherited EU duty framework to a strength-based system taxing wine by labelled alcohol by volume in 0.1% increments. Alongside that reform, the headline rate increased in August 2023, and it increased by a further 3.65% in February of this year. For a 14.5% ABV wine, that represents a cumulative increase of around 44% in just 18 months.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about excessive tax inhibiting entrepreneurship, I visited Ned Awty and his family, who run the Oatley vineyard in Cannington in my constituency, and they pointed out that it is perverse that the United Kingdom has a duty relief scheme for small brewers and distillers but no similar scheme for small vineyards. Does my hon. Friend agree that a small duty relief scheme for small producers would help English wine producers—and that we could all raise a glass to that?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he pre-empts something I was going to say later about the inconsistencies and unfairness in the current system. Small producer relief is capped at 8.5% ABV, and the Government should look at what they can do for the smaller producers that he mentions.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted that the UK has the third highest wine duty in the world, now at £2.44 per bottle—an increase of 9p since 2023. By comparison, France charges the equivalent of just 2p per bottle and Romania 1p, and Spain applies no excise duty at all. In fact, half of the EU’s 27 member states do not charge duty on wine whatsoever. When neighbouring countries impose far lower rates, our competitiveness suffers. We pride ourselves on being a global trading nation, but we have priced ourselves out of the very markets we helped to create. Labour’s current approach is short-sighted and self-defeating: taxing ambition, throttling innovation and penalising productivity. The Treasury cannot build growth by breaking the back of the very industries that deliver it. As Winston Churchill put it in 1904, we cannot tax our way to prosperity any more than we can drink our way to sobriety.
I turn to the inconsistencies and unfairness in the system, which my hon. Friend just mentioned. Products with an ABV of between 8.5% and 22% are taxed at the same rate per litre of pure alcohol, and yet producers of beer with an ABV of between 3.5% and 8.4% pay more than twice as much duty as producers of cider of the same strength. Small producer relief, although it is welcome in principle, is capped at 8.5% ABV and therefore excludes virtually all winemakers and distillers. This policy fails to support small English wineries such as Chapel Down—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—Nyetimber or Camel Valley, which I am sure Members are all familiar with, and which contribute to rural employment and agricultural production.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech, and I agree with everything that he is saying. West Dorset is blessed with 11 fantastic small vineyards. For most of them, the primary route to market is through local shops and rural pubs. Does he agree that unless we raise the threshold to create equality in the marketplace and a fairer system alongside small producers of beer, those vineyards will never have a chance to grow beyond their local area?
Gregory Stafford
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It makes very little sense to design a system that punishes small wineries for doing precisely what we want, namely innovating, employing and exporting. We need a tax framework that supports the makers, not merely those who take.
There is a revenue reality to this as well. Between April and September this year, receipts from alcohol duty were £300 million lower than during the same period in 2024. If that trend continues, the Treasury will collect around £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We have reached the wrong side of the Laffer curve, where higher duties result in lower total receipts. The Treasury cannot continue to draw from the same barrel and expect it to refill itself. That should give the Chancellor, the Minister and Treasury officials pause for serious reflection.
With the autumn Budget approaching, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas of concern. First, have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, a full assessment of the impact of successive duty increases on consumer prices, business sustainability and overall tax receipts? Secondly, will the forthcoming three-year review of the duty system consider whether the current tax by ABV model is appropriate for wine, a product whose alcohol content varies naturally with climatic conditions? Thirdly, will the Government revisit the structure of small producer relief so that it more fairly supports genuinely small-scale producers, including English winemakers and craft distillers, in line with the original policy intent?
Finally, will the Treasury review the cumulative impact of wider regulatory costs, such as the extended producer responsibility packaging levy, business rate changes and other compliance burdens, to ensure that they do not disproportionately harm low-margin businesses within the sector? I thank the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and Treasury Wine Estates, whose compelling evidence shows a sector under extreme pressure, a tax system that is internationally uncompetitive and an approach that risks delivering diminished returns to the Exchequer. When consumers are price sensitive, hospitality is struggling, and revenues are falling despite higher rates, it is right to ask whether the system remains fit for purpose. The objective must be a framework that is fair between product categories, proportionate in its impact, and effective in raising the revenue on which our public services depend.
The UK’s wine and spirits sector is one of our quiet economic strengths. It deserves a regulatory environment that allows it to thrive, invest and continue contributing to communities and the Treasury alike. The Government should remember that a thriving economy fills the Exchequer, and a suffocated one drains it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and in particular how the Government intend to support the stability, competitiveness and long-term sustainability of this vital industry.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under you this evening, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing the debate so ably, and I agree with much of what he said. He presented a number of questions to the Minister on the operation of alcohol duty, but one question that was perhaps missing was around the health impacts of having the wrong level of alcohol duty in the UK. I will touch on that in my speech.
In my life, English wine has moved from being a feature of jokes on sitcoms to a premium product—sometimes in terms of price, but more importantly in terms of its quality. I am pleased to see that Scotland’s wine industry is also growing. In 2025, so far five new vineyards have registered with Food Standards Scotland. I hope that this industry will continue to flourish and grow. I am proud to have the North British Distillery, one of Scotland’s oldest and largest Scotch grain whisky producers, in my constituency; I would be in trouble if I did not mention it. I hope that any consideration to changes on alcohol duty covers the whole of the industry in the UK, rather than just one part of it.
As much as I want these industries to thrive, and I absolutely do, we must be conscious of alcohol’s public health implications. It is our responsibility to find the right balance, with an alcohol duty that works for businesses, as we have heard, but that also supports public health. We need an alcohol duty system that works for our wine industry, supports the hospitality sector and improves public health. I shall talk about informed moderation when it comes to drinking. I am not here to lecture anyone—I enjoy a drink, like everybody else—but I am a real advocate of awareness of the implications of consuming alcohol.
I am concerned about four things, really. I think that drinks are getting stronger; that has certainly been the case in my lifetime, and it is to the detriment of the taste of some wines. We are drinking more at home post covid, and that has real health implications. I also have to say that I am eating more crisps at home as well post covid. [Laughter.] It is a serious point, actually. Our hospitality industry is under huge pressure, and this impacts on the vibrancy of our high streets.
We have a duty to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of drinking. Recently, I met representatives from Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems. They told me that in Scotland in 2024, a total of 1,185 alcohol-specific deaths were registered. That was the lowest number registered since 2019—something that we should celebrate. It is perhaps, in least in part, due to minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland, but it still shows the damage that excessive alcohol consumption can do, and it remains too high in Scotland and elsewhere.
By choosing to consume lower strength alcohol, we can continue to enjoy drinking and the benefits that it brings us on social occasions, while also addressing the harms caused by alcohol. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking quite seriously to meet their commitment to label alcohol, just as we did as a country with cigarettes, to make people more aware of some of the risks that come with drinking. For example, the World Cancer Research Fund told me that alcohol-related breast cancer can be caused even by low levels of consumption of high-strength alcoholic drinks. Reducing the strength of alcoholic drinks can reduce the likelihood of this type of cancer. I have to say, they told me about this at the Labour party conference in Liverpool—not the best place to give people advice on drinking a little bit less. That is why I feel that a well-designed minimum unit pricing system across the UK is worth considering, alongside a meaningful and well-structured alcohol duty regime, but I understand some of the concerns around minimum unit pricing of alcohol.
Many people active in this sector look back to when Alistair Darling was Chancellor in the UK, and the changes that he made to the alcohol duty regime and how that directly related to improved health outcomes for people. That is something that we can learn from. I am always proud to say that I followed him, although there was someone between us, as MP for Edinburgh South West.
Alongside an effective duty system, it is also right that we encourage drinking in as safe an environment as possible, while supporting our hospitality industry. During a meeting with the Institute of Alcohol Studies last month, I was told that freezes in alcohol duty disproportionately benefit the sale of alcohol in shops, allowing supermarkets to maintain lower prices in comparison with hospitality venues. This is at the heart of so many pubs feeling the strain, because it is so much cheaper for people to drink at home than in pubs and other venues. Hospitality is a massive employer in the UK, and it is under huge stress. We need to look at taxation of alcohol right across the board to make sure that we are benefiting that sector while also reducing harmful drinking at home. An effective alcohol duty can support many of these jobs by closing the gap between the prices in pubs and supermarkets. That, in turn, encourages people to drink—hopefully, British-produced alcohol—publicly, which is far safer than consumption in private.
It is right that we take time to thoroughly consider alcohol duty, and make sure that it works for our wine industry and for businesses like the North British Distillery in my constituency. But we also have to see this debate as an opportunity to support the hospitality sector and improve public health. These are three really important things, and I do not envy the Minister in trying to reach a balance between them.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important topic that affects so many people and businesses in the Weald of Kent, which proudly produces some of the finest wines in the country.
The principle of taxing alcohol by strength may make sense in theory, but wine is an agricultural product. Its strength cannot be engineered to order; instead, it varies naturally with climate and vintage. A system designed for factory production simply does not work for vineyards rooted in the soil. Sadly, our wine businesses have faced steep duty increases, ever more paperwork and, as a result, mounting costs across the board. In the Weald of Kent, small vineyards—often family-run and started from scratch—are grappling not just with higher duties but with higher label costs, greater packaging charges and yet more red tape.
In May, I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor to raise my concerns about the impact of alcohol duty on the wine industry. In his reply, he said that producers below 8.5% ABV could claim draught relief and small producer relief. That is true, but almost no wine sits below 8.5% strength. Might the Minister be able to tell us how many UK wineries actually claimed either relief last year?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Like the hon. Lady, as a south-east MP, I have some amazing vineyards in my constituency, such as Bolney Wine Estate and Albourne Estate. They have told me about the challenges of the 8.5% cap that the hon. Lady has so articulately set out. It strikes me, however, that the previous Conservative Government brought in that cap. Does the hon. Lady think that current members of the Conservative party regret that decision from 2022?
Katie Lam
It is not for me to speak for them, but it is reasonable to say that the system we have does not work very well. It would not be right to pretend otherwise on behalf of my constituents who have to deal with it every day.
The Minister’s predecessor also said that the new system benefits lower strength wines, including many British wines. Since February, overall rates have risen. Might the Minister be able to tell us what share of English wines are paying less or more duty now than under the previous system? Finally, the previous Minister said that reforms would strengthen the tax base, yet as far as I can see, between April and September, alcohol duty receipts were almost £300 million lower than in the same period last year, despite the rates rise. It would be useful if the Minister could explain that.
Duty on 14.5% ABV wine is now almost half as much more again as it was in August 2023. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon rightly pointed out, well more than half the shelf price of a bottle of wine is now tax. In France, the equivalent duty is a few euro cents, and in Spain, it is nothing at all. This duty system, combined with the general tax rises in the last Budget, is putting businesses at risk. Could the Minister please rule out any further duty increases in the upcoming Budget? Countless small producers in the Weald of Kent, and about 1,000 independent merchants across England, are already struggling under the weight of new bureaucracy and tax pressures.
Winemaking is not an exact science. As I mentioned, alcohol strength fluctuates from year to year, and small differences can double a producer’s duty bill. Large multi-national producers may be able to absorb that; small family wineries cannot. They cannot dial down their ABV without changing the taste or quality of the product. They cannot dilute wine without destroying it. These are new entrepreneurial businesses built on enormous risk and long-term investment. Many vineyards in the Weald have put everything they have into buying land, planting vines and waiting years before their first sale.
In my constituency, we are proud to host many of Britain’s leading wineries, including Chapel Down, Gusbourne, Balfour, Biddenden, Westwell, Woodchurch and Domaine Evremond—the list goes on. They bring visitors, jobs and pride to the Weald, and it is an utter pleasure to visit them all. We are also home to small start-ups, such as the husband and wife team I met last month in Hamstreet taking a leap of faith into the sector. It if is tough for the big names, it is tougher still for the small ones. Now, they face not just duty increases but rising national insurance costs, higher minimum wages, an end to flexible employment contracts, changes to inheritance tax relief, and packaging fees that penalise glass, which is the only viable material for quality sparkling wine.
When I last raised the broader issue of wine in England, I asked the Minister’s colleague in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he would support the sector’s call for targeted help, and he said it was a matter for the Treasury. I say to the Minister today, “Please look again.” I know that he did not create the duty framework, but my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon is right that we seem to have reached the tipping point at which our taxation system is so complex and onerous that it is collecting less money than a simpler lower-rate system would. It would be great to hear what plans the Minister has to support such an exciting and dynamic industry creating jobs and amazing export opportunities in rural parts of the country such as my home, the Weald of Kent.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. I was delighted that he broadened his comments beyond the wine industry because, of course, the lessons we can learn from the whisky industry will apply to the burgeoning wine industry. I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I agree with many of his comments about the health implications, but I also acknowledge, for once, a Scottish Labour MP praising the Scottish Government rather than criticising them.
The impact of alcohol duty is being felt far beyond the UK wine sector. It is critically affecting the nation’s biggest food and drink export: Scotch whisky. Despite its proven value to the economy—it supports more than 66,000 jobs across the country and had an export value of £5.4 billion last year—the industry now stands under a mounting threat that has been created by current Government policy.
In just two years, Scotch whisky has faced a 14% increase in duty, meaning that 70% of the average cost of a bottle of whisky represents tax. On top of that, producers are under immense pressure from other rising input costs, higher employment expenses and global market pressures, including damaging US tariffs that threaten stability and market share. Despite that, the expected revenues from duty increases have perversely failed to materialise. We know that the Government want to put growth at the heart of their strategy, but last year’s falling revenues show that excessive taxation is hurting both the industry and the Treasury. That also applies to the growing wine sector in this country. I expect that is partly to do with climate change, although I do not expect that my constituency in the north of Aberdeenshire will see any vineyards in the near future.
The Scotch Whisky Association has rightly described the current excise duty system as broken. It is now up to the Chancellor to create a stable and supportive environment for the industry by freezing excise duty. With more than 1,000 jobs lost since the last Budget, it is time for the Government to recognise the counterproductive nature of this policy and set it right in the upcoming autumn Budget.
Significant progress is being made in Scotland, as discussions between the First Minister and President Trump during his state visit highlighted the potential for a trade deal that would strengthen ties between the US whiskey and Scotch whisky industries. The Chancellor must now show the same commitment by prioritising the Scotch whisky sector and recognising that supporting its growth means maintaining the duty freeze to allow for this world-renowned industry, and hopefully the wine sector, to thrive.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for bringing us this very important debate; it is much appreciated.
The overall logic of more alcohol resulting in more tax makes sense, and the taxation of wine needs to be stable, fair and workable. That principle has to work in practice, and we are completely failing on that in the current system. We really need to fix that as soon as possible.
To recap, before August 2023, in line with EU regulations, wine duty was predominantly charged according to volume, rather than how much alcohol the product contained. In August 2023, through the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023, a new duty system was introduced that required duty to be paid on all products according to strength. On 31 January 2025, wines between 11.5% ABV and 14.5% ABV were taxed as if their strength were 12.5%, but that measure was withdrawn on 1 February 2025. Therefore, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rate of duty.
Under the new system, that has been replaced by 30 different rates based on ABV at 0.1% increments. That is extraordinary. It would make sense if we were talking about vodka, which is distilled, or beer, which is brewed, as the producer is able to perfectly and precisely determine how much alcohol is in those products. It makes absolutely no sense for an agricultural product like wine; a bottle of wine may have more or less alcohol in it from one season to the next. Dealing with the microscopic increments puts domestic and foreign producers and retailers in this country in real trouble, because every single one of those bottles needs to be measured and calibrated, and priced and taxed accordingly. The administrative burden of that is absolutely horrendous.
I hear that from Oli Gauntlett, the head of Eynsham Cellars and a loyal constituent, and from the Oxford Wine Company, which is a wonderful wine company that serves Oxfordshire. It has had enormous admin trouble dealing with this issue. I also hear it from Majestic Wine, which has a shop in Witney. The single best reason to change this is, as so many people have said already, that it is not working: we have £300 million less excise duty as a result. I cannot think of a better argument to tickle the Treasury into a sensible decision.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this policy directly hits the small independent wine importers, such as The Wine Loft in Brixham? It sells many different kinds of wine, but it does not have the power of Sainsbury’s or Majestic. It does not have a whole department to manage it and bring in large quantities of the same wine.
Charlie Maynard
I agree 100%. That is a great illustration of just how painful and unnecessary it is. This is not benefiting anyone, not even His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Budget is very soon and, bluntly—I do not want to stick the knife too much into my Conservative colleagues—I think the previous Government’s tax reforms were, overall, quite sensible in levying more tax on higher amounts of alcohol, but that is obviously mad when it comes to wine. I am an equal-opportunities knife sticker, so why did Labour follow a mad Tory policy? It is a bit like, why are they following a mad hard Brexit? Pull out, blame the Tories and then change the policy back to something sensible. They could raise more tax and put UK growers and UK retailers back on their feet.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. In Blur’s immortal words, he knows his claret from his Beaujolais, but I will not have anyone say he is a charmless man.
It is a pleasure to speak in support of an industry that is doing well in this country, although it is facing some challenges. Wine is a home-grown success story, with more than 1,000 vineyards and nearly 5,000 hectares under vines across the country. In my North West Norfolk constituency, I am fortunate to have wineries including the award-winning Burn Valley and Cobble Hill, which are contributing to the local economy, supporting tourism and creating jobs. Overall, the wine and spirits industry contributed £76 billion in economic activity last year, with nearly half of that coming from the wine sector. Despite this success, the Government are putting more burdens on the sector.
This has been a good debate, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) wins the prize for the number of wineries in her constituency. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) made some important points about public health. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) could not resist mentioning Brexit—he seems slightly obsessed.
The domestic sector is largely made up of small producers, with two thirds producing fewer than 10,000 bottles a year. Generally, these are family businesses, local employers and passionate entrepreneurs. Employment in the sector has grown significantly over the past few years, and since 2010 bottle sales have increased to over 9 million.
The UK is a global hub for the trade, being the second largest importer of wine by volume and value. This is a sector that we should be nurturing, not penalising. When we were in government, that is what we did. We introduced the simplified duty system, based on taxing alcohol by strength, with an 18-month easement to help the sector. We encouraged businesses to diversify and move into wine production.
Importantly in the context of this debate, we froze alcohol duty rates in the 2023 autumn statement, and we continued that in the spring Budget of 2024. That is a record of support, but sadly this Government have taken a different path. At last year’s Budget, they raised the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation. As we have heard, around 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is now tax, and Wine GB warns that the increases are driving down demand and, in turn, cutting revenue to the Treasury. One in four drinkers say they will buy less alcohol as a result of the price increases.
Let us be clear that producing wine in Britain is not easy. Yields are 30% to 50% lower than in France or Spain, labour costs are higher, the weather is obviously unpredictable, and input prices keep rising. But instead of backing the sector, the Government keep piling on costs. Alcohol duty—up. Business rates—up. National insurance—up. As we have heard, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said that revenues from alcohol duty are down £300 million in the first six months of this financial year. If that continues, the Treasury will be bringing in £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the spring statement.
The Government are putting the country on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, not just on alcohol taxes but across the board. The Minister is relatively new in post, but has he commissioned advice on the duty’s impact on the sector? Has he taken a fresh look at the data or at the assumptions used by the OBR? If not, will he do so, and do so rapidly? The Opposition are firmly on the side of Britain’s wine producers. It is a vibrant, innovative and home-grown sector that deserves support, not more taxation.
Of course, it is not possible to have this debate without talking about the hospitality sector, as a number of colleagues have. Wine is more than a drink; it is about socialising and shared experiences. The sector clearly depends heavily on pubs, restaurants and hotels to introduce consumers to this great British product.
However, under this Government, hospitality, like so many sectors, is struggling. Nearly 90,000 jobs have been lost since the disastrous Budget a year ago, and today we have seen the unemployment rate hit 5%—it has gone up every month under this Government. That is the result of the Chancellor’s terrible judgment in making it more expensive to employ people. With rising employment costs, the jobs tax, the extended producer responsibility and higher business rates, we see layer upon layer of additional cost, so it is no wonder that UKHospitality has described the Government’s approach as a “hammer blow”.
The wine sector has put forward some suggestions for the Chancellor and Ministers ahead of the Budget. First and foremost, it asks that they reconsider some of the decisions to increase business taxes, and it asks them to consider a freeze on excise duty or a wine tourism relief. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and echoed by others, it also asks for the alignment of small producer relief with the realities of the wine industry. Those are all practical ideas that are worthy of consideration, so will the Minister commit to looking seriously and carefully at all of them?
Rather than taxing success, we should be nurturing it. The wine sector is a model of sustainable, rural growth, and it deserves our support. Its ask of the Minister is simple: will the Government work with the sector and listen to it, and will they look at the evidence and commit to easing the burden on our wine producers?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I am glad to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate, and for speaking so eloquently in support of the UK wine sector. It is fantastic to hear him speak about the sector’s growth, as well as its continuing progress on exports, which is a really good thing. The irony is not lost on me, though, that he said that Treasury Wine Estates has some reservations about the Treasury’s tax policy—I will look into that.
I heartily echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the UK wine industry’s significant contribution to our economy, culture and tourism. As he mentioned, the statistics speak for themselves: we are the world’s second largest wine importer, bringing in 1.7 billion bottles in 2024. Sales of both imported and home-grown wine support hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in hospitality and retail. In recent years, as many Members have mentioned, more and more people have taken up work in the UK’s domestic wine sector, which is much like a dessert wine—small, but strong.
Industry figures suggest that more than 1,000 vineyards and 200 wineries contribute to our rural economy, with land under vine growing fivefold since 2005. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) listed many of the wineries in her patch; one of the challenges of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), is that they do not always get to speak in these debates. However, I have been reliably informed by note that the two Members have the same number of vineyards in their constituencies—there may have to be a little Kent-based competition.
It is great to see that the number of home-grown products is increasing, with production exceeding 10 million bottles last year, and with sales rising too. This Government are committed to fostering an environment in which the wine industry, like its vines, can thrive and grow.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, as well as other Opposition Members, made important points about the UK’s alcohol duty system. Before I turn to those points, I will first acknowledge the Government’s wider work to support the wine industry through agricultural grants and export promotion. The Government have committed at least £200 million to the farming innovation programme through to 2030, and we champion domestically produced wines on the international stage. For example, we showcased English sparkling wine at the Osaka expo earlier this year.
As I have mentioned English sparkling wine, it is important that I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked about Scotland’s growing wine industry and the impact it is having on high streets. He also said that, in designing a sensible tax system, it is important that it takes account of the impact on the health of the population, which I think is reflected in the current system.
Members have spoken about the previous Government’s reform of the alcohol duty system. I am a Labour MP, so it is not lost on me that I am defending an alcohol duty system implemented by Conservative MPs, and that Conservative MPs are opposed to a system implemented by their own Government. We learned in opposition that it is not always wise to oppose the decisions made by our party when it was previously in government. Indeed, I think that one of the reasons we won the last election is because we were able to talk proudly and confidently of the achievements of previous Labour Governments. Anyway, it is up to Opposition Members to choose which aspects of previous Government policy they wish to support, or not.
As others have mentioned, the alcohol duty system is now based on the principle of taxing alcohol by strength, which means that alcohol duty increases with a product’s ABV. Although it is true that some higher-strength wines have faced increases in duty, that has been balanced by reductions in duty for lower-ABV wines, including some British wines. Prior to the reforms, wines with 11% ABV and wines with 14% ABV both paid the same duty per bottle. Now, there is a difference: wines with 11% ABV pay £2.43 in duty and wines with 14% ABV pay £3.10.
I am interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent about the extent to which British wine companies are producing wine with an ABV below 8.5%. I will consider that point. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading up on this topic earlier today. However, I know the changes were introduced alongside conversations with industry representatives, and those conversations will continue as the changes bed in.
In recognition of the big changes that were implemented, it is right to assess their impacts after they have had time to take effect. We have said that will take place at least three years after their introduction in 2023. I will take that work forward next year with officials from HMRC, and I would welcome evidence from Members in this Chamber, including representations from the businesses and communities they represent, and of course I will engage with the wine industry.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said he had three points, but I think he had four in the end, including on the cumulative impact—I will try to address all four. On his third point, yes, we will consider in the round all aspects of the system’s current design. I do not want this review to be one that does not properly interrogate the design of the system, and I also do not want to pre-empt where it will get to, but in my role overseeing that review, I want us to look carefully at the design of the system as a whole. I think the system is sensible and fair, but I also know there are challenges that have been raised by Members today.
On the hon. Member’s big point about cuts or freezes to alcohol duty, it is worth realising that any such cuts or freezes would come at a cost to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility produces the costings for any changes to taxation policy.
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the OBR’s assumptions are wrong. I encourage Members, if they have evidence, facts or figures that they want to put to the OBR on the elasticities—as I believe it is called when a tax rate is changed and has an impact on consumption—to send them in. The Government are confident in the OBR’s independence, but I will always want to ensure that we are putting forward accurate costings. In this instance, I believe that the OBR is in the right place when it comes to the elasticities, but Members should feel free to send in their own representations.
It is worth noting that freezing alcohol duty this year, if inflation was around 4%, would be equivalent to a 3.85% duty cut. Using HMRC’s published ready reckoner, this would cost the Exchequer roughly £440 million a year. It is right, therefore, that any decision on alcohol duty weighs the impact on overall revenues carefully. That is what I am confident that the Chancellor will do when she makes a decision in the Budget in just a few weeks.
I will try to run through some of the points made by Members in this debate. The hon. Members for Bridgwater, for Weald of Kent and for Farnham and Bordon, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised the issue of small producer relief for wine. That question was considered in detail as part of the previous Government’s review into alcohol duty, and as I have said, we will look to review it three years after the implementation that took place on 1 August 2023. We want to gather data and really look at the impact of the reforms. If Members want to come forward with proposals for change, then they should do so.
Dan Tomlinson
Of course. I was looking forward to my first intervention, and will happily give way.
Charlie Maynard
I am just going to make a plea. HMRC is losing nearly £1 billion a year, which is incredibly bad news, and there are massive frictions and admin costs on business. Why would we not just go back to the easement? We can stand looking at this massive problem, or we can face facts and deal with it—and actually get money for the Exchequer.
Dan Tomlinson
We will look in the round at the changes that were implemented in 2023. I do not want to rush to implement something that does not work for the alcohol industry as a whole and is not fair or proportionate. But I understand the points that have been raised—they are well made and I have been listening.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon also raised the cumulative impact on the wine industry of various changes that have been made by previous Governments, and the current Government, including around packaging. That does go to a big-picture point that is contested in this place about the tax rises implemented in the Budget last year. It is my view, and the view of the Chancellor and the Government, that in the round we had to make those decisions to raise revenue. I understand that it led to additional taxation on businesses, but that was on the largest businesses—around half of businesses, those with the fewest employees, are not paying any additional national insurance as a result of the changes last year. But I understand that there was an impact on those firms that had to absorb those additional taxation levels.
The Government think that it was the right decision in order to raise revenue to fund our public services and ensure that borrowing was not increased more than is sustainable. It is right that the Government ensure that we borrow to invest in the future of this country, something I wish the previous Government had done when interest rates were down at 0.5%. On a serious point, as the Minister with responsibility for taxation policy and the Treasury, I am looking closely at the impact of all the changes that have been introduced in previous years that require compliance and burden for business. We have to look carefully at them, because we want to see businesses growing, thriving and being able to hire more people and expand.
On business rates specifically, the Chancellor will come forward at the Budget with the permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure. That policy was set out in our manifesto and we will announce the detail at the Budget.
Let me turn to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). I was glad to hear a shout-out for my hometown of Witney—I went to Wood Green school in his constituency; it is a wonderful part of the world. He, too, raised the point that one of the challenges with the move to the new system is the additional bands. If we look at it on a chart, the line is flat because the rate is the same, but of course I am aware that, depending on the ABV, producers are at different points on that line. That is something they have to deal with, and he is right that it is maybe more of a challenge for those who are producing wine and growing products. I do understand that; the point was well made, and there will be a review of the tax three years after implementation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned Scotch whisky and was interested to hear from me about the support that the Government are providing to the industry. I would say that the industry is set to be one of the biggest beneficiaries from the trade deal with India, which is set to reduce tariffs from 150% to 75% initially and then to 40% over time.
I do not think I have reached every single question that Members raised, but I hope they feel that I have covered the points that were made. To conclude, our Government are dedicated to supporting the UK wine industry through a range of measures, including ensuring an alcohol duty system that is fair and proportionate. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon for securing the debate. I share his pride in this growing British success story and look forward to further discussions, including with WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association—tomorrow, in fact—about how we can build a prosperous and sustainable future for UK wine.
Gregory Stafford
Having eight minutes to wind up, when usually one gets about eight seconds in this place, is a luxury that I will indulge, at least to a limited extent—I do not want to keep hon. Members from their wine.
This has been a fascinating debate and a wide range of issues have been raised. It was wonderful to hear about the wine producers and hospitality industries in people’s constituencies, as exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who is a doughty advocate not just for her constituency as a whole but, from what I can see from social media, for her vineyards and the producers in her constituency.
Every day is a school day: I did not realise that Scotland produced wine, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising that—and for talking about his crisp-eating habits. He rightly mentioned the health implications, and I hope that nothing I said in my speech detracted from that. I would like to see more education, and more targeted services and treatment services. I think that would achieve more than taxing the Shiraz that we have with our Sunday lunch, although he may beg to differ with me on that.
We have not just talked about wine; the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly mentioned the Scotch whisky industry, which is vital.
The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), outlined comprehensively how complicated the system is. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for mentioning Blur. I think that dates him and me, but he was right to outline that the last Conservative Government froze duties. That is something that the Government should consider at the Budget.
I feel sorry for the Minister, because—behind the Chancellor, perhaps—he probably has the worst job in Government, but it does not have to be that way. He could make everyone very happy at the Budget by being one of the first Ministers responsible for taxation in a Labour Government to reduce tax. We shall wait and see. I was pleased to hear that, in the three-year review, the Government will look at the wider implications and the design of the system—and, I think he said, at small producer relief.
However, I was slightly disappointed by the way the Minister dismissed the impact of tax rises on the hospitality industry. That 90,000 jobs have disappeared since the last Budget is a scandal. If the same number of jobs had been lost from a car plant or an oil refinery, we would be debating that in the House and the Government would be stepping in to bail the industry out. Although the impact is dispersed across the country, those 90,000 jobs are equally important, and I hope the Government reconsider in particular their national insurance increase, which has hit the industry so hard.
I urge the Minister again to review the cumulative burdens that have been placed on the industry through both tax and regulation, and I hope that when he has his conversations with representatives of the industry tomorrow—I am glad that my debate has spurred him to have that meeting—he listens seriously to their concerns and gives them the relief and response that they seek.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.
Prime Minister
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is at this time of year that many of us think of those who have served their country and continue to do so—those like my grandad who served in world war two and brought up my dad and my uncles in forces accommodation, and those like my nephew currently serving, who sends me videos of accommodation riddled with black mould. Will the Deputy Prime Minister welcome the new defence housing strategy announced this week, which will guarantee the end of the scandal of unfit forces accommodation? Will he guarantee to my residents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages—the 500-plus military families—that they will finally have accommodation fit for them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing our armed forces, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. We are renewing our country, and that includes renewing our contract with those who commit the ultimate sacrifice. Four thousand military homes—that is, nine out of 10—will be upgraded thanks to the £9 billion that we are investing. Of course, that will include her constituency—homes fit for heroes delivered by a Labour Government.
[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 907.]
Written correction submitted by the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy):
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for championing our armed forces, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe. We are renewing our country, and that includes renewing our contract with those who commit the ultimate sacrifice. Forty thousand military homes—that is, nine out of 10—will be upgraded thanks to the £9 billion that we are investing. Of course, that will include her constituency—homes fit for heroes delivered by a Labour Government.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Maynard
What recent discussions she has had with her counterpart in the United Arab Emirates on the situation in Sudan.
Yvette Cooper
… On Sudan, I strongly condemn the escalating violence in El Fasher and the very grave reports of civilian casualties and suffering. It is estimated that between 200 and 300 civilians are in the city, at grave risk of atrocities, following the advance of the Rapid Support Forces.
[Official Report, 28 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 145.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper):
Yvette Cooper
… On Sudan, I strongly condemn the escalating violence in El Fasher and the very grave reports of civilian casualties and suffering. It is estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 civilians are in the city, at grave risk of atrocities, following the advance of the Rapid Support Forces.
British Steel
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025. In addition to today’s statement, on 23 October my ministerial colleagues Baroness Lloyd of Effra and Baron Stockwood of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes led a debate in the House of Lords entitled “Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025”.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at the spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £274 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
I visited British Steel on 6 November to meet with the company’s UK management and trade unions. The visit was in the same week as the 50th anniversary of the Queen Victoria blast furnace disaster, which occurred in Scunthorpe in 1975, which British Steel employees and the local community commemorated on 4 November. The loss of life and the profound impact of that event on the local community remain a stark reminder of the critical importance of health and safety standards across all industrial operations. I laid a wreath at the memorial to the disaster in remembrance to those who had lost their lives.
Work continues to develop an impact assessment, which will be published in due course following Regulatory Policy Committee scrutiny. We are also continuing work on the introduction of a compensation scheme for steel undertakings in scope of the Act.
We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel. As we have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for the company will require co-investment with the private sector to enable modernisation and decarbonisation, to safeguard taxpayers’ money and to retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe. Once a solution is found, we will terminate the directions issued to British Steel under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 and make a statement on the need to retain, or repeal, the legislation.
[HCWS1030]
Impact Economy Partnerships
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
The social impact investment advisory group’s final report was published on 3 November 2025 and sets out recommendations on how the Government could better partner with the impact economy to contribute billions to national priorities, such as supporting early years and health. A key recommendation from the report was to create an office at the heart of Government to drive this change.
In response to the social impact investment advisory group’s final report, the Government are launching the Office for the Impact Economy. Strategically housed within the Cabinet Office, this new team will report to me, as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, as I serve as the ministerial lead.
The Office will function as a clear front door to enable the Government to partner more strategically and effectively with the impact economy, including philanthropists, social and impact investors, purpose-driven business and civil society. The office will help ensure that every pound of public funding works harder, and that impact capital and purpose-driven business are harnessed and grown in support of national renewal.
The Office for the Impact Economy will employ a hub-and-spoke operating model to facilitate cross-governmental collaboration. The office will bring together Departments across Government, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, HM Treasury, the No. 10 partnerships unit, and the Department for Business and Trade, all of which will continue to hold their established policy and delivery relationships. The Office for the Impact Economy will work closely with the Office for Investment, which works with large pools of impact aligned investment and with the Office for Responsible Business Conduct.
[HCWS1041]
Intergovernmental Relations Engagement Dashboard
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
This Government came to office with a clear commitment: to reset relationships with the devolved Governments, working in genuine partnership to deliver change in every part of the United Kingdom.
Between July 2024 and March 2025, we held 357 ministerial meetings with our counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast. This engagement continues to be more frequent than under the previous Administration. While political differences will always exist between different parties, the increased engagement between Governments across the United Kingdom is a positive development for devolution and brings benefits for citizens in all parts of the country.
However, this reset is about more than numbers. It represents a meaningful shift in how we govern to deliver shared ambitions. This Government recognise devolution as a strength to be embraced and a means of delivering for everyone across the UK, wherever they live.
This reset is reflected in the composition of the ministerial team itself with Scottish and Welsh politicians serving at the very highest levels of the UK Government, bringing their experience, their insights and their commitment to every corner of our country. This recognises that the best solutions come when we draw on talent from across the United Kingdom.
We have delivered record funding settlements for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—providing the resources our devolved Governments need to deliver for their communities while we work together on our shared priorities.
This partnership approach is already delivering tangible results.
In Port Talbot, we worked hand-in-hand with the Welsh Government to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales, with a £500 million UK Government support package to protect jobs. At Grangemouth, we worked in partnership with the Scottish Government to support workers and communities facing transition, ensuring Scotland remains at the forefront of our industrial future. In September, we announced that Northern Ireland will benefit from one of the first defence growth deals, helping to boost local economies by bringing together leaders across industry, politics and academia to make sure that local potential is realised.
Through our UK-wide industrial strategy, we are working with all devolved Governments to build an economy that works for every community. With Scotland and Wales benefiting from the designation of AI growth zones, we are ensuring all parts of the UK benefit from co-ordinated technological advancement that means we can compete globally.
These examples demonstrate what we can achieve when Governments work together, rather than at cross purposes.
As part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to open collaboration with the devolved Governments, the Cabinet Office has published an intergovernmental relations engagement dashboard. This provides transparent information on ministerial meetings between the UK Government and devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
The publication of this dashboard shows this partnership in action. It demonstrates the breadth and depth of ministerial engagement across a range of policy areas, and our commitment to working together on the issues that matter most to people’s lives.
[HCWS1033]
UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes).
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).
[HCWS1036]
Contingent Liability Notification
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the asset purchase facility—the APF—by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with a small number of outstanding corporate bonds reaching maturity on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England, in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022, to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 13 May 2025, when the maximum authorised size of the APF was last reduced, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further, from £619.7 billion to £555 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £555 billion, comprising entirely of gilts.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in Parliament providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS1040]
Restoration of War Memorials
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made on 10 November 2025 in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling, Baroness Twycross:
As we mark 80 years since the end of the second world war, the Government are providing £2 million funding to support the conservation and repair of war memorials across the UK.
The nation’s war memorials stand as enduring symbols of the sacrifice made by servicemen and women in conflicts past and present. In communities across the country, they are central to acts of remembrance and connect us to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we enjoy today.
The War Memorials Trust has identified that there is a backlog in the conservation of our war memorials. Addressing this will enhance local neighbourhoods and give communities a focal point for commemorations. It will support pride in place and improve the local environment for everyone.
This new funding will be made via an investment in the National Heritage Memorial Fund endowment. The memorial fund has been safeguarding the UK’s most important heritage for 45 years, and exists to form a UK-wide memorial in honour of those who have given their lives to the country.
NHMF will work with the War Memorials Trust, Historic England and other partners across the UK to protect and repair their local war memorials through grants, expert advice and guidance, ensuring these historic monuments can continue to serve as places for remembrance and education.
We expect to announce further details of the fund in due course.
[HCWS1029]
Veterans Strategy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Minister of State in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Coaker, made the following statement on 10 November 2025:
Today, this Government are pleased to take another step towards renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve and have served in the armed forces, demonstrating that this Government are on their side. The country’s near 2 million veterans are a national asset, and our new veterans strategy proudly sets the narrative about them, their service and the role they can play in our national prosperity.
Veterans not only remind us of the challenges we have overcome; they also play a vital role in strengthening the fabric of our communities. Their contributions enhance the resilience and effectiveness of our defence, support critical industries and bolster the wider economy. Many veterans have benefited from a military career that provided them with unique skills, experience, confidence and opportunities that they took forward into civilian life. For many, a career in the armed forces continues to be a powerful driver of social mobility.
The new veterans strategy sets the long-term outcomes that the Government want veterans to achieve, grounded in three core themes that challenge the whole of society to think differently about those who have served in the armed forces and their ongoing potential.
Celebrate
We want society to respect those who serve and have served, ensuring that the benefits of military service for individuals are recognised, and that their role in defending our freedoms and society is celebrated.
Contribute
We want to ensure that the unique skills, experience and personal values of veterans are appreciated and understood, including how they contribute to our national security, our economy and our communities.
Support
For the overwhelming majority, veterans’ lives are better for having served. However, some veterans continue to need access to timely, appropriate and effective support that meets their needs following service. To meet this need, we have also launched VALOUR, which will transform the way we provide support to veterans who need it.
Together, these themes represent a powerful new approach to recognising veterans as one of the UK’s great assets, aligned in its approach with the strategic defence review and the plan for change, and underpinned by this Government’s commitment to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law.
Like the armed forces covenant, this strategy applies equally across the UK. While its vision, themes and outcomes are a shared endeavour, effective implementation will vary according to local needs and context. This strategy recognises the rich and varied contributions of those who have long supported the armed forces community.
We will work closely with partners in the public, private and third sector to drive progress against the outcomes, establish a new governance framework, and continue investment in data and insights on veterans and their experiences.
As a key element of the veterans strategy, this Government are also taking the next steps in delivering VALOUR, with applications now open for organisations to bid for funding for VALOUR-recognised centres, backed by £27 million of funding.
This is alongside an extension of the nuclear test medal eligibility criteria. This Remembrance, we are making the medal available to even more veterans. Personnel who served on operations to monitor French atmospheric nuclear tests until 1974, and Chinese tests until 1980, will now be eligible. These personnel carried out air sampling missions from airfields in Peru, the USA, the Aleutian islands, and the Midway islands near Hawaii, and conducted monitoring operations at sea.
This Government are committed to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. The veterans strategy will be a critical step in dedication to honouring and supporting our veterans.
[HCWS1039]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The right hon. Lord Jones of Pennybont has been appointed as the Leader of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the right hon. Lord Touhig.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson).
[HCWS1038]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) has been appointed as a full representative of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce).
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has been appointed as a full, representative of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin).
The hon. Member for Newton Abbott (Martin Wrigley) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).
[HCWS1035]
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria: 2026-28
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:
I wish to update the House on the Government decision on investment in the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria—the Global Fund—which covers 2026 to 2028.
Diseases such as HIV, TB and malaria are not only preventable and treatable, but disproportionately affect the poorest and most marginalised. Over the past two decades, the Global Fund partnership has helped to save over 70 million lives, ensure equitable access to health services, and build stronger, more resilient health systems in more than 100 countries. Despite this remarkable progress, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women per week still contract HIV. In sub-Saharan Africa, TB remains the world’s single deadliest infectious disease, and malaria still kills a child under five nearly every minute.
The UK Government are proud to have supported the formation of the Global Fund partnership in 2002. We are continuing that leadership now by co-hosting the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund, working alongside South Africa in a truly modern development partnership. Today I am proud to announce that we will invest £850 million in the Global Fund for 2026 to 2028 to deliver lifesaving prevention, testing and treatment services. This is expected to save up to 1.3 million lives, avert up to 22 million new cases or infections of HIV, TB and malaria, and generate up to £13 billion in health gains and economic returns in the countries where the Global Fund works. In dollar terms, this is only 5% less than the amount we invested in the seventh replenishment, demonstrating how strongly we have prioritised global health and the Global Fund.
This commitment is not only a moral imperative, it is a strategic investment in global and national health security and in wider economic growth and stability. As replenishment co-hosts, we call on all our partners in the G20 and beyond to join us in continuing this investment in our shared future. The Global Fund plays a critical role in preventing disease outbreaks, strengthening surveillance, and building health systems that are robust enough to respond to emerging threats, including antimicrobial resistance and future pandemics. Communicable diseases know no borders; this investment in fighting them around the world complements our work to fight them here in the UK. It will also boost overall prosperity by enabling healthier people to contribute to the economies of our partner countries, and it will support jobs and economic growth here at home, with the Global Fund working in partnership with UK institutions and researchers, supporting innovations including dual active ingredient bed nets for malaria and long-acting prevention for HIV. Its work on market shaping and capacity building for regional manufacturing will continue to be a vital tool in scaling up access to these innovative new technologies.
As I set out in my statement of 26 June regarding our pledge to Gavi 6.0, multilateral health organisations must go further to maximise impact. As we pursue a modern approach to development, I welcome the Global Fund’s commitment to reform, becoming even more efficient and effective, focused on those most in need and with a simpler approach to delivery that puts country ownership at its heart. Looking beyond the Global Fund, we will go even further in reforming the multilateral health system to enable low and middle-income countries to make the most of all health investments, to incentivise domestic resourcing and to strengthen health systems so that we deliver for the health challenges of tomorrow. Partners such as South Africa are telling us how important these reforms are and we look forward to working with them to deliver this change.
The decision on the UK’s pledge to the Global Fund has been taken in the context of the difficult decision this Government have made to reduce spending on development assistance from 0.5% of GNI to 0.3% to fund increased spending on our defence and national security. As the Prime Minister noted, this Government are proud of the UK’s pioneering record on overseas development. Less money does not mean less action. Even in the context of a lower ODA budget we will continue to play a key role in global health. Alongside our continued strong commitment to multilateral organisations such as Gavi and the Global Fund, and to their ongoing reform in partnership with others, we will continue to make pioneering investments in research and development, in market shaping to drive down prices and increase access, and in strengthening the health systems needed to deliver universal health coverage.
The UK is committed to a safer, healthier and more prosperous world. Through our investment in the Global Fund, we are helping to build a future where no one dies from preventable diseases.
[HCWS1043]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) has replaced the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
[HCWS1037]
Social and Affordable Homes Programme
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
At the spending review in June, the Government announced £39 billion for a new social and affordable homes programme over 10 years from 2026-27 to 2035-36. The SAHP will give registered providers of social housing—both private registered providers and councils—a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have available to build new, more ambitious housing development projects. It is integral to delivering the Government’s commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
Today I am updating the House on the launch of the full details of the programme as part of the five-step plan we set out on 2 July to kick-start a decade of social and affordable housing renewal.
The core strategic objective of the new programme is to maximise supply—particularly of social rent homes. At least 60% of homes delivered through the SAHP will be for social rent. This reflects the priority this Government accord to social rented housing as the mark of a country that takes seriously its duty to house those for whom the market cannot cater; a platform for families to live, grow, and to build a better life; and as a public good that benefits the nation as a whole. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, with around 180,000 for social rent.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government policy statement on the social and affordable homes programme 2026-36 sets out the programme’s national architecture, which together with delivery partner prospectuses, details how RPs can access funding, the expectations placed on them, and the flexibilities built into the programme to support an ambitious and diverse pipeline of new affordable homes.
Oversight of programme delivery will remain with Homes England and—within London—the Greater London Authority. Up to 30% of the funding over the programme—up to £11.7 billion over 10 years—will be delivered by the GLA in London, with at least 70% available for the rest of England via Homes England.
As per the commitments we set out in the English devolution White Paper, we have worked closely with established mayoral strategic authorities to ensure they set the strategic direction of the programme in their areas. The priorities that each EMSA has identified to guide bids in their areas have been published as part of the Homes England prospectus, and RPs will be expected to demonstrate how they have incorporated these, including tenure preferences and priority sites, into their bids in EMSA areas. To support effective planning, we have also delivered on our commitment to set out up-front indicative spend per EMSA. These figures are intended to guide bids, but they are not a ringfence or a floor.
To increase the diversity of social and affordable housing supply, we have ensured that the programme has the necessary grant rate flexibility to support homes that require greater up-front investment, including council, supported, community-led and rural housing. As part of our commitment to reinvigorating council house building, we have also confirmed the following additional measures designed to support delivery of the SAHP by councils:
Establishing a new continuous market engagement “portfolio” route to assist councils to bid for grant at an earlier stage in the pre-development process and across several sites at once, thereby lowering pre-development risk and encouraging larger, more ambitious development pipelines.
Enabling councils to combine right-to-buy receipts with SAHP funding. No limit will be placed on the level of right-to-buy receipts that can be used and the option to mix receipts with grant will increase the viability of councils’ bids.
Awarding £5.5 million in grant funding to 29 councils through the inaugural round of our £5.5 million council house building support fund, to increase the speed and scale of bids into the SAHP to deliver new council homes.
We will also shortly be contacting councils to inform them of their initial offer under the fourth round of the local authority housing fund and provide guidance on how councils might apply for funding. The LAHF will enable councils to grow their stock of good-quality temporary accommodation, reducing the reliance on expensive and unsuitable nightly paid or B&B accommodation. The fund will also provide homes for some families arriving through the Afghan resettlement programme. In addition to relieving short-term housing pressures, the fund will provide councils with a long-term asset to the benefit of local communities and residents.
The SAHP will also make targeted improvements for those in shared ownership. We know that many shared owners have faced challenges they could not have foreseen, such as high and rising service charges. In the new programme, we will expect RPs to improve the experience for customers, including through giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, increasing transparency and fairness on costs, and giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for services that are optional.
Alongside the SAHP, we will also make available £2.5 billion of low interest loans to support the delivery of new social and affordable housing. The loans will be awarded through a bidding process that is closely aligned with the SAHP, and the loans will be administered by the national housing bank and by the GLA in London. The process will be open to private registered providers and will test the additionality that they can achieve with loans. A substantial allocation of the loans will be targeted at London in the light of the acute challenges facing private registered providers in the capital.
In the coming months, we will provide RPs with the remaining information they need to finalise their business and future supply plans—including how we will implement rent convergence at autumn Budget; and our response to recent consultations on a modernised decent homes standard and minimum energy-efficiency standards.
The launch of the full details of the SAHP represents a significant milestone. With the parameters for delivery now clear, we are calling on all RPs to start preparing large and ambitious proposals ready for when bidding opens in February 2026 and to then refine these in collaboration with Homes England and the GLA as the bidding window for strategic partnerships closes in April 2026.
Alongside bids to the SAHP, we are also calling on all RPs to support the effective delivery of section 106 homes. Section 106 agreements are, and will remain, an essential mechanism for delivering social and affordable housing, and it is essential that all parts of the system work in partnership to ensure it is operating as required.
I commend to the House the MHCLG policy statement, individual scheme prospectuses, and the revisions made to Homes England’s capital funding. Following bids, we will set targets for delivery under each partner to make sure delivery remains aligned with local housing needs and the programme’s national ambition.
[HCWS1027]
Standards for Local Authorities in England
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are committed to greater devolution and determined to fix the foundations of local government and build a better future for local politics.
We want local and regional government in England to attract and retain the best possible talent, and for county, town and city halls across the country to promote fair and reasonable democratic discourse, without slipping into cultures which are toxic and intimidating.
In December 2024 the Government launched a consultation seeking views on proposals to strengthen the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England.
This Government response, informed by the consultation and wider sector engagement, sets out our ambition to introduce a clearer and consistently applied conduct system that will help local elected Members to hold themselves and their colleagues to account in meeting the high standards and conduct their roles demand and the public have a right to expect.
This Government will carry out wholesale reform of the current standards regime, tackling head-on widespread concerns around the inconsistent use of rules on behaviour and the lack of effective sanctions for those who breach their codes of conduct, undermining people’s confidence in local government.
The reforms aim to ensure misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly across the country in every type and tier of local government—from the smallest town or parish council to the largest regional mayoral authority. We want to ensure that local government is empowered, fully accountable and deserving of people’s trust.
Councillors and mayors who repeatedly break the rules or commit serious misconduct will face tougher sanctions under proposals published today to clean up local politics and restore public confidence.
The Government response is being published on gov.uk today and will be deposited in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1032]
Building Safety Regulator
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
In June 2025, my Department announced changes to the Building Safety Regulator. Today I am laying before the House draft regulations that will move the functions of the Building Safety Regulator out of the Health and Safety Executive and to an Executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
This change will position the BSR for the coming years. It will strengthen lines of accountability and give a dedicated focus to BSR operations, and it is an important first step towards establishing a single construction regulator, the lead recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.
I am grateful to the HSE for the leadership and experience it has brought to the establishment and early operations of the BSR, and for its ongoing support as this change is made.
[HCWS1042]
“Delivering the Best for Girls in Custody” Review: Government Response
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government’s response to Susannah Hancock’s independent review, “Delivering the Best for Girls in Custody”. This marks a significant shift away from a system historically designed for boys, and towards one that recognises and addresses the distinct needs of girls.
This review has provided a vital opportunity to reflect on the experiences of some of the most complex and vulnerable children in our justice system. The Government welcome the review’s findings and are grateful to Susannah for her work, as well as all those who contributed, including the girls themselves, professionals, and stakeholders.
In March 2025, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) took decisive action to end the use of young offender institutions for girls, ensuring that no girl is placed in a setting unable to meet her needs. This was the right decision and a vital first step in improving the experiences of girls in youth custody.
Our response, published today, sets out a comprehensive programme of reform. We are piloting an enhanced placement protocol, designed to provide registered managers of secure children’s homes with peer support and accountability in making placement decisions for girls. We are strengthening the national pathway for girls, with new training and guidance to equip staff to deliver the highest standards of care and support. I have also established, and will chair, the girls in youth justice advisory board, and appointed a strategic lead to ensure sustained progress in improving outcomes for girls across the youth justice system.
Beyond custody and more broadly, we are committed to expanding specialist youth justice intensive fostering, working with local authorities to develop remand fostering programmes. This will ensure that intensive fostering is more widely available to girls at risk of entering custody. My Department is running remand pilots in West Yorkshire, Kent, and Greater Manchester, trialling new approaches to remand funding and diverting children away from custodial remand. The Department for Education is also developing new accommodation for children at risk of being deprived of their liberty, which will create new community alternatives for children at risk of youth custody, including girls with the most complex needs.
The Government remain committed to continuous improvement, partnership, and delivering meaningful change for girls in the youth justice system. I commend the Government response to Parliament and encourage all interested parties to read the full document for further detail on our commitments and next steps.
The full Government response, which sets out our commitments, is available on gov.uk. I will place a copy of the Government response to “Delivering the Best for Girls in Custody: An independent review into the placement and care for girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate” in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1034]
Animal Testing in Science: Alternative Methods
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Vallance of Balham:
Today, the Government are laying before Parliament a strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods to the use of animals in science.
The Government are proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to “partner with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing”. Not only that, but we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing. This reflects not only our deep commitment to animal welfare, but our belief in the economic, scientific and societal benefits that come from investing in and phasing in modern alternatives. The Government recognise the urgency of this transition and are determined to drive meaningful change through co-ordinated, cross-governmental action.
Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances, achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods where scientifically possible. This will include a wide range of new and validated alternatives used in discovery and translational research, and new methodologies for chemical and environmental testing, and safety and toxicity testing of potential novel human and veterinary medicines. This strategy lays out the steps that we, the Government, will take over the next five years towards achieving this vision across the whole of the UK. We also highlight specific instances of animal use where we will take immediate and near-future action to ensure alternative methods are applied going forward.
The use of animals in science at present provides an important insight into human and animal biology and disease. Animals are also used in many sectors to test the safety and efficacy of chemicals in consumer products, and in new human and veterinary vaccines, medicines and medical devices before they are trialled in their intended populations or marketed. Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment. We will continue to support the appropriate use of animals where reliable and effective alternatives are not yet available. But we will not accept a slow pace of change when and where scientific and technical advances mean that a faster transition away from animal use is possible.
Recent scientific advances have provided new impetus to the development of alternative methods that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research—the three R’s. There is also a rapidly accelerating global movement to adopt alternative methods in the life sciences, which we not only welcome but aim to accelerate further and seek to be a world leader in. The maturity of these methods differs across scientific and regulatory sectors, but alternative methods are being applied in a wide range of contexts across discovery research, veterinary science, drug and chemical discovery, toxicity testing and clinical investigations. We are at a tipping point where international regulatory and political commitment, technological capabilities and scientific advances are converging to create a system capable of delivering the scientific, commercial, societal, economic and animal welfare benefits offered by alternative methods.
The term “alternative methods” describes a broad range of tools and technologies that can reduce or replace animal use across the whole of the bioscience landscape. They are being applied in a wide range of contexts and have benefits including specificity, sensitivity, species relevance and speed, but also disadvantages, such as a current inability to fully replicate testing on a living animal. Only a few of these methods have, to date, been fully validated or qualified to replace animals for specific purposes, with insufficient funding to advance research from Government over the past decade, and therefore adoption for discovery research and uptake into policy and regulatory use has been patchy, with slower progress than many have desired. That is why more research and investment is urgently needed, and this Government, in our new strategy, are committing fully to both. This strategy covers the whole range of uses of animals in science and has been developed to accelerate the development, validation and adoption of scientifically evidenced alternative methods in discovery, applied, translational and regulatory research and testing.
The strategy will build on the UK’s well-established life sciences research system, enabling it to respond with greater agility to opportunities in the rapidly evolving alternative methods landscape. It has six objectives:
Accelerate the replacement of animals in science to phase out their use;
Achieve equal or better research and testing outcomes using alternative methods;
Drive private investment in alternative methods to boost innovation and growth;
Improve regulatory confidence and acceptance of alternative methods;
Create infrastructure and partnerships to unlock value from UK data; and
Position the UK as a global leader in alternative methods.
We, the Government, will deliver this by focusing on five key commitments:
Driving alternative method development and uptake in discovery research: We will incentivise the development and adoption of alternative methods. This will be delivered through (i) increased and sustained investment focused on animal replacement; (ii) better animal research approval and dissemination mechanisms to assess whether animal use is required or whether alternatives could be used; and (iii) a workforce with the necessary skills set to implement the uptake of new alternative methods quickly and effectively. We will establish a new pre-clinical translational research hub to bring together data, cell engineering, genomic technology and expertise to create a pipeline of novel translational medicine models. This will be an exciting step forward that will create more jobs in the alternative methods industry and help to position the UK as a world leader in developing alternatives and moving away from animal testing.
Accelerating alternative methods validation and uptake for regulatory decision making: We will establish a national approach to accelerating the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods. At its core will be a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods that will co-ordinate a cross-sector network of public and private laboratories and facilitate engagement between policy makers, regulators, industry end users and alternative method developers.
Delivering the transformative potential of our data assets: We will create national infrastructure, collaborations and regulatory frameworks to expedite equitable and secure access to high-quality datasets to enable data-driven innovation that reduces animal use and enables the use of alternative methods. This will include increasing investment in data-driven biology, establishing data sharing platforms to facilitate access to public and private data repositories, setting clear standards for data quality and interoperability, widespread adoption of AI methods to assess potential safety and toxicity profiles, and developing regulatory guidance to support data-driven and AI-informed decision making. We will be working with industry and regulators to make their historical data sets available for use.
International leadership and co-operation: We will establish the UK as a global leader in the regulation and science of alternative methods, ensuring our participation on key forums and international committees in this space. We will also expand existing and establish new partnerships with international regulators to identify internationally agreed priorities of mutual importance, explore data sharing possibilities and AI projects to assess toxicity, safety and efficacy from existing data sets, and accelerate the global acceptance of validated alternative methods.
Effective governance culture: We will establish governance structures with diverse stakeholder representation to oversee progress and delivery of the actions described in this strategy. This will include a set of key performance indicators with which to assess delivery of the strategy and forming a cross-governmental ministerial group on alternative methods, chaired by the Science Minister. We will have a publicly available dashboard of progress against key deliverables.
This strategy has been developed involving stakeholders from industry and regulatory agencies representing chemicals, agriculture, food and pharmaceutical sectors, and many of the actions and commitments we pledge are applicable across multiple sectors.
[HCWS1031]
Young People and Work
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I am pleased to make a statement today on the independent report into young people and on work I have commissioned, with support from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Education. This report forms part of the Government’s further action to maximise opportunities for young people.
This Government believe in opportunity for all, but too many young people are being denied the opportunity to further their education, skills or careers. Nearly 1 million young people—approximately one in eight young people aged 16 to 24—are not in education, employment or training. Over a quarter of NEET young people now cite long-term sickness or disability as a barrier to participation compared with just 12% in 2013-14.
This Government have already taken decisive action to address these challenges. We have committed to investing £25 million to double the number of youth hubs. We have launched eight youth guarantee trailblazers across England, backed by £90 million, to test new ways of improving co-ordination and accountability for young people’s opportunities at the local level.
We are developing a youth guarantee, which will ensure 18 to 21-year-olds are earning or learning. As part of that we are increasing skills training including short courses, expanding the number of youth hubs, and standing up a new jobs guarantee scheme to offer paid work for every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning.
For disabled people and those with health conditions we are introducing the pathways to work guarantee of work, health and skills support, but we know we must go further.
The report will examine the drivers behind the rise in NEET rates and economic inactivity among young people, including those with health conditions, and make recommendations for policy responses aimed at maximising opportunities. The report will be authored by right hon. Alan Milburn, former Secretary of State for Health and Chair of the Social Mobility Commission. He will be supported by a panel of labour market, health and clinical experts who will be announced in due course. This work will be grounded in evidence, shaped by the voices of young people, and informed by those who work with them every day.
I am determined to build a system that supports young people, not just in finding a job, but to build a better future—because when young people succeed, Britain succeeds.
The terms of reference will be published on gov.uk and placed in the Libraries of the Houses. The report will share its interim findings with Government in spring 2026, with final recommendations by summer 2026.
[HCWS1028]
Women's State Pension Age: PHSO Report
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigation into women’s state pension age communication and associated issues. On 17 December 2024, my predecessor made an oral statement and deposited a copy of the Government’s detailed response in the House Library.
In coming to this decision, my right hon. Friend gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. This was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. I am depositing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.
Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.
In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should consider this evidence now. This means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.
As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of court action in recent months and we have today informed the court of the action we now intend to take.
We will approach this following proper process and in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that the Government will necessarily decide that we should award financial redress.
The work will begin immediately, and we will update the House on the decision as a conclusion is reached.
[HCWS1044]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Udny-Lister
(4A) If the fixed penalty notice is not the first notice issued to the person in respect of such an offence, the fine is—(a) £2,500, if it is the second fixed penalty notice so issued;(b) £5,000, if it is the third fixed penalty notice so issued;(c) £10,000, if it is the fourth or any subsequent fixed penalty notice so issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create a stepped approach to fixed penalty notices based on how many times a person has been issued a notice.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled two amendments in this group, both with the intention of creating a stepped and more proportionate approach to fixed penalty notices, which I feel to be a very draconian measure in the first instance. Under the unamended drafting, the Bill would allow immediate penalties regardless of the scale or context of the offence committed. This is bad practice, contrary to the societal change that is needed if this legislation is to succeed.
Through these amendments, I want to enable enforcement authorities to apply sanctions gradually starting—this is important—with education and warnings for minor or first-time breaches. These would escalate only when non-compliance persists. This is a well-established approach of enforcement that is rooted in fairness. The goal of the Bill should be not to trap small retailers or inadvertent offenders in red tape but to encourage dialogue and corrective measures to be the mantra of our enforcement agencies. This is how you get change and compliance.
The tiered approach that I have outlined through Amendment 74 will build some much-needed credibility into the enforcement clauses of the Bill in a way that keeps the law tough when needed but ensures—this is important—that it is proportionate and, above all, fair. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group that are in my name—Amendments 78, 86, 88 and 89. Particularly perceptive Members of our Grand Committee will remember that, when they looked at the third Marshalled List, the Minister had signed my Amendment 89. I understood at the time that she had signed it not for the same reason that I tabled it—as we discovered at the last sitting of the Committee, the Minister did not move a whole set of government amendments. We will doubtless return to those issues later.
My amendments are all of a piece. The object is to dive into Clause 38 and remove those parts that relate to money that is received through fines for licensing offences from the hands of the Consolidated Fund to put it into the hands of the local weights and measures authorities or—as we might get to, in due course—the relevant authority, which is the trading standards enforcement authority. My proposition is a terribly simple one: we should prioritise the receipt of resources not only from fixed penalty notices but from the fines imposed for licensing offences and they should be made available to local authorities with trading standards responsible for enforcement.
The background is probably well known to Members of the Grand Committee. Trading standards is operating with substantially fewer members of staff than it did a decade ago. The Local Government Association has warned that trading standards may be unable to fulfil its statutory duties and the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers has warned of a growing gap between its statutory duties and the available resources.
Happily, today we meet with a realisation that this has not inhibited trading standards departments across the country from taking effective action together with the leadership of the National Crime Agency, which reported 2,700 premises—barber shops, vape shops and other trading establishments—operating illegally. Where vaping is concerned, which is our interest here, these are being used as a route for the sale of illegal vapes—without paying the appropriate duty or doing so in due course—including to minors, which is of particular concern for many noble Lords. There is also the employment of staff who are not properly able to work in this country.
A wide range of these issues requires enforcement. My purpose is to try to ensure that the resources that are clearly coming into the system are devoted to trading standards. We know, or at least it is estimated, that trading standards enforcement costs over the next five years will total something like £140 million. We know that the Government have provided a grant of £10 million to support trading standards. There clearly will be an income to local authorities from the fines relating to licensing to the extent that they will be able to recover their direct costs, as well as from the fixed penalty notices. We do not have an authoritative estimate of what that sum will be. If the Minister has a clear estimate of what the sums accruing to local authorities will be, it will give an opportunity to see how much of that £140 million cost over five years is likely to be met from penalties and fines.
This issue was debated in the other place and the Government, as is their wont, resisted the idea that money should be paid to local authorities from these fines, instead of being paid into the Consolidated Fund, because, as the Government put it, they did not want to create a perceived conflict of interest such that the enforcement authorities seemed to have an interest in pursuing fines. We should think of it the other way round. We want enforcement authorities to do their job properly. With these amendments, I am testing the proposition that the Government should increase the support for trading standards officers. If they find a provision that makes the revenue from fines to local authorities too much to bear, I should be supportive of a commitment by the Government—if not at this stage, then later—to assess the gap between the revenue that results from the fines and penalty notices and the costs to local authorities and to meet that gap by Exchequer grant, once they know what the Consolidated Fund revenues from these fines may be.
In addition to that request in principle to the Government, I have been looking at the impact assessment, which says in paragraph 1401:
“A new burdens assessment will be completed to assess costs to local authorities ahead of the Bill being introduced”,
particularly in relation to the enforcement of the new powers relating to vapes. I cannot find the burdens assessment—my research may be inadequate—but what does it say are the costs that need to be met by local government? That too should be something that we assess: to what extent is local government going to receive fixed penalty notices or fines that enable it to meet those costs? We do not want to be constantly adding statutory duties to local authorities without the corresponding resources.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, from whom we have not yet heard—but that is the way the order works. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am slightly torn because the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just put forward a strong case. There are indeed huge problems with the funding of trading standards. I go to a recent report in the Financial Times in which the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute said that the underfunding of trading standards has left consumers open to rogue traders and fake goods. There is a huge problem there and, as the noble Lord said, the Government’s own impact assessment says this measure is going to increase the burden and they are already hopelessly overburdened.
However, Amendment 81 goes in a different direction, towards public health initiatives to be determined by local authorities. Either of these has a strong case. I prefer the public health case, because public health is something that I am gravely concerned about. There is a real logic to the money going from where damage is being done to public health towards dealing with damage done by illegal activity.
I talked about how much trading standards is suffering. We all know that public health in the UK is in a terribly parlous state; when we compare ourselves with other countries that we might consider similar to ourselves, we are doing much worse in public health. I suspect that the Minister will get up and say, “Yes, but in February this year we gave £200 million to public health”, but that is to go towards smoking cessation programmes —which are very relevant to the Bill—along with addiction recovery, family and school nurses, sexual health clinics, local health protection services and public health support for local NHS services, and £200 million does not sound like quite so much when I read that list out.
There is a real logic to making sure that this is not just a small drop of money going into the ocean—the Treasury—and that the money goes to where the damage has been done, to public health. Trading standards would still be better than the money going straight into the Treasury. These are simple, logical ways to make sure that we stick some plasters on to some of the crises that are affecting our communities.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in relation to this group, it is essential that trading standards have the resources they need. Although the government pledge of an additional £10 million is welcome, I feel it is probably not going to be enough. It is worth bearing in mind that trading standards are supportive of the Bill, and that is good news.
I understand the desire of my noble friend Lord Lansley to push the idea of the money being ring-fenced, as it were, for trading standards. As he acknowledged, there are dangers in that approach; we can think of overzealous traffic wardens and the criticisms that they have in relation to raising money that is ring-fenced for specific purposes, and there may be a danger of that happening here too. Still, I quite understand the desire to press for additional finance for trading standards, and I hope the Minister will say something on that in response because I think that is needed.
On Amendment 74, it seems eminently sensible to have a stepped approach to fines for offenders so that it is a proportionate response and first offenders do not have such a high fine as others. I am wholly supportive of that, and I hope the Minister is listening in that regard too.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Lansley. I do not know whether any noble Lords in this Committee saw the news item, a few weeks ago, when the BBC went around looking not for under-the-counter illegal cigarette sales but for shops, well advertised with bright neon lights on the front, selling illegal vapes and illegal cigarettes. The stories of people of old going to the pub and having cigarettes passed under the table are now simply not the case; they are freely available. I have heard of people who have never bought a packet of legal cigarettes.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 81 and 83, but as this is Committee I also note the virtues of Amendment 89 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will soon find out which one the Minister prefers, if either of them.
My amendments would ensure that the money from the fixed penalty notices goes to the local authority to pay for public health initiatives determined by the authority. As the Committee knows, local authorities are very hard up. Indeed, some are going into administration. I know from my work on food and health that the public health grant is stretched to breaking point for obesity services, let alone all the other services that we are talking about, such as smoking quitting services. All that makes the burden assessment, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, very important, so I too would be interested to hear where it is.
Although I hope that the level of compliance with the new laws will be high, so that there is no need for too many fixed penalty notices, I believe there is virtue in the idea that such fines should support smoking cessation services. I am afraid that at the moment there is limited access to these services. As I have said before, young people who wish to stop vaping also complain of a lack of services to help them to do so. One would hope that what I should perhaps call the traffic warden syndrome, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would not happen—but, of course, if people are breaking the law, they will need to pay the penalty. One would not want small businesses to be overburdened by constant vigilance on that score.
However, if the Minister were minded to accept one of my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendments in another group, on a levy on the profits of tobacco companies to support the NHS and smoking cessation services, that might be even better because it would raise a lot more money, which could be spent on cessation and prevention. That is the subject of a different discussion.
Why is the additional government funding for trading standards not enough? Is it enough or not? Perhaps the proceeds of fixed penalties should go to enforcement, rather than helping people to quit smoking and vaping. Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure and enforcement.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, taken together, this group of amendments focuses on the question of how the new fixed penalty notice regime will operate in practice, how enforcement will be resourced and how local authorities will be supported in carrying out their duties under the Bill. Those are all important themes.
Amendment 74 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister proposes a stepped approach to fixed penalty notices reflecting the number of times a person has been issued with a notice. That makes a lot of sense to me. The first time somebody commits an offence should surely be treated differently from the fourth or fifth time. I hope that enforcement officials will want to do this anyway, but such an approach would help strike a balance between giving people the benefit of the doubt—particularly as this will be, at the beginning, a complex new framework of rules—and ensuring that repeated non-compliance is dealt with properly.
That spirit of proportion and fairness also underpins Amendment 77, which would give local enforcement authorities the discretion to issue a formal warning notice to first-time offenders in lieu of a fixed penalty. I hope that the Minister will recognise the constructive intent behind both proposals.
I turn to the series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seek to ensure that the proceeds of fixed penalty notices arising from offences under Clauses 17 and 20 are used to support trading standards teams directly, rather than being absorbed into the Consolidated Fund. Like my noble friend, I can see no real reason why the proceeds of fixed penalty notices arising from those breaches should not be treated in exactly the same way as the proceeds of other fixed penalty notices or fines. Trading standards officers are at the forefront of enforcing the Bill’s provisions.
There is, perhaps, a debate to be had about whether hypothecation along those lines creates an incentive for enforcement officers not to exercise the kind of discretion favoured by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. However—I admit that this is entirely guesswork on my part; I hope the Minister can illuminate us further— I do not think we should expect the yield from fixed penalty notices to be all that great in the scheme of things. This means that the incentive for overzealousness is likely to be more theoretical than real, so on balance I can identify with my noble friend’s argument that the resources generated by enforcement officers through their activity should be reinvested to strengthen their own capacity.
Amendments 81 and 83 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would instead direct the revenue from fixed penalty notices towards local public health projects. This idea has considerable merit. There are some practical considerations because such a funding stream would, by definition, be inherently unreliable—and, in the context of a local authority budget, it would probably be very small beer—but, in any case, as the noble Baroness said, we hope that the number of penalty notices issued under this part of the Bill will start at a low level then decline even further as we go along.
Nevertheless, the noble Baroness asked an important question about how enforcement and public health objectives can be more closely aligned. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government see the relationship between enforcement activity and public health outcomes—specifically, how enforcement might be used not only to punish but to deter and to prevent the behaviours that lead to such offences in the first place. If the Minister can convincingly join the dots, as it were, I will have a better basis for assessing the merits of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 204 tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This is a welcome and sensible amendment. It highlights the central role of local authorities in delivering and enforcing the provisions of the Bill. It is no secret that local authorities are already under significant financial strain, as has been said, and yet this Bill leans heavily on them for its success. I think it is fair that they are given certainty that the additional duties and regulations imposed on them will not leave them further out of pocket. With that, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the debate we have had on this group of amendments, which address the issues relating to penalties and enforcement of the Bill. Let me start with Amendments 74 and 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to penalties. I understand the noble Lord’s interest in providing tougher deterrents for repeat offenders and in taking a proportionate approach to first-time offenders in relation to certain measures in the Bill. However, I feel that the Bill already strikes the balance in this regard and has taken this into account.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made some good points about fixed penalty notices and their literal value. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that we have focused, as we did on an early group, on supporting those who carry out their business legally and correctly, which is most people. We want to make that possible and streamlined, and we want to crack down on the illegal. This brings us to the point about how in an ideal world we would not be seeing fixed penalty notices because everyone would be playing by the rules. That is an ambition, but what I am trying to say is that it will not be a good measure if we are issuing so many fixed penalty notices without a decline. I think that is what noble Lords are saying, and I certainly share that view. I think that is a very helpful and practical point about how we see the proceeds from fixed penalty notices.
When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, local trading standards already take a proportionate approach. They choose appropriate action to achieve compliance, and in many cases this already involves the issuing of warning notices, which can be effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties. Enforcement authorities will continue to use warning notices where appropriate.
Amendment 74 would increase the values of fixed penalty notices introduced by the Bill, with the highest penalties for repeat offenders. I understand why the noble Lord is putting that forward. The Bill is introducing fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to complement our existing sanctions and to strengthen what is already available to trading standards officers. I know noble Lords are aware—I hope it is obvious, but it is worth restating—that we have been in close conversation and will continue to be so to ensure that any concerns or points that trading standards officers wish to raise in respect of the Bill are heard.
On the point about complementing existing sanctions and strengthening the toolkit that is already available, that is something that trading standards has called for, because it wants to be able to take swift action, as we all want it to, to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations. Setting the fine at £200 is believed to be proportionate and the most popular level for the penalty that came through in the 2023 consultation on creating a smoke-free generation. It is also in line with the current fixed penalty notices in Scotland and is similar to the situation in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his almost intervention on that very point. I shall try to get the tense right here. As is standard government practice, a new burdens assessment will be conducted and shared with the Local Government Association. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the additional net cost to local authorities in England will be considered in line with the new burdens doctrine. In summary, I hope that, for the reasons I have given—
Lord Lansley (Con)
None the less, the impact assessment, which I quoted, says:
“A new burdens assessment will be completed … ahead of the Bill being introduced”.
The Bill has been introduced so, clearly, the impact assessment was incorrect in that respect. I also reiterate to the Minister the request for her to say that the Government will be willing to look not only at the costs —there is an estimate of those—but at what the revenues from fixed penalty notices turn out to be, in case there is a gap between the cost of enforcement and the revenue from fixed penalty notices. Even if they continued to receive money into the Consolidated Fund, would the Government be willing to consider making additional Exchequer grants beyond the £10 million to meet any such gap?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. We will of course keep these matters under review. I will certainly look again at the impact assessment and at the point made by the noble Lord; I would be happy to write to him further, if needed, once I have had a look at all of that. On his specific point, we will keep an eye on the revenue, but, again— I am not sure that this is exactly the point that the noble Lord made; perhaps I can provide that bit of cover—in our earlier discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, both acknowledged, as I did, that we are not seeking to get enough from fixed penalty notices to fund this. That is not our intention; in fact, we all hope that the revenue will decline as this Bill becomes increasingly successful in its impact. Let us also remember why we have this Bill: to introduce a smoke-free generation and drive down the demand for consumption. That changes the whole landscape. This is literally a generational change. So I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which is relevant to the last group of amendments but not to those I will speak to in this group—namely, Amendments 102, 104 to 106, 108, 109, 112, 156 to 159 and 201. These 12 amendments stand in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Fox, who sadly is involved right now in the International Agreements Committee. These amendments are also variously co-sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and my noble friend Lord Moylan.
Eight of our 12 amendments propose exempting handmade cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco, more commonly known as snuff, from the generational sales ban outlined in this Bill, as well as from the broad regulatory powers it grants the Secretary of State concerning plain packaging, other retail packaging and product related requirements. Our remaining four amendments focus on the need for impact assessments. At the outset, I reiterate my support for the Bill’s overarching objective: to prevent the youth uptake of smoking and nicotine products, thereby to protect future generations from the health risks that stem from tobacco addiction.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of this group of amendments, especially my noble friend Lord’s Lindsay’s excellent amendments— I commend him on his first-class speech to the Committee—and those amendments in my name, relating to the need for an impact assessment relating to hand-rolled cigars and handmade artisanal cigars, and the need to differentiate the occasionally smoked cigar and its concomitant industry from cigarettes and vapes and the issues that cigarettes and vapes clearly present. Please do not be under any illusion that I am trying to stop the control of cigarettes and vapes—I have been particularly vociferous in the importance of regulating their sale—but it is important to try to differentiate between cigars and the rest of the tobacco industry.
Noble Lords may think it slightly bizarre that we should make special reference to a certain type of product that is undoubtedly smoked. I am sure many noble Lords will simply close their ears and let their gaze drift off, as if they were smoking a delicious cigar, assuming that everything should be lumped together: ban smoking, ban all tobacco, end of. I declare that I once owned a cigar fan site—if anyone ever visited, I hope they enjoyed it—and I have smoked an occasional cigar. I think I am a better man for it. It is called freedom, and I enjoy every one.
There is a strong argument to be made to give additional consideration to the world of handmade, hand-rolled cigars as well. I strongly believe that the Bill is a direct contradiction to the freedom of choice by consenting adults. Worse, it is looking to destroy a community that benefits this country both financially and socially. For all the evidence about the iniquities of vapes and cigarettes, which I do not deny, I have seen nothing—my noble friend just raised this point—about the risks to health and society of occasional fine cigar consumption; apologies if I have missed it.
In fact, in a fractious age of division, it is around cigar clubs—people coming together of their own free will to enjoy an occasional cigar—that we see a reversal, not an accumulation, of social problems. I declare a further interest in that in my village, we gather every Friday to enjoy a cigar, to meet and to commune. In an age when we need to be brought together as a community and a nation, it is through cigars—bizarrely, but importantly—that we achieve this. How can we support measures that drive us apart when we need the exact opposite? All I ask is that we assess the facts, if noble Lords can allow for that.
This amendment asks that we ask who is smoking cigars. The demographic is almost totally advanced, as we have heard; in fact, I am probably a relatively youthful smoker of cigars at 51 years of age. The audience is 1% of the total. There is literally no risk to new smokers or children. The average price is between £20 and £30, putting them totally out of reach of minors and into the hands only of aficionados. A proper report will bear this out.
We should also assess the important contrast between cigarettes and cigars; they are totally different, and I find it personally offensive to be grouped into the simple category of “smoker”, huddled outside glass office blocks or furtively vaping into one’s sleeve. You have to actually take your time with a cigar. Those Members of the Committee who have not enjoyed one should understand that it takes at least an hour to enjoy a proper cigar; you have to toast the foot, turning it slowly—ideally using a splint or a match—and then you puff at it gently, relishing, savouring and enjoying it while reflecting that it is an act of a free and happy person.
They are artisanally crafted, derived from a specific place—where, by the way, we wish to trade. Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and, of course, Cuba are all countries with which this Government have made it a priority to increase trade. It is an all-natural product, not filled with chemicals. It is vegan compliant and fully biodegradable, which should please the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who wishes to reduce pollution—I cannot see her in her usual place, so that joke is lost on her.
We should carefully consider the loss to our domestic economy too. It is an industry made up almost entirely of small and micro-businesses, as we have heard. They are mostly family owned. From Hunters & Frankau, the main Cuban importer, to the incredible Sahakian-owned Davidoff, via Fox’s and Cigars.com, all contribute to a legal and important industry, employing nearly 800 people and generating nearly £100 million in taxes. We should be aware that these specialist retailer characteristics are well established as exceptions and are protected under the 2002 Act and the tobacco and promotion regulations. I am not asking noble Lords or the Minister to do anything out of the ordinary; I am simply asking for consistency in establishing the basic facts.
I did some research over the past few days on their importance to our economy—not by smoking copious cigars to see how delicious they were, I assure you, but by visiting the shops down St James’s Street. It turns out that hundreds of people a week come to London, including non-smokers who have never smoked a cigar their lives, simply to visit these stores. They go into Davidoff’s to meet Mr Sahakian, or Fox’s, because they want to see our heritage. These icons of our culture, beacons of our heritage, are vital to tourism in London. Dismember these totems at your peril.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the first day of this Committee, there was agreement among all noble Lords that the Bill was about public health. The purpose of these amendments, to which I have added my name, is to show that handmade cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco pose undetectable threats to public health and that they, through no fault of their own, have been caught up in the net meant for a very different type of tobacco product—mass-produced inhaled cigarettes.
Amendment 106 defines what a handmade cigar is. It is an individual, artisanal product, made entirely of specially grown and cured tobacco leaves, and almost exclusively in friendly Caribbean countries, in what could be thought of as cottage industries—in our terms. By contrast, mass-produced cigarettes contain tobacco that has been treated by a moisture controller such as glycerol or sorbitol, a sugar such as sucrose or an invert sugar, preservatives such as sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate, and reconstituted tobacco binders such as guar gum or carboxymethyl cellulose. All these are then wrapped in paper that has been bleached white with hydrogen peroxide and had added to it potassium or sodium nitrate to make the cigarette burn evenly. All these are inhaled through a filter usually made from cellulose acetate fibres. None of these ingredients can be found in a handmade cigar.
As with the difference in content between a handmade cigar and a mass-produced cigarette, the same extreme differences can be found in the manufacturing process. Whereas modern cigarette-making machines can make up to 100,000 cigarettes a minute, a torcedor or artisan cigar roller can make only between 25 and 100 cigars a day, depending on the length and gauge of the cigars that he or she is rolling that day.
Just as mass-produced cigarettes and handmade cigars are different products made in different ways, so is how they are smoked. The most obvious and significant difference is that mass-produced cigarettes are inhaled, whereas handmade cigars are not inhaled. In fact, the reason cigarettes are so heavily treated with additives and chemicals is to make them inhalable and therefore addictive. That is where and how the damage is done. Again, none of this public health damage applies to handmade cigars.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, another major difference between mass-produced cigarettes and handmade cigars is the quantities consumed. Desktop research shows that the average cigarette smoker smokes 11 cigarettes a day, whereas figures for cigar smokers are impossible to come by because they are such an infinitesimally small group of people. Retail evidence from repeat customers suggests once a month—a bit more in summer and a bit less in winter, as it is largely an outdoor pursuit. Tellingly, cigar smokers feel no need ever to smoke a cigar again because they are not addictive, but they hope they will smoke a cigar again because they are often smoked in celebration of happy events such as weddings or anniversaries.
If the primary purpose of the Bill is to stop young people from starting to smoke, I am pleased to tell the Committee that cigar smokers are comparatively a much more elderly cohort and that there is no evidence at all that someone who has smoked their first cigar at any age then goes on to smoke any type of mass-produced cigarette; in fact, I am sure that the chemicals and additives would make them feel quite sick if they tried to do so. If the purpose of the Bill is to stop young people smoking, handmade cigars should certainly not be one of its targets, as it simply does not apply.
Like many of the amendments in this group, this one calls for an impact assessment on the effect of including handmade cigars in the Bill, as they were totally ignored in the Government’s initial impact assessment, having not been mentioned once in 294 pages. The Bill’s packaging proposals in particular would collapse affected businesses in three to five years, because they would be caught in the cross-fire of a Bill that is aimed at a very different type of tobacco product.
A further objection to the inclusion of cigars is a diplomatic one. The Minister has no doubt seen the letter to the Prime Minister jointly signed by the UK ambassadors of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic expressing their concerns regarding the Bill, which
“could disproportionately impact cigar-producing countries through measures that are not justified by evidence”.
The letter compares evidence that supports its case, most recently from the US Food and Drug Administration and conducted for it by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and it compares that with the evidence provided by the Government to support the Bill, which, as the authors say,
“uses a single UCL study, which has been widely criticised for methodological limitations that undermine its reliability as the foundation for sound and solid evidence-based policymaking”.
That is the much-derided study that claims a fivefold increase in the use of non-cigarette tobacco in the last decade but conveniently forgets to mention that it includes sheesha and heated tobacco, makes no mention at all of handmade cigars, pipe or nasal tobacco and has everything to do with the changing demographics of the country.
The letter highlights the socioeconomic and cultural damage that would be done to the sector in their economies:
“Cigars are produced predominantly in small and medium size companies, sustaining the livelihoods of more than 400,000 people, many of them women and smallholder farmers in rural communities. For our countries the industry represents not only a source of dignified employment and economic stability but also a vital element of cultural heritage”.
I am sure the Committee will agree that it seems bizarre that those three countries are recipients of our foreign aid on the one hand, yet what we are proposing with the Bill is to cause them serious economic and socioeconomic damage on the other for, as the letter says, no proper evidence-based reason. The ambassadors’ letter to the Prime Minister finishes with the crux of the matter:
“There is a clear precedent for this approach”—
that is, an exemption—
“in previous tobacco related legislation in the United Kingdom, where the unique characteristics of cigars have been recognised and proportionate exemptions granted. The rationale for these exemptions remains just as relevant today”.
The precedents they refer to relate to packaging and display allowances in specialist tobacconists, where any change to the current regime would be particularly damaging to these small, independent businesses which rely on handmade cigars for the bulk of their income. It would be impossible operationally, and suicidal commercially, for these Caribbean cottage industries to comply with the UK-only proposed plain packaging requirements, designed for multinational, mass-produced cigarette manufacturers. It also shoots the fox which says that the proposed legislation will make no difference to current cigar smokers. Of course, it will, because it means they will have nowhere legal from which to buy them if there are no cigar retailers because the cigar producers cannot comply with this unique UK legislation.
The only similarity between a mass-produced cigarette and a handmade cigar is the word “tobacco”—not the content called tobacco, which is radically different between them. No, we are talking here about a word, not a reality. But Bills are made of words, and, occasionally, reality gets caught in the crossfire—hence the need for defined exemptions for these handmade, artisanal products made in friendly countries and sold by small businesses across the country.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was going to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, but I will go ahead. I was not intending to speak on this. I also wanted to sign the amendments, but such was the popularity of them that there were too many signatures. I support completely what the noble Earl and the two noble Lords who have spoken have said. I think they have covered practically everything that could be said about this issue. If the Minister is listening—and particularly if her officials in the Department of Health and Social Care, where I expect this has been pushed, are listening—I really cannot see why she would not consider, even at this stage, just dropping the whole thing about cigars.
I am particularly concerned about the issue of cigars and handmade cigars. I really do not understand why this is happening now, after all the years when there has been other legislation about tobacco—cigars have been left out and not included. Parliament has always recognised the unique aspect of this. I would hope that, after this debate in Committee has finished, the Minister will go back and recognise that taking this out now would solve a lot of problems with timing and getting things through quickly, given this whole debate. I would certainly support that.
The Government’s own impact assessment has been mentioned. It does not mention handmade cigars at all, and it mentions cigars very little, so I do not think any of us can really feel that a proper impact assessment has been done on the effects of cigars. I share the concern that has been expressed. I have also seen the letter from the three ambassadors—from the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Cuba—to the Prime Minister. Up until last week, there had not been a response. It was sent on 20 October, and I know that the Prime Minister has been quite busy recently, but I hope that they will get a full response to it, because it is very much going to have an effect. We always say that we care about what is happening to poorer communities across the world, and here we are going to have a situation that, without doubt, will lead to a real effect on smallholder farmers in rural communities. It is also very much a cultural thing in those countries. We should be taking that into account, apart from just the effects.
I have yet to see a 16 year-old, a 14 year-old or a 12 year-old standing around smoking a cigar. Now, maybe I have missed out, and maybe the Minister has seen that. I do not think that this is an issue about age—well, it is, in the sense that it is older people. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Apart from the cost of it, young people do not think of cigars as something that they would want to smoke. So it will make no impact whatever, in my view, on the health situation.
Years ago, in 1968, during my radical student days, I visited Cuba to plant coffee. I never went back to see whether the coffee that we planted actually grew—but we came back from Cuba, and of course in those days I brought lots of Che Guevara T-shirts and Cuban cigars. Sadly, people were more interested in having a present of the Cuban cigars than the Che Guevara T-shirts. So my interest in cigars goes back quite a long way.
But seriously, this proposal is really not sensible. It is not necessary and is not going to affect the health of one single person, but it will really affect those lovely, niche, small tobacco shops. There is one in Belfast, in Church Lane, called Miss Morans, which is visited by tourists because it is tiny and historic—I think it was started in 1870. Those are the kinds of shops that are going to be affected. People will be put out of jobs, not just in the handmade cigar places but in those kinds of shops. It is just not necessary. Although I recognise that the Minister perhaps cannot withdraw the whole clause today and take cigars right out of this, I hope that she will reflect on what has been said today, which is a very strong case for why cigars should not be part of this Bill.
The Earl of Liverpool (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time that I have risen to speak on this Bill, I should immediately declare an interest, as shown in the register: I am a member of the Commons and Lords Pipe and Cigar Club. It may be no surprise to the Grand Committee that I strongly support the amendments that have so far been spoken to.
This is an industry that goes back 6,000 years—some people would say 6,000 but maybe 1,000 years will do. It is a very specialised business and, as my noble friend Lord Johnson said, cigar consumption and the purchase of cigars in this country is of great benefit to our tourist industry. People really do come to look at what we have to offer in St James’s Street and elsewhere. It is a wonderful thing, and I offer my full support to these amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I put my name to some of these amendments, but so much has been said, and so eloquently, that I will speak only briefly in their support. I have no personal interest in this. I used to smoke, but I stopped three years ago. I have never smoked cigars or pipes, and I never took snuff. I probably experimented with all of them at some stage, but they were not for me. So I have no personal interest in this—but I was moved to take an interest in it because of being approached by a neighbour, recently retired from the family business of Hunters & Frankau, which specialises almost exclusively in cigars and is a successful British business that has been around for a long time, bringing pleasure with very little harm to its customers and giving jobs to people in the economy. He and his colleagues pointed out to me that the way in which this Bill operates will be absolutely destructive to their business; they will no longer be able to continue in business as a result of this Bill, for reasons that have been explained by my noble friend Lord Lindsay and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I really do not think that that is what the Government intend.
This measure does not mean that the business will be destroyed. The businesses will be destroyed but not the commerce, because it will still be perfectly legal to buy these things in foreign countries and import them into this country. One can never imagine the French to be so idiotic as to clamp down on a luxury trade that brings custom to their capital—nor the Germans, for that matter. These products will always be available, but the businesses in this country that have operated for such a long time will be reduced to cinders and ashes if the Government do not step back at this stage—I hope the Minister will say that she is willing to do this—and say that they will reconsider this whole question before coming back to the Bill at a later stage.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel I might lower the tone, especially after the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston. This is absolutely not my world; I am much more on the grubby vaping/smoking side of the fence, to be honest. However, the world of cigars and other tobacco products is also not the world of the nation’s youth. There just is not an epidemic of teenage pipe-smoking—not that I am aware of, at least.
These amendments are incredibly important to the Bill because they are all about evidence and the Bill’s attitude to it. I am concerned not to have a situation whereby “tobacco” is used as a scare word that blinds us to facts, medical science and what is actually happening in terms of real harms and risks. The speech from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, helped explain the distinction between cigarettes and vapes in terms of the consumer-based demographics, usage patterns and risk profiles for these other tobacco products. If you just lump them all into a one-size-fits-all, we shall behave in a disproportionate, unevidenced way, based, to a certain degree, on prejudice.
Can the Minister also explain whether there is new evidence to explain this new approach? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, explained, previous legislation has successfully been used to differentiate in the regulation of these particular tobacco products. What is new that means that the Government now want to treat them all as though they are indistinct? I appeal to the Minister to add some nuance to the Bill, because we really must stop conflating things that are not comparable. We should stop conflating tobacco with nicotine, as I have argued, and we must stop conflating cigarettes with all the various tobacco products without differentiation.
I added my name to Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, but, as he does not appear to be here to speak to it, I shall speak to it briefly instead. This amendment asks for evidence of the potential harms posed by heated tobacco compared to cigarettes. Again, this is important to me. Heated tobacco devices are being used by cigarette smokers to quit smoking cigarettes. It is perfectly proportionate and reasonable to ask for evidence of whether they carry the risk of any kind of significant harm. So far, the Government have not come up with any arguments for why they should be treated as though they are indistinguishable from cigarettes.
It speaks to a certain carelessness, if you like, around evidence—and, indeed, around liberty—if specific activities carried out by adults are all treated the same on the basis that a one-size-fits-all approach to public health means that we can all forget the details. However, as scrutineers and legislators, we should never forget the details and always think about the unintended consequences, regardless of our attitude to smoking fine cigars; that is irrelevant to why we should support these amendments.
Lord Harlech (Con)
Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to his group of amendments far more eloquently than I can, and other noble Lords spoke about the evidential and ethical case behind them. But I want to make one point and give one example, at this time of remembrance and with society’s understanding of mental health developing—and, indeed, given the Minister’s role for mental health. A great number of veterans and serving personnel come together to talk about their mental health and their experiences through the medium of cigar clubs. It would be a great tragedy if those communities were lost due to the unintended consequences of the Bill, and I hope that the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care are listening to the arguments that have been made this afternoon.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly respond to these amendments on cigars. It is clear that the parliamentary cigar club is out in force today, and the noble Lords have made their case very well. I will speak on snuff, because every argument made for cigars is undermined by including snuff within the amendments. The arguments around snuff are extremely different. Snuff use among our 16 to 24 year-olds has seen a fourfold increase over recent years. Snuff is easily available; it is flavoured and easy to hide for young people. Frankly, including snuff undermines the group of amendments.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments, which I have signed, and I will speak on the separation of cigarettes and vapes from other tobacco products, making the case, I hope, for a much stronger impact assessment. Certainly, the previous contribution made a strong case for trying to review these things in a proper impact assessment, which I think would be welcomed by everybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, made an incredibly forensic case about the separation, and his was an excellent contribution. Of course, I enjoyed the poetry, prose and passion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, but the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, made a brilliant case for this. He reminded me of one thing in particular: the issue that we have in making sure that regulation is effective. I remember sitting on the other side of this Room on many occasions, making the case for better regulation, making the case that this had to be based on proportionality and evidence, and usually making the case that an impact assessment was wanting in a particular area. Very often, we were supported by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in that case. The present Ministers will be dealing with many of the consequences of things that did not have proper impact assessments and were not assessed correctly, because these things frequently lead to very poor legislation that has terrible consequences and requires a huge amount of government action beyond them.
In this case, there are some issues around justice, whether the actions are proportionate and whether they do away with people’s livelihoods, which is probably unjust on the basis of the evidence. The Minister’s reported comments on the current market conditions for cigars bear no relation to commercially available market assessments, so there is a case for ensuring that we have the right evidence. The current impact assessments are not even a tick-box exercise—there is almost nothing in them apart from the tick in the box. I cannot think of anything we have done that has put on the table any cost-benefit analysis.
The case for the separation is strong. It does not obviate or undermine the core public policy objective or any movements around the central issues of health benefits, protecting children and the like in the other parts of the Bill. There is, of course, a vast difference, as has been said, between the mortality of handmade cigar smokers and cigarette smokers, not least given that cigars are not inhaled and are made from natural tobacco, as opposed to habitually inhaled cigarettes made with many additives and chemicals, as was expressed. I would love to say that I could remember or recite even one example cited—it was a magnificent piece of research—but a considerable number have terrible health consequences.
The impact assessment and Explanatory Notes make clear that the whole Bill is intended to target products that are deliberately branded for, promoted to and advertised to children. It is unclear that OTPs, especially cigars, fall into this category. They are not promoted with cartoons and are not part of an illicit trade on which trading standards are focused; they are specialist, niche and not present on convenience stores’ footprints. Again, all the Bill’s impacts are based on multiple chains and businesses for which these are marginal products.
The point was made that we lack the evidence to make this piece of legislation because DHSC, HMRC and the other relevant public bodies stopped collecting data on OTPs around 2012 because of their low usage, the age profile of the users and the fact that there is no evidence that they are a gateway product for the young. No assessment was required because the significance to public health was negligible. That is important as we balance things here because these products have a distinctive consumption pattern in the volume of people using them; in the mechanisms and types of usage, daily or occasional; and in their negligible youth appeal.
There is already market regulation. The price marketing and regulation are very different for those sorts of products. There is a cultural and economic consequence to this measure in skilled jobs, specialist retailers, hospitality and other areas. I am not so august to know the practices of the investment community when deciding issues with Governments—and whether a Romeo y Julieta seals the deal—but it is certainly clear that important luxury-end hotels, which are a big area for our economy and for the growth of our tourist economy, will be significantly affected by the availability of these sorts of products.
This is not to say that everyone uses them, but it is certainly true that the breadth of appeal in what Britain represents is very much that it caters for that sort of stuff. We need a proper assessment of the impact. There are many precedents for treating cigars differently, including in EU countries that are trying to do the same sort of thing in tourism under the tobacco products directive. It would be foolish of us not to have proper evidence before we put ourselves at a disadvantage.
This all speaks to making sure that enforcement is proportionate, practical and effective. I hope that, in responding to the debate we have had, the Minister will take away the fact not just that there is a very strong case, for those of us who have spent some time looking at this matter, but that the Government’s case probably has more costs than benefits currently. A proper impact assessment should be done in order to make sure that, as they move forward with this legislation, the Government can make proper provision for how we deal with OTPs.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my previous declarations of interest: my wife is a non-executive director of both Tesco and Diageo; and I am an alumni member of the Lockeridge Cigar Smoking Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, referred.
I am a huge and passionate supporter of this Bill. My motivations are largely because of the devastating costs to society and to our economy of cigarette smoking: the tens of thousands of deaths; the pressure on the NHS and our welfare system; and the devastating effect on families and communities. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I think that these amendments are very important, because if we are going to deploy the clunking fist of the nanny state to smoking roll-up cigarettes in our society, we should recognise that our legislation sometimes has unintended consequences, and we should do what we can, when we can, to mitigate the effects on those who are not the targets of our legislation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we have had a great debate. Those noble Lords who know me know that, like the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I am a great supporter of this Bill, and I would not want to do anything to weaken it. Noble Lords who know me also know that I am a great supporter of evidence-based policy. I therefore looked very carefully and thoughtfully at this group of amendments, and asked myself a number of questions.
First, would this group of amendments interfere with the principal core objective of the Bill, which is to deter young people from smoking highly addictive tobacco products and achieve a smoke-free generation? This is a desirable objective both for the physical, mental and financial health of the individual and for the cost to the NHS and overall economy, which affects all of us as taxpayers. I concluded that, in one case, these amendments would affect the core objective of the Bill, and that is the case of snuff. I am very sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has included snuff along with handmade tobacco. My noble friend Lord Russell has already outlined the evidence that snuff is a problem for young people, and it can be very dangerous.
I also concluded that, on the basis of the evidence currently available to me, these amendments are unlikely to affect that objective, because of the very high cost of cigars compared with other tobacco products. But we need to be careful, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, just outlined, about the unintended consequences of any exemption because the tobacco industry is very clever and driven by high profits. There is some evidence that, albeit not harmless, cigars have less effect on health than other tobacco products, as they are not inhaled, have no additives and therefore are probably less addictive and certainly smoked less frequently than cigarettes.
I am a fan of evidence-based policy, but I am also a fan of fairness, so I asked myself: is the legislation fair in this respect? I thought initially about small retailers that sell cigarettes, vapes and many other products. Under the terms of the Bill, they will have to adjust their business plans gradually, over many years, to account for the loss of one potential year’s cohort of young smokers to whom they will no longer be legally able to sell cigarettes. That adjustment and time period are not unreasonable and that is what the Bill does.
However, there is one group of small retailers that claim they would lose their business entirely with no gradual adjustment if the Bill is not amended. They are the sellers of exclusive handmade cigars. I have never smoked a cigar in my life, but I am concerned about all small retailers and about fairness. This is because we are told that the nature of the global market, of which the UK is only 2%, is such that they would not be able to comply with packaging regulations.
I then asked myself if it is fair to existing smokers. The Bill is considerate to existing smokers of cigarettes, currently over 18, who are addicted to cigarettes and who will be able to continue smoking them until they die if they really need to. Of course, we need to help more of them to quit, as so many want to do. But is it fair to smokers of cigars? If the sector briefing is correct, they will not be able to buy compliant cigars in this country once the Bill is passed. I asked myself if that is fair to them.
I then asked myself whether exempting cigars from the legislation would create a loophole and encourage young people to switch from cigarettes, vapes and all the other much cheaper forms of nicotine-delivering mechanisms to cigars, which cost over £20 per unit. I think this is very unlikely. There is also the potential of people moving to cigarillos, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, so any exemption would have to be carefully drafted. Actually, Amendment 104 is quite carefully drafted, apart from my criticism about the inclusion of snuff. Something very similar would need to be drafted to avoid the industry using it to lure young people into smoking.
Lastly, I asked myself what the evidence is to include handmade cigars in the scope of the Bill. As I understand it, the evidence is based on a single study that lumped together a large group of non-cigarette tobacco products, all of which are very different from each other. This has been mentioned in the debate. Lumping them together like that, without the desirable granularity of getting evidence about each individual type of product, resulted in evidence of increased usage. We know that there is a rise in use of tobacco pouches and heated tobacco among young people, but what about cigars? Is there any evidence that young people are increasingly smoking them? I have not seen any up to this point, so perhaps the Minister can point us to the evidence that young people start smoking by using cigars and that the incidence of them doing so is rising or that they report an intention of turning to cigars if they cannot legally get hold of cigarettes.
In the light of all that, I think the Government need to show that they have taken evidence from specialist cigar retailers and their customers about all the issues that I have just mentioned. The Minister has frequently told us that her team has talked a lot to small retailers and their industry representatives, and I know she has done so when it comes to small corner shops that sell a variety of different nicotine-delivery mechanisms. So could she give us chapter and verse on when and how frequently her team have spoken to this particular and rather different group of small retailers? If she and her team do so, they may be open to the suggestion that further consultation and evidence on this issue is required, possibly followed by a careful and watertight exemption from parts of the Bill—if the evidence is there.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to a set of principles that my noble friend Lord Kamall and I have emphasised throughout our scrutiny of the Bill: namely, that the policies set out in legislation should reflect its core purpose, but that unintended consequences that do disproportionate damage should be avoided. We can avoid those consequences by adopting policies that take account of the facts not just in one policy dimension but in all other relevant dimensions—in other words, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay put it, policies that are truly evidence based.
My many noble friends, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey, Lady Fox and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, have made the case—in my view, a convincing one—that, when it comes to those tobacco products that occupy what is, by any measure, a niche position in the marketplace, most especially handmade Havana cigars, a much wider set of considerations should be factored into policy-making than those that apply to the vast generality of tobacco products, such as cigarettes, which are both mass produced and mass consumed.
Handmade cigars are a world away from what we typically refer to as the tobacco industry. As someone who was a Health Minister for a full five-year Parliament, I know how difficult a proposition that is for Health Ministers to accept. The Department of Health and Social Care rightly sees it as its function to preach the ills of tobacco in all its forms and to take every possible step to constrain the demand for tobacco products for the good of patients and the public. I completely understand that.
As a Minister, I was proud to take through Parliament the measures proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley that mandated plain packaging for cigarettes, and as an opposition spokesman I supported the policy of the last Labour Government to ban smoking in the workplace. I need no persuading about the damage to health caused by both active and passive smoking. However, I have also been consistent in acknowledging that there are one or two narrow areas of tobacco regulation—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber, in which case we would normally adjourn for 10 minutes. If it seems that there are back-to-back Divisions, I think it would be more suitable to come back when it appears that they are over.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we are debating Amendment 102 to Clause 45, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was in full flow.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I need no persuading about the damage to health caused by both active and passive smoking. However, throughout my years in dealing with health matters, I have also been consistent in acknowledging that there are one or two narrow areas of tobacco regulation in which the health gain to be derived from such regulation is outweighed by considerations of personal choice, commercial freedoms and—not to sound too high-flown—the national interest.
Handmade cigars are one such instance; I would venture to say that they are the most important one. There is, therefore, a necessary challenge that must be made to the Government—a challenge issued by my noble friend Lord Lindsay in his excellent speech. The challenge is to demonstrate evidence that the strictures that apply to cigarettes apply equally to every single type of tobacco product when consumed. These include heated tobacco, which is a relatively novel product but could have a role in smoking cessation—we do not know that yet, but it might—snuff, pipe tobacco and, in particular, hand-rolled cigars.
Noble Lords have articulated why this challenge must be made. I want to distil those arguments by focusing, as others have done, on handmade cigars. For official statistical purposes, sales of handmade cigars are lumped in with the sale of a whole range of other tobacco products—a fact that precludes any detailed analysis of the market relating to handmade cigars on their own. In the UK, that market is tiny by comparison to the market in cigarettes, but it is a market of very high value. Depending on its age and provenance, one box of Havana cigars can sell for many thousands of pounds. Retail outlets for such cigars are very few in number, but their combined activity is enough to make the UK one of the leading centres in the world for high-quality cigars imported from Caribbean countries. The historical links between British importers and retailers and small producers in those countries go back many years, making it a trade that is the polar opposite of that associated with cigarettes. I should add that highly specialised retailers of handmade cigars in this country are one of the many reasons why very rich people from around the world see London as a destination of choice.
However, relevant as they are, these arguments around the market tell only half the story when it comes to considering this legislation. We need to be clear about the facts relating to health. Hand-rolled cigars, costing hundreds of pounds apiece, are decidedly not a cause of young people taking up smoking, nor is doing so a route to addiction for those who choose to smoke such cigars. Very few people would think of smoking them with anywhere near the same frequency as smoking cigarettes; that just does not happen.
In general, cigars of this kind are bought as luxury items for occasional enjoyment, the main attraction being their unique tobacco flavour. I am not for a minute suggesting that handmade cigars are without any health risk whatever—that would be absurd—but there is a distinct difference between the dangers posed by cigarettes, which have all sorts of carcinogenic chemicals added to them during the course of their manufacture, and the dangers of a hand-rolled cigar, which consists of pure tobacco and whose smoke is not inhaled.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made today. This has obviously brought a lot of interest to this group of amendments. Let me start by turning to Amendments 106, 108, 109, 112 and 156 to 159, which have been tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The effect of this would be to remove handmade cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco from the definition of tobacco products in Parts 1, 5 and 6 of the Bill.
One of the things that the noble Earl asked about was distinguishing between products that pose, as he described them, negative health risks and those which do not. It is probably helpful, in view of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I am glad to hear his acceptance of the health arguments—that I am very clear, because this has come up throughout today: all tobacco products are harmful. Tobacco smoke from cigars and pipes leads to the same types of diseases as cigarette smoke. Like other forms of tobacco, nasal tobacco contains chemicals that can cause cancer. I will develop this further as we continue. It is right that these products can be subject to the same restrictions as other tobacco products.
I have listened to the arguments about the scale of consumption and a number of other comments. However, I want to refer to the core of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke to this and it is important we remind ourselves, although I do not wish to stray into Second Reading territory, that the core of this is about the protection of young people. It is not about stopping existing smokers, whether of cigars or any other products. It is also about creating not just a culture but a practice of a smoke-free generation so that those who born on or after 1 January 2009 will not be able to legally purchase tobacco products, whatever they may be.
I want to emphasise the broad point about creating a culture in this country whereby young people, as the years go on, do not want to smoke, and those who currently smoke want to give it up. That is the important point to which I refer a lot of noble Lords. Again, the Bill does not prevent current tobacco users buying these products. I know a number of noble Lords have spoken about their own interest and consumption. The Bill does not affect that.
However, as has been referred to, exempting some tobacco products would create loopholes; the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, spoke to this point. I should add that, while we are talking about culture and about the protection of children and young people, this is also about the message that one sends—and not creating confusion. Many noble Lords are rightly pushing me on many issues to say, “Please do not cause confusion”. I absolutely agree with that; for me, legislation should be clear and should not create confusion.
Creating loopholes could permit the tobacco industry to continue to addict future generations to harmful and addictive products. There is evidence that young people are using these products: the most recent data shows that, in 2022, 2.4% of 16 to 19 year-olds in England used cigars and 4.4% used cigarillos, or little cigars. That was in the past 30 days.
A number of key points coalesce around these issues. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, queried the claims that I made at Second Reading about cigar use among young people; I referred to the University College London study. On the statistic that I used, which concerned cigar usage increasing, we are confident that there is an observed upward trend in non-cigarette product use among younger adults. That is supported by the UCL study alongside other findings, such as from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project, which provides comparative data on tobacco use.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn asked about HMRC’s publication of statistics on cigars. The HMRC sales data shows that sales of other tobacco products have risen in recent years, with the latest official statistics indicating an increase in tobacco duty receipts for non-cigarette products between 2023 and 2025—even as overall cigarette sales have declined.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
Forgive me, but this is exactly why we need a proper impact study. In 2023, a different deal was done to supply cigars, and the prices have gone up significantly. Numbers and actual overall sales volumes are totally different, so it is misleading to introduce the idea that, just because the sales have gone up, the numbers have gone up. It is a directly inverse correlation because all of the prices have gone up. The UCL study shows that the big products that are moving are not tobacco products. Snus is a nicotine-based product, and shisha has gone up hugely, but that is not the same. It is important to be clear about these things. I urge the Minister to be very clear about the granularity of these figures because, otherwise, we end up in the wrong place.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
It is a very interesting statistic that 2.4% of 14 to 16 year-olds have tried cigars in the last 30 days. That does not sound quite right; maybe it did not come out right. I would be grateful if we could have clarification on that piece of data.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We can bandy all sorts of statistics around, but my noble friend is right that it is important to be absolutely accurate. I say to him that my reference was to sales of other tobacco products, which is a broader reference than to just cigars; I am happy to clarify that. I will also be pleased to write to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to be crystal-clear and to add anything else that I can in respect of the statistics.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, talked about the tobacco industry being incredibly—this is not a direct quote—innovative. He said that the industry is likely to adjust its business model as it has done before—for example, when the menthol flavour ban was introduced. That legislation did not cover cigars so, in response, as the noble Lord said, the industry produced cigarettes in a tobacco wrap, which are available in branded menthol packs of 10. Now, in the United States, a whole new category of small cigars has emerged to exploit the tax advantages over cigarettes, so I listen to the point that the noble Lord makes about the creativity and determination of the industry. I just ask noble Lords to hold that point in their head when we are talking about loopholes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I just say to the Minister that the tobacco industry, as normally understood and which is suspected of such nefarious innovation, is not involved in the business of hand-rolled cigars at all? The industry consists, on one end, of artisans working with their hands in Caribbean countries, and, on the other end, of small specialist shops and other distributors in the UK supplying these products to a very narrow customer base. They never go through the hands of BAT or any of the other big tobacco companies, so I think that the Minister needs to be a little more aware that the main topic of our discussion today is not one in which the tobacco industry, understood in its normal sense, has any interest.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I should clarify that I was picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I was saying that, when cigars were not included, this is what happened, as an example. I also refer noble Lords back to the point that I made some minutes ago about looking at the core of the Bill and loopholes; that was one such example.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn: I will come on to the matter of impact assessments, and I should have mentioned that earlier.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has also tabled Amendments 102, 104, 105 and 201, all of which seek to require an impact assessment be published before any provisions in the Bill relating to cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco come into force. The impact assessment would look specifically at the impact on small businesses and specialist retailers, which a number of noble Lords mentioned. An impact assessment for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill was published on 5 November 2024, and it included assessment of small and micro-businesses. The Regulatory Policy Committee published an opinion on the impact assessment and provided a rating of “fit for purpose”; this included a green rating for amendments relating to small and micro-businesses.
Going back to the point about the tobacco industry, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked whether the Government would engage with the industry to avoid such loopholes. In line with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Government will not accept, support or endorse partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements. There will not be any voluntary arrangement with the tobacco industry, nor with any entity or person working to further its interests. To summarise, then, the answer is no, but I am grateful that the noble Lord raised this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and other noble Lords raised the fact that the impact assessment notes that the Government are aware of a limited number of small and micro tobacco product manufacturers, based in the UK, which mainly produce tobacconist products and which may be affected by the policy, including through lost profits. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, observed in her comments, any impact on retailers will be gradual over time as the number of people captured by the smoke-free generation policy increases.
I accept exactly what the impact assessment says. I know that noble Lords do not welcome that, but we have been honest and transparent.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. One point that was made was that the immediacy of the impact on retailers of cigars would come not from the generational nature of the ban but from the risk that there may be regulations requiring the packaging of handmade cigars to be altered, which would be impossible to achieve. That would have the effect of terminating their business immediately.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad to say to the noble Lord that I will come to the issue of packaging shortly.
The impact assessment showed that, as was raised in the debate, the policy has an estimated net benefit to society of over £30 billion over some 30 years, if we use 2024 prices. In addition, it is estimated that the policy will avoid over 30,000 deaths in England by 2075. I confirm that further impact assessments will be prepared in advance of secondary legislation.
Amendments 140A and 140B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, seek to require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent report into the harms of hand-rolled cigars before any further packaging restrictions can be brought forward. I venture to say to noble Lords that, in my view, the health harms of cigars are well known and well established through independent research. Independent research on the effects of cigar smoking has found that, compared with non-smokers, cigar smokers have a greater risk of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease. Even without inhalation, taking tobacco smoke into the mouth exposes the mouth, pharynx and oesophagus to toxic compounds.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Just to clarify, the aim of the Bill, as far as I understand it, is not to go through every single thing that any adult does in society and assess its harm. There may be some harm in smoking cigars, and there may well be some harm in, say, staying in this House until two in the morning voting. There might well be some harm in all sorts of things we do, but the aim of the Bill and what we are concerned about is, according to the Government, to stop young people smoking cigarettes. I am therefore confused about why any harm associated with these particular products would have any merit whatever in relation to the issues raised by noble Lords.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Bill is very focused on the smoke-free generation, but we also know that existing legislation and practice in this country are about not only encouraging people not to take up smoking but helping them to quit. That is the focus of the Bill, not every potential health harm.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and other noble Lords referenced what is included, particularly for cigars. I had to remind myself—so I am happy to remind noble Lords—that most of the current legislation on tobacco control, such as the existing age of sale, health warnings and advertising restrictions, is already in place. So the regulation of cigars is not new.
Noble Lords asked about packaging restrictions for cigars. Again, this is not a new concept. Indeed, many countries already go further than the UK and require all tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging. That includes Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, that any new restrictions will be subject to a consultation process and an accompanying impact assessment.
I move on to heated tobacco and will respond to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. There is evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco, and the aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens. There will be a risk to the health of anyone using this product.
Clause 45 gives Ministers the ability to extend the restrictions under Part 1 to cover devices that allow the tobacco products to be consumed. That allows us to adapt to any new products that enter the market and prevent loopholes. I assure noble Lords that there is a duty to consult before making any regulations under this power. As I have mentioned many times before, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Any additional requirements would be overly bureaucratic. Given the known harms of tobacco and the need to protect from any loopholes, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this group of amendments. I am especially grateful to those who managed to pick up the issues that I had to drop in order to keep to time—such as hospitality and the letter from Caribbean ambassadors to the Prime Minister.
I will respond quickly on one or two issues. The first is definitions, which are really important. That is why this group of amendments seeks to define precisely what a handmade cigar is, for instance; we recognise that loopholes could be exploited. If, when we have reflected further on what has been said today, this comes back on Report, we will look again at just how tightly the definitions can be drawn, as we accept that there is scope for mischief otherwise.
I thank the Minister for the consideration she gave in the various points that she made. I continue to be concerned about the extent to which the UCL study has some use. Even the authors of that report have acknowledged the weaknesses in the methodology that they used. This lies behind the amendments about additional impact assessments. I think I heard the Minister say that, prior to secondary legislation being brought forward, there would be additional or further impact assessments. I welcome that in principle, but one of the amendments tabled said that there should be further impact assessments before the provisions of the Bill—not the secondary legislation but the provisions of the Bill—are applied to the three nominated categories. There is still considerable uncertainty about the exact risks and impacts of these three products.
It is easy to say that all tobacco products are potentially harmful. It is equally easy to say that for all alcohol, sugar et cetera. Those types of products are potentially harmful, but the one word that I used repeatedly in speaking to these amendments, which did not come up at all in the Minister’s response, was “proportionality”. We propose a proportionate approach to the availability of certain OTPs in future.
I am grateful for all the contributions and to the Minister for her response. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
“Consultation and review of the generational sales ban for tobacco products(1) Before making regulations under this Part the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the retailers of a relevant product or representatives of the manufacturers of a relevant product;(b) the manufacturers of a relevant product or representatives of the manufacturers of a relevant product;(c) consumers of a relevant product or representatives of consumers of a relevant product;(d) any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to consult.(2) Consultation under this section must include a call for evidence.(3) The Secretary of State must have due regard to all views received as part of any consultation under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult retailers, manufacturers and consumers on the practicality, enforceability and efficacy of the products in scope of the generational sales ban on tobacco products before implementing these regulations.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is essentially about the product scope of the consultation. I will say at the outset that I am not a smoker, and I have no fiduciary or pecuniary interest in the sector, but I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be delighted to know that I am speaking on the basis of empirical evidence which informs my remarks. The focus is specifically on heated tobacco products. I hope noble Lords will not groan about that because, given that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was not here to move his amendment, we have not really had a debate about the efficacy of the ban as it affects heated tobacco products.
The broad thrust of this amendment is about consultation. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake the most basic task of any Government, which is to consult those impacted—retailers, manufacturers and consumers—on the practicality, enforceability and efficacy of the products in scope of the generational sales ban on tobacco products. I will take those points in turn, with the caveat that I will be focusing on heated tobacco products.
Heated tobacco is not smoking. In fact, it is an effective aid, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, in stopping smoking. The generational ban is a misguided step, but if the Government insist on proceeding with it, they should follow the evidence and remove heated tobacco from the scope. I shall speak to that more later. I want to talk about the practicality of the generational ban. Leaving aside the philosophical debate, there are practical public health considerations that may have been reflected in the Bill if a proper consultation had taken place. The first is that, for those who already smoke, heated tobacco products are an effective smoking cessation tool. They have helped Members of this House and the other place to quit smoking. It is illogical to include them in the ban and the Government should commit today to consulting with consumers of heated tobacco products so that they may understand their utility more clearly.
The second public health point is that simply the number of people, especially young people, starting to smoke is now very low. It was 1% of 11 to 15 year-olds in 2021 according to Action on Smoking and Health. An even lower number, just 0.3% according to the same survey, are using heated tobacco products. All of this suggests there is no need for heated tobacco products to be included in the scope of banned products. There will always be outliers and the Government’s own impact assessment
“assumes some people continue to smoke despite it being illegal for effectively all ages to be sold tobacco by 2100”.
For these adults, it makes sense for all cessation products to be available so that the road that has worked for decades can be taken—smoking reduction policies that inform, nudge and dissuade rather than remove the rights of adults to make their own choices.
I want to talk about enforceability and the illicit trade and retailers, and all within the context of proper consultation or otherwise. We do not have to look into a crystal ball to imagine the consequences of this legislation, particularly the generational ban. The policy has already backfired in Australia where there is now a booming illicit trade fuelled by criminal gangs. We would be naive to assume the same situation could not happen here in the United Kingdom. A consultation with retailers would reveal the issues they already face with rising crime and illicit trade. This would undoubtedly worsen with confusing arbitrary rules for different legal products.
We should make these measures as simple as possible for retailers by categorising all smoking cessation products in the same way. That would be a useful start. We know that young people will still be able to get their hands on illegal cigarettes, just as we know that they are able to procure all manner of products that they should not be able to. Teenagers have always been resourceful; that is why it is important that we continue to make all possible smoking cessation tools available to all adults because, whatever the law says, there will be adult smokers born after 1 January 2009.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I shall speak to my Amendments 135A and 136A, as noble Lords would imagine. I will be brief. I hope these will meet a sympathetic ear from the Minister, who has oozed reasonableness from every pore during this debate. The specific amendment relates to Northern Ireland but—I am afraid my timings were off in terms of tabling the amendments—I hope it would actually cover all specialist tobacco stores, which naturally, because of their nature, are often concentrated in one single street.
It is absolutely right and sensible that there should be a density measure for tobacco-supplying shops in the UK regarding where they are located and so on, but we have some historic shops down St James’s Street that, if the council had to follow the letter of the law, might have to close—or some stipulation might result in that. That would be totally contrary to the Minister’s ambitions, particularly when she has rightly stated that the whole principle around the Bill is not to affect the status quo for people who are already smoking cigars, or whatever it may be.
Specifically in Northern Ireland, there is a famous tobacconist called Miss Morans, which has already been mentioned. I read a delightful and heartwarming story that her portrait was given by the Northern Ireland Executive to the peoples of America and hangs in the White House, or certainly did until quite recently. That must be a good sign that they are encouraging our trade. But this is a very serious point.
I would like there to be not exceptionalism but some guidance that makes clear that these existing speciality shops, which are naturally in a cluster, should have some elasticity around how the density regulations are interpreted.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 114A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and shall speak to my Amendment 114C on the socioeconomic impact of the generational ban on the retail sector.
I consider the noble Lord’s amendment to be an important one, calling for consultation and a review of the impact of a generational sales ban for tobacco products on retailers, manufacturers and consumers. The noble Lord has concentrated on heated tobacco, but there is a broader question here about what kind of evidence is being used and what kind of consultation there has been on the practicality, enforceability and efficacy of this policy, which is the core of the Bill.
We need that evidence, because my dread about the Bill is that at the moment it is evidence free, or it makes too many evidence-free assumptions. My fear is that the Government—and in fact the previous Government, so I am not sectarian in my criticism—have failed to ask whether a tobacco control policy that adopts an aggressive prohibitionist approach towards consumers is the most effective means of achieving its stated aims. That is not me using the phrase “aggressive prohibitionist approach”, by the way; I am quoting a document produced by trading standards of Wales that went on to advise the Welsh Government to
“examine closely the reasons why this health measure was unsuccessful in New Zealand and repealed in February 2024”.
In fact, the New Zealand Government revoked their planned generational smoking ban, first because, once they had scrutinised their own plans and done their own cost-benefit analysis, they were concerned about the impact of similar legislation to this on the cost of living crisis—and secondly, they were worried that it would trigger the emergence of a booming black market.
The lack of evidence for the efficacy of the policy in this Bill is admitted in its own impact assessment, which recognises the “uncertainty” over the impact of the policy and that there are no international case studies to follow. If there are no international case studies to follow, that means there is a danger that we will make mistakes. In fact, international experiments should give us pause, because a similar ban was rejected by the Attorney-General in Malaysia, which ruled it unconstitutional on the basis that it would have denied Malaysians equal treatment before the law and would lead to age discrimination.
All of the evidence that we have on what the Welsh trading standards memo labelled an “aggressive prohibitionist approach” is alarming. South Africa, which temporarily banned tobacco products during Covid-19, found that criminals filled the void and supplied the demands of 93% of South African smokers, who switched to purchasing illegal tobacco through criminal channels. I mention this because I know that it has become a bit of a mantra for the Minister and supporters of this Bill to dismiss concerns about the black market as a big tobacco talking point. In the briefings that we have been sent, I have noticed that the glib dismissal of genuine concerns about a black market is actually a talking point being put forward by ASH and anti-smoking lobbyists. I appreciate that everyone is planning the future, but give me a break. After all, it was only last year that HMRC and Border Force’s new strategy on illegal tobacco admitted that,
“no matter how much we strengthen our current strategy, supply will always find a way to enter the market where a demand for it exists”.
That brings me on to what is happening with retail and my amendment. There is obviously a clear link between the regulation of tobacco and the serious organised crime groups that are exploiting difficulties in accessing tobacco for certain groups. A recent BBC investigation that has already been referred to—I commend it as good journalism, by the way; I wish that there were more of it—exposed an already well-established network of pop-up high street shops, including barber shops but also retail shops. They are often run in plain sight by human trafficking gangs, using illegal asylum seekers to man them; they are all trading in illegal unregulated cigarettes and vapes; and they are openly targeting the young. We need to be sure that this Bill does not supercharge the growth of an alternative black market retail arena, because that is already a huge social problem in many of our towns around the country.
One thing that was made obvious by the BBC documentary was that this was happening in front of police and local council officials. People just go in and buy from these shops. We do not want to make that any worse. The trend could be—this is what we have to worry about—that law-abiding and compliant retailers will have to compete with increasing numbers of openly flagrant black market purveyors of tobacco products of one sort or another.
My concern here is that, at the moment, we are absolutely clear that we want the UK to empower the private sector to drive economic growth and recovery. I know that this Government care passionately about the retail sector, especially small shopkeepers and retailers—in part of another Bill, they are passing a special law to protect them from assault—but the reason why I have asked for an impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis for the retail sector is because I fear that there will be unintended consequences with the introduction of this generational smoking ban.
I want to emphasise why I have used the word “prohibition” so much and to contrast it slightly with the way in which the emphasis in most of our discussions has been on prohibiting the young from accessing cigarettes, in particular, and even vapes. The problem with the generational smoking ban is that the people who are banned or prohibited from purchasing it grow up and, for the rest of their lives, when they are adults, they are victims of a prohibition that will affect them. The people who will have to enforce that prohibition are often shopkeepers, at the heart of their communities, who will be asked to police adults and say to them, “No, you can’t buy this legal product because it would be illegal for me to sell it to you”.
Not enough attention has been given to the amount of money that these shopkeepers will lose, which is projected to be in excess of £26 million for retailers. This is at a time when retail profitability is already suffering significant headwinds for a wide range of different reasons. So I would like the Minister to consider a special consideration for the retail sector—particularly small independent shopkeepers, given what will happen if they become mired in difficulties because of the unintended consequences of this Bill. I ask her to consider what impact that will have not just on their socioeconomic livelihoods but on the communities that they serve so admirably.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, these amendments seek to mandate further consultations on measures in the Bill. Such things always sound very reasonable. However, it seems to us that the Government either have already consulted or intend to consult where needed. I would be more sympathetic if the consultation here was with public health experts, but the focus is particularly on those who would be selling tobacco. It is clearly very welcome—and it is something of a change from previous debates on tobacco—to hear from so many speakers in other groups that there is now wide- spread acceptance of the terrible damage tobacco does. I certainly welcome that.
One thing the industry is expert at is spreading alarm through the retail sector; they have done it at every stage of tobacco control. It is usually, “This measure will kill pubs or small shops”, and when that does not happen, they say, “Of course the last lot of regulation did not kill these areas, but this lot will”. However, I have no doubt that the alarm they create would feed back into such consultation.
There is a risk of overestimating the importance of tobacco to the retail sector and underestimating its impact on the wider economy. Tobacco is bad for the UK economy. Referring back to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about evidence, there is plenty of evidence showing the impact of smoking. People who get ill from smoking do not need only healthcare, tobacco-induced illness means time off work, less productivity and suffering smoke-related lost earnings and unemployment. Smokers are more likely to die while still of working age. Smoking costs society in England at least £43 billion a year, which is far more than the £6.8 billion raised through tobacco taxes. Hopefully, that addresses some of the cost-benefit analysis that has just been referred to.
Even for retailers that sell tobacco products, tobacco is not a good deal and is certainly not essential for business vitality. Footfall from tobacco sales has decreased, I am pleased to say, by nearly 40% in the small retail outlets compared with less than a decade ago. We also know that the illicit trade, which needs to be tackled, has declined dramatically by almost 90% since 2000. Tobacco is very profitable for manufacturers, but less so for retailers. The Government need to work closely with the retail sector to ensure clear communication, engage with the public and support enforcement agencies to address any breaches in the law.
If there is to be more consultation, for my part, it needs to focus on those organisations which have to cope with those who have been damaged by tobacco: those in public health. As I say, however, we feel that we do not need to add this selective group of consultees.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my noble friend’s Amendment 114A. First, I apologise profusely for not being here in time to speak to my amendments in the last group. I feel doubly guilty about that because I am going to pick up on something the Minister said in answer to the fact I was not here.
With regard to heated tobacco products, I believe the Minister said that they are harmful. However, there is no conclusive evidence of this; as my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, they are a cessation product and therefore ought to be materially less harmful. The fact is that the WHO also acknowledges—or rather assumes—that they will be harmful, but it does not have any conclusive evidence to that point. Can the Minister elaborate a little on where that evidence comes from?
As regards Amendment 114C, I think we should continue to conduct impact assessments. I reject the Liberal argument, which seems, as far as I can ascertain, to be that you should not have a consultation with people you do not like because you might not like their answers. That does not strike me as much of a consultation.
I have little else to say, but I apologise again, particularly for picking up on the Minister, who did not have to answer my amendments—that is a bit of a cheap shot, and I apologise.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in Amendment 114A, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough rightly highlighted the need for any regulations in this part of the Bill to be underpinned by evidence drawn from the real-world experience of retailers, manufacturers and consumers. It is a point very well made, and I hope that, even if the Minister has an issue about consulting tobacco manufacturers, which I expect she will say she does, she will see the good sense of consulting others in the supply chain to make sure that the regulations stand the best chance of being fit for purpose and avoid unintended adverse consequences.
My noble friend Lord Jackson focused much of his speech on heated tobacco, as did my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom just now. One of the other main concerns about regulation, which we have already touched on in an earlier debate, is the cost of the licence fee for a small business alongside the administrative burden for existing businesses to transition across to the new system. It is important that local authorities allow enough time for applications to be considered and processed and for the operational challenges faced by retailers implementing the system to be addressed. Both retailers and consumers need to be made aware of the new regulatory regime well before it goes live.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, amplified that proposal in her Amendment 114C by focusing specifically on the socioeconomic impact of the generational ban on retailers. She is absolutely right to be concerned about that, but I would like to talk about a different strand of the argument from that which she focused on.
In the consultation exercise conducted two years ago by the last Government, the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents more than 50,000 retail outlets across the UK, did not object to the generational ban as a policy. However, when the current Government published this Bill, shop owners expressed immediate concern about the powers contained in it around the licensing system. The biggest worry for them is the power given to a local authority to take a decision to refuse the granting of a licence to sell tobacco and vapes based on the density of other businesses operating in a specific area, or because of that business’s proximity to a school.
We debated this issue briefly last week, but the worry persists on what the effect of these provisions will be. First and foremost, how will this affect existing businesses? Might a well-established retailer selling tobacco and vapes suddenly find that it can no longer do so? Might a new business wishing to set up in a particular area be denied that ability? The ACS has rightly asked what the evidential framework will be for deciding that the density of outlets is too high. How will the threshold be set, and how can fairness be achieved between businesses in an urban area compared to those located in rural areas? Will small shops be treated in the same way as large shops? We simply do not have answers to those questions—and they are questions that are particularly pertinent to small, family-run businesses operating on sometimes tight margins. When will guidance be published to provide the answers? If the Minister cannot reply in detail today, I shall be very grateful if she would do so in writing between now and Report.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston has raised an important issue around the need for transitional provisions covering specialist tobacconists located in Northern Ireland. We will be debating specialist tobacconists more broadly in a later group of amendments, and I do not propose to anticipate that debate now. However, in the light of what my noble friend has said, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether she agrees that there is a strong case for what are commonly called grandfather rights for these particular specialist outlets.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to noble Lords for this group of amendments and the contributions to the debate. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and thank her for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who has tabled the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who has tabled Amendment 114C, I hope will be pleased to hear that I absolutely agree with the premise of their amendments. I have been consistent on this. It is crucial that the Government carefully consider the impact of any legislation and carry out appropriate consultation. That is why in 2023, a UK-wide consultation, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, was published on creating a smoke-free generation. It is also why this Government, as I mentioned in the earlier group, completed and published an impact assessment for the Bill, which was deemed fit for purpose by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and this included the impact that this policy will have on retailers. Indeed, that is important.
However, I can also confirm that we will consult, in compliance with our statutory obligations under this Bill, before making regulations under Part 1 implementing significant policy changes. For example, Clauses 13 and 14, relating to the in-store displays of relevant products, already contain a duty to consult, and impact assessments will be conducted for future regulations, as required. I also want to reassure noble Lords, as I have done previously, that we regularly engage with retailers and enforcement agencies, and remain committed to supporting retailers in the implementation of new requirements. We will, as requested, provide appropriate guidance to aid this transition.
The noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Sharpe, raised questions about heated tobacco being in scope. To that I say that laboratory studies show evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco. As I mentioned in the previous group, like other forms of tobacco, the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices contains carcinogenic compounds. There is very limited evidence that this is effective for smoking cessation. I am glad to hear of the interest in smoking cessation but, clearly, we have other products that are evidenced as working rather more definitely.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised points about the illicit market. Let me say to that point that history shows that when we have introduced targeted tobacco control measures, they have had a positive impact on tackling the problems of illicit tobacco. For example, when the age of sale was raised from 16 to 18 in 2007, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25% from 10 billion in 2005-6 to 7.5 billion in 2007-8. Most of the evidence that suggests that heated tobacco products are somehow less harmful than smoke tobacco is not independent and often comes from the manufacturers themselves.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
We have already had a group on illicit trade so I do not want to rehearse all of that. I simply wanted to say that what is happening in local communities is very different to the statistical evidence that keeps being put here. That is why I referred to the BBC investigation. In certain towns—working-class areas, basically—there is a huge problem with these products being sold openly without any authorities even intervening, which is what the BBC exposed. I am suggesting that one of the things that shopkeepers are worried about is that the generational ban is going to lead to even more of that. I know that they agree with the generational ban, but maybe the Government and the Minister might look at some of the new lived-experience evidence that is coming through at the moment in particular areas, rather than this just being a paper exercise.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing paper about the exercise that we are undertaking, but I accept her point and I have on previous groups. This is not one size fits all; the issue manifests itself in different ways. I wanted to present an overall national position, but I of course understand. That is why we are looking at regulations and why we have a call for evidence, consultations and an impact assessment, so that we do not uniformly treat all areas the same. It is important that we remind ourselves, as I have done repeatedly, that tobacco is a deadly addiction. Stopping children from starting to smoke is the easiest way to reduce smoking rates, and that is at the core of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Will the Minister give way? I am trying to be helpful. As the Minister has made some quite fair and emphatic comments about the toxicity of heated tobacco and its lack of efficacy in smoking cessation, would she be so kind as to put that in writing to me in order for members of the Committee to consider that as we go forward in the Bill?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to.
On Amendments 135A and 136A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, health is a devolved matter, as noble Lords are aware, so the implementation of retail licensing in Northern Ireland is ultimately a matter for the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. However, it is a shared view that it is important that details of our respective retail licensing schemes are informed by adequate consultation with all relevant stakeholders. That is why, in collaboration with the devolved Governments, we have launched a call for evidence that asks detailed questions about a number of matters that noble Lords have rightly raised. It is open until 3 December and asks detailed questions about the implementation of retail licensing, among other topics. I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that it asks how a retail licensing scheme can be implemented effectively. We encourage feedback on how existing businesses should be treated specifically, and I hope that responses will come forward.
I remind noble Lords that following the call for evidence there will be a consultation, so there is plenty of opportunity to consider all the important points that have been raised today. For example, we will ask whether there should be any exemptions from needing a licence and whether factors such as restrictions on the location and density of retailers should be features of the scheme. We believe it is important that such decisions are informed by expert views, and it would not be right to prejudge the evidence that we receive by putting in place different rules for one particular type of business, as the amendment suggests.
The absence of a retail licensing scheme, as I have spoken to on previous groups, represents a major gap in the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. All tobacco products are harmful, and it is right that we ensure that those selling the products are following the rules and acting responsibly. A retail licensing scheme will help to deter those who fail to do so, and I know all noble Lords are concerned to do that. With that, I hope noble Lords will be good enough not to press their amendments.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate on my amendment. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—it goes without saying that of course I support her Amendment 114C—and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. This debate and the previous group have shown that it is quite difficult to properly launch a generational ban in a monolithic way without disaggregating the different products, which are discrete products.
I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, did not actually read the amendment, because it specifically says it is not just for the benefit of retailers and manufacturers. Subsection (1)(d) specifically mentions
“any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to consult”,
which would include health bodies and charities. Subsection (2) says:
“Consultation under this section must include a call for evidence”,
which, presumably, the latter would also avail themselves of. These are wide ranging and permissive powers of consultation, and I hope she might reconsider when we come back on Report.
We have had a good debate on this issue, given that we did not have a specific heated tobacco product amendment per se. With the proviso that the Minister has given me an undertaking to provide the data on the efficacy of heated tobacco products, and a very straightforward undertaking to do more consultation on these key areas, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Overseas Musicians Touring in the UK
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brennan of Canton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the United Kingdom.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The United Kingdom has a thriving creative industries sector that the Government are committed to supporting. The UK has one of the most generous offers in Europe for workers in the creative industries, including for touring musicians, many of whom already benefit from the very streamlined immigration requirements.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. UK Music’s annual report will be published tomorrow, but I can give your Lordships a sneak preview of one of its findings: 95% of musicians impacted by our leaving the EU have seen their earnings decrease since Brexit. The movement of musicians in and out of the UK is vital to our live sector, our economy and our culture. Will my noble friend the Minister make two pledges today? The first is to work urgently across government to ensure that the new ETA and visa system does not make it more difficult for overseas artists to tour in the UK. The second is to prioritise sorting out the bureaucratic mess that Brexit has brought to our touring musicians by fulfilling the Government’s manifesto pledge for a European cultural touring agreement.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The UK is looking very closely with our European partners at resetting the relationship, and that means looking to make sure that we reduce as much friction as possible. As my noble friend has mentioned, this is an industry worth around £30 billion a year; it is important that we support that industry as a whole through our creative plan. I will certainly look at the points he has raised. The ETA applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and we are working to examine those issues, but the points he makes are very valid. I look forward to seeing the report when it is published tomorrow.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, one of the key asks from the sector is for visa waiver agreements, not just with the EU but with other countries. Are the Government pursuing this urgently, both as part of the reset and globally?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are certainly looking at that as part of the reset, because it is very important that we have movement between countries that is as frictionless as possible, particularly in areas where individuals can now apply for long-term visas, although obviously the amount of time that they can stay in the UK depends on the visa that is granted. Musicians, entertainers, artists and technical staff from non-visa national countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, can perform in the UK for up to six months requiring only an ETA, which costs just £16 and currently lasts for two years. That is a pretty good deal.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, another area in which musicians touring in the UK, and UK musicians touring in Europe, need help is selling merchandise. Merch was once a good earner for bands on tour, but now artists in the UK have to register as an exporter, secure an economic operator’s registration and register for VAT in every country. Europeans touring here must also do so, but for only one country—the UK. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to reach a mutually beneficial deal on this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The UK Government are currently consulting on reforms to the UK’s convention on international trade, which includes musical instruments, certificates, goods and services. The noble Baroness makes an extremely valid point. It is one of the consequences of Brexit, but we cannot relive that debate now. As part of the reset, we want to ensure that we have movement that is as frictionless as possible, which is in the interests of everybody, without the UK rejoining the EU.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, while I very much welcome this initiative from the Government, and it is overdue in many respects post Brexit, I have some concerns about reports that appear to be emanating from Europe that the Commission is looking more and more at conceding these things and various other important agreements between us only on the basis that we will contribute to the financial pot of the European Union for everything that we get. Surely that is not the right attitude and the right atmosphere for us to proceed with.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let us let the UK negotiate with the European Union on these issues. The important thing is that we have as frictionless movement as possible for these sectors, both for UK residents going to the EU and EU residents coming to the UK. For the very reason that the noble Baroness gave, we need to ensure that we have effective movement of goods. The temporary movement of goods such as equipment continues to generate significant effort and cost, and we are looking now at having a carnet with the EU for the temporary admission of goods, so that we can deal with the very issue that she mentioned. Let us have that negotiation, but the objective is quite clear: let us make it as easy as possible for us to do business with the European Union.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is vital, as we have heard, that costs for British artists touring in the EU are reduced urgently? I welcome his view on carnets—that is indeed a step forward—but what about cabotage? What about, as the noble Baroness said, the possible signing up to the CITES agreement? The merchandise issue, as my noble friend will know, can often make or break a tour, especially for small bands. If they cannot sell their merchandise because of rules of origin problems, it is not worth their while going to Europe.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said in answer to earlier questions, the Government are looking at making movement as efficient and effective as possible for all concerned. On the CITES reforms, the Government are currently consulting with the musical sector and we remain committed to making touring as straight- forward and affordable as possible. The points on merchandise that my noble friend and the noble Baroness made are extremely valid. The Government and the European Union need to look at how we make that as frictionless as possible. That does not dilute the Brexit agreement, it simply makes sure that British and European businesses can operate at a profitable level and that we can support the very acts that my noble friend is concerned to support.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem that caused this issue was not just Brexit but the bungled trade and co-operation agreement, which completely left out Britain’s second-largest economic sector—the creative industries? This does not affect just musicians, it affects dancers, theatre, fashion, and so on. Is it not now time for the Government to try to put right what was done badly at the time of Brexit?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There were a lot of things done badly at the time of Brexit. The issue is—with due respect to everyone in this House—that we are where we are. Therefore, being where we are, the first step is to engage positively on a productive reset with the European Union on issues of benefit to it and benefit to us, which retain the spirit of where we were in 2019 and where we were in 2016, but which ultimately ensure that businesses—particularly, in this case, artists—do not find themselves victims of what was a hashed settlement in the first place.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
Arriving here, I passed a plaque which read “Mozart lived here”, and, of course, he travelled to Britain and toured freely, as it was in those days. Everyone in the cultural sector knows that the arts know no boundaries of talent, inspiration or pleasure. It is important, in making rules and administration, that the position of the cultural industries as something that is international and free-flowing between nations and audiences is recognised by the Administration.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. Anybody who looks at the cultural sector will know that it is a significant earner for the UK economy. We are world leaders in every sector of musical accomplishment, as well as in drama, cinematography and television production. That is a major earner for the UK taxpayer, which brings revenues that we can spend on health, education, transport and other matters. It is vital that we make the work of that sector as simple as possible without regulation.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the arts have long been internationally mobile, and musicians are often needed at short notice to plug a gap in an orchestra or a West End production in order for that to go ahead; I saw this as Arts Minister as the sector bounced back from Covid. What work is the Minister’s department doing with orchestras, concert promoters, theatres and others to help explain the visa requirements that are needed, and to make sure that those decisions are made in a timely manner?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is vital that people get that because there can be need at short notice, and potentially the need to put on additional concerts or gigs due to greater demand that might overrun certain times and certain sectors. The point he has made is valid.
In the European context, which I think is where the noble Lord is mainly focused, this forms part of our examination on the reset. We currently have the best regime of any European country for allowing movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. However, if there are any difficulties, I would welcome discussion with him on what they are, how we can iron them out and how we can make sure that that big revenue earner for the UK continues to earn that level of revenue.
Police: Records
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to bring police force records in England and Wales under legislative control and to make police forces subject to the supervision of the Keeper of Public Records under the Public Records Act 1958, as recommended by the Hillsborough Panel in its report in September 2012.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is very important that the police properly retain records, balancing the public interest of archiving with keeping people’s data only for as long as necessary and proportionate. That is why, in 2023, the College of Policing introduced a code of practice and authorised professional practice, which updates and strengthens the existing statutory framework.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, as my Question indicates, this issue has been around for over 13 years. Bishop James Jones’s devastating report called ‘The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power’, published in 2017, said that this issue should be addressed as a matter of urgency. He noted a comment from the South Yorkshire chief constable Med Hughes, who was quoted as saying:
“I am under no obligation to disclose anything and the papers belong to me. If I wanted to I could take them into the yard and have a bonfire with them”.
The Minister has answered that, in some sense, with his comment, but perhaps he can reaffirm what he feels about that comment. Is it not the case that this could not happen in Scotland, where police archives are protected by the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Following the recommendations of Bishop James Jones that came out of the Hillsborough inquiry, there was a request for a code of practice on public sector record keeping to be introduced within the police. The code was introduced in 2023, following consultation and the support of the previous Government, and it will be in operation until 2028, when we expect to review it accordingly. My noble friend will know that the code of practice is essentially a police code, but the accountable Minister is the Home Secretary, who I suspect would take a very strong view on a chief constable seeking to undertake the course of action that my noble friend indicated could be taken by South Yorkshire Police. We should examine the code, make it work, monitor its progress and, ultimately, make sure that it is fit for purpose in 2028.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, since the College of Policing introduced its updated code of practice on records management, both South Yorkshire Police and Northumbria Police have admitted destroying records relating to Orgreave, despite long-standing calls for a public inquiry. Does the Minister accept that voluntary compliance has failed to secure proper accountability and that legislative oversight is now required?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend, the Home Secretary is the accountable Minister with political oversight for the code of practice, although it is obviously in part an operational matter for the police. The noble Baroness mentions the alleged destruction of papers by Northumbria Police. There is for the first time an inquiry into Orgreave, which is ongoing and which this Government established, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. He has terms of reference to look at all matters relating to Orgreave. I do not want to pre-empt any discussions or any judgments that he may make but, self-evidently, from my perspective, if papers are available then they should be available to the inquiry and should not be going missing or being destroyed.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
Is this not complicated by the fact that we have 43 separate police forces in this country? Do the Government feel that is the right number?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are 43 police forces; I bear the scars of being the Police and Counter- terrorism Minister in 2009-10 looking at potentially encouraging some forces to merge. I will not comment on the numbers—the important thing is efficiency. A policing White Paper will be published very shortly, in which we will look at how we can improve the efficiency of police forces. I look forward to the noble Viscount’s contribution when that paper is published in due course.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the phone hacking scandal that hit Britain, which was never properly investigated by the Met, leaves a lot of things unsaid and unheard. Should we not release all the files from the police so that we can see what went on in that case?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very interesting point. I bear the scars of that one as well, in the sense that I answered for the Home Office in 2009 when the phone hacking scandal first erupted. Lessons have been learned. There have been many litigious court cases and a range of policy changes have been made as a result, but, self-evidently, transparency is key. I will certainly examine my noble friend’s comments if we can add further to that transparency.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the police release data on arrests relating to the details of the offences but do not publish data specifying aggregated information about the offenders. Will the Minister commit to publishing further data about who has committed what offences?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on that rather than commit today. There are a number of important issues around data collection. My noble friend asked about the integrity of that data; the noble Lord is asking about widening that data. It would not be appropriate to make a judgment quickly at the Dispatch Box on that issue, but I will certainly reflect on it and contact him in due course.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
Would my noble friend consider meeting the Archives & Records Association to discuss some of these issues, in particular whether the records of police forces in England and Wales could be brought under Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I make a point in this House of never refusing a request from a Member to have a meeting, if at all possible, so I will look at how we can fit that meeting in in the near future. The key point is that the organisation he mentioned was party to the consultation on the code of practice and is party to the consultation which has determined already that the code of practice will be reviewed in 2028. I can happily meet them, but it has signed up to a course of action which involves the production of a code and its exercise and review in time for 2028. I will reflect on what my noble friend has said, and if I can fit that in, I will.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Goschen, will the Minister have a look at what is going on in Norfolk and Suffolk, for example, where the two constabularies are already co-operating on things like the issuing of firearms certificates and forensics? There is a lot of collaborative effort going on between the two forces. Surely that is the best way to go, which could then lead to a merger, rather than forcing mergers through.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. There is the idea of 43 police forces, going back to the noble Viscount’s initial point, but we should be trying to encourage co-operation on procurement, on personnel services and on a whole range of other issues where we can save resource and put it into front-line policing. Without trailing too much, the White Paper will examine how we improve that collaboration. When it is published, I hope the noble Lord will welcome it, contribute to it and, if need be, challenge it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, peacekeeping needs to be local as well as national. If one centralises too much the way the police is organised, we will lose touch with people in communities. I also recall that the four Yorkshire forces have a number of collaborative operations about organised crime, terrorism and, as I remember, helicopters and animals. These are obvious things to collaborate on, but one should retain a sufficient link with local communities in order to make sure that policing makes sense to the people it serves.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. The whole principle of policing is that it represents and is accountable to the local community. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it is still absolutely vital that we get best value out of the police resources that are put in. It is a valuable course of action to follow to find mechanisms to ensure that police forces can co-operate, where they want to, on getting a better deal for the taxpayer on some major procurement or on efficiencies generally. When the police White Paper is published relatively shortly, it will offer a number of pointers for where that co-operation can potentially be encouraged.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the rural task force was first set up by North Yorkshire Police and has been quite a success in preventing urban criminals coming into rural areas. Do the Government plan to roll out rural task forces in other parts of the country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
A lot of those decisions are for locally elected police and crime commissioners or, in some cases, mayors, who have responsibility via their deputy mayors for policing. We are concerned to ensure that we look at a number of areas to do with rural policing. The Government are focused on a number of aspects here including equipment theft, sheep worrying and shoplifting in smaller towns. We are trying to encourage police forces to buy in to some of our general pushes. All police forces have had additional police officers this year to meet some of their targets, particularly on shop theft and anti-social behaviour.
Airport Expansion
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they have received regarding the implications of net airport expansion for the United Kingdom’s net-zero target and economy.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee, CCC, is the independent adviser to the Government on climate change commitments, including aviation. The Government have committed to routinely engaging the CCC as part of the Airports National Policy Statement review on how expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework. We continue to work closely with the aviation sector on decarbonisation and growing the economy, including through the Jet Zero Taskforce.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the aviation industry will never be environmentally sustainable, and this Government really ought to understand that. At the moment, the 15% of people who take 70% of the flights are protected from paying fuel duty, whereas train travellers are not, and potentially EV drivers as well. Therefore, why not tax frequent flyers, make train fares cheaper and leave EV drivers alone?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
This Government are making huge efforts to make the aviation industry more sustainable. There is a Bill before the House on the sustainable aviation fuel policy. The Government are also pursuing airspace modernisation and providing up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, supporting the development of next-generation sustainable technologies. The distance-band structure of the air passenger duty already ensures that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty. Similarly, given that the air passenger duty is charged on all UK departing flights, those who fly most often pay more.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, rather than discouraging air travel, surely the aim of the Government should be to encourage sustainable aviation. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about what progress we are currently making on the sustainable aviation fuel targets?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is already in force, seeks to reduce aviation emissions by up to 2.7 of a unit that I cannot describe—it is called MtCO2e, if anyone here knows what it is; I am sure someone does—in 2030 and by up to 6.3 in 2040. A lot of work is going on, and the House will shortly debate the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which seeks to increase manufacturers’ sustainable aviation fuel. Together with the investment I already discussed for the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, this will all contribute to a future sustainable aviation industry.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
The Lib Dem Benches next.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what specific work are the Government undertaking to understand the emissions not only from aircraft but from the surface-access and freight traffic associated with airport expansion? How can the Government meet net-zero commitments while supporting airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Previous Questions in this House have dealt with the construction of the third runway in relation to carbon. The Government expect those two schemes, which are being taken forward, to demonstrate how carbon reduction applies not only to the construction of the runway itself but to the freight traffic and surface transport implications of the third runway. Those factors will be taken into account. There is no reason for the expansion of Gatwick—and, for that matter, of Stansted and Luton—to be incompatible with that of Heathrow. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and deserves to be of a size that can increase economic growth for the whole country.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I would like to help the Minister. The current Airports National Policy Statement states that it expects Heathrow to have
“landside airport-related traffic … no greater than today”—
namely, in 2018, when the document was published. Can he state—I think this would help the noble Baroness —whether the same requirement will appear in the new airports national policy statement, which will appear next year and be the basis for the Heathrow expansion?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord will of course recognise that things should have moved on from 2018 but have not. This Government are determined for the first time to move forward with the expansion of the UK’s only hub airport. The statements made in the Airports National Policy Statement in 2018 will be reviewed in the light of the two proposals the Government are currently pursuing, and we will choose one of them before the end of November. The necessary alterations to the draft new airports national policy statement will be available next summer.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister answer a question that is very puzzling to me? When we proposed airport expansion, it was about increasing business traffic into this country. Since Covid, that has simply not been the case; so much business is done online, and in fact, what we are benefiting is tourism. A recent report from the New Economics Foundation found that in 2023, we exported £41 billion abroad, and this is a deficit. What is the logic, given that we are all encouraged to do things online, of vastly expanding our airports right now?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Heathrow is as congested now as it was before Covid, and it will remain congested unless more capacity is given to it. The previous questions on this subject in a short debate we had a few days ago rightly suggested that not only human traffic but goods and services are important—although we did have a debate about whether books or salmon were the most valuable or frequent commodity to be transported. The point is this: the airport is full, it remains full and for the benefit of the British economy, we need to expand it in order to get more flights and build the economy in this country.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the environmental disbenefits of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, while understanding the potential economic benefits. As the Bishop of London, I have spent time with Reverend Richard Young of St Mary’s Church Harmondsworth, and with residents whose homes and communities lie within the proposed demolition zone of the third runway. They have faced uncertainty for decades, and under the potential proposals, they will continue to face uncertainty for years to come. What are the Government doing to allay their fears and the uncertainty faced by these communities, and to ensure that Heathrow Airport itself provides the appropriate support to them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question. The best thing the Government can do is move forward on this for the first time. The debate about the third runway has been going on for years and years, and the airport is as congested as it ever was, as I said. The residents she refers to, in Harmondsworth, Sipson and other villages, have no satisfaction about the future because the future has been uncertain for a long time. The best thing we can do is to get on with this and make a decision. Of course, we would expect whoever the promoter is to actively work to look after the communities affected by the third runway development.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on moving on with proposals that originally came in the 2003 White Paper, which, as Minister for Transport, I had some hand in. I also point out that our very successful aviation industry is beneficial not only to the economy as a whole but very much to local communities around our main airports, providing well-paid, unionised jobs. Will he get on with it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, what can I say to my noble friend, who not only asks this question but gives all the answers as well? I think that will do.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the Government are absolutely right to be pressing ahead with the expansion of Heathrow Airport; it is long overdue. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill will, I hope, answer some of the questions about the environmental impacts.
However, I am concerned about the debate between a short runway and a long runway. Whatever the outcome in the medium term, may I seek assurance from the Minister that we will at least still go ahead with the DCO for the full plan? If we do not, we are going to end up short-changing ourselves again. In the end, Heathrow needs to expand, and it needs to expand properly. Please ensure that that is what happens.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. That is a premature request, because he will know—and maybe the rest of the House does as well—that the two schemes being taken forward are different, and the length of the runway proposed is different. A decision such as the one he suggests ought to be taken as we go forward with one of the two schemes.
British Council
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continued operation of the British Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the British Council plays an important role in supporting the UK’s soft power and interests around the world through its work in the arts, culture, education and the promotion of the English language. We are providing over £160 million grant in aid to the British Council this year alone, which underlines our support for its important work.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, last week, Scott McDonald, the chief executive of the British Council, told MPs that the council was going to sell all its assets and close 40 country programmes unless the Government reschedule a £197 million loan costing £12 million to £15 million in interest. The council has already sold its English language business in India and its school in Madrid, and is withdrawing from the frontier Baltic states. Why, given the crucial role of the British Council as a key instrument of soft power which is technically close to insolvency, has there been no resolution of the loan and grant in aid at all? Why is there—to quote its chief executive—a “complete unwillingness” to help? With these cuts in aid, to the BBC World Service and to the British Council, are the Government just managing the decline of Britain’s soft power from its former position of pre-eminence?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are helping a lot. We provide about 16% or 17% of the British Council’s funding each year. There is an issue with an outstanding loan which was given as part of a Covid package by the previous Government. Terms for that loan were never agreed, and terms need to be agreed. We have organised an extension, in order for work to take place. As the noble Lord rightly says, the British Council is a vital part of the UK’s soft power internationally. It does a fantastic job, and we want to work with it to put it on a long-term, sustainable and stable footing.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Question we have just heard did not get a very reassuring Answer. Is this not precisely the sort of resource that we, as an advanced country, should be developing to underpin both our security and our trade? Is this not the sort of glue that binds together the Commonwealth countries, which are, of course, an expanding resource as well? Will the Minister tell her colleagues in the Foreign Office that most other countries recognise that Commonwealth power and soft power generally are part of our future? Will she encourage them to give a lot more attention to it than appears to be given in some commentators’ columns in certain newspapers, who frankly do not understand what is going on?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not going to make any comments about our newspapers today—I could, but I will not. We do a great deal of work with the British Council, which is an important part of soft power. We are, as I said, giving it £160 million each year and are working to help it restructure its loan. It needs to carry out modernisation work. It is getting on with that, which Scott McDonald is doing a very good job leading. However, our soft power in 2025 is not, if it ever was, just the British Council; it is the Premier League, our music, our cultural industries and the BBC—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is an interesting response to that today.
There are so many different levers for soft power that may not have been there in the past, but that does not mean that the British Council is not central to our soft power around the world. We are committed to strengthening it and making sure that it can continue to do outstanding work well into the 21st century.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. My noble friend the Minister will have the sentiment of the House on this matter and the overdue delay in resolving a Covid-era loan. Remembrance Day is the right day to remember that the British Council was founded 90 years ago, to fight fascism. It is the greatest soft power asset that this country has, and it is envied by friends and foe alike. The reality is that it is financially imperilled by a loan from the Covid era. Will my noble friend commit that the Foreign Secretary will now finally grip this issue and meet the leadership of the council to resolve the financial issues and allow it to continue to be the credit to this country that it has been in the past and should be in the future?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no lack of will to get this resolved. We need to see modernisation at the British Council; it is working hard at this and deserves credit for that. As the noble Baroness says, it is incredibly well-networked internationally, but I have to say that its network inside this House is equally impressive.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred a number of times in her answers to the important issue of UK soft power. In January, the then Foreign Secretary announced the UK Soft Power Council. We do not seem to have heard much about it since then, but the British Council is a member. Can the Minister confirm what the UK Soft Power Council’s role will be in promoting the UK abroad, how many times it has met since the announcement, and whether any of those roles are duplicating work that is already being undertaken by the British Council?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the British Council is part of the Soft Power Council, which is a joint initiative between the FCDO and DCMS. It brings together the arts, heritage, Kew Gardens and the Premier League—many of the different soft power assets that the UK has—and the aim is to co-ordinate them and use them to best effect. I believe it has met three times now. I attended the first meeting and it met again after that, in Cardiff. I pay absolute credit to the people who are taking part and giving their time to do that. It has working groups as well, which get together and organise alongside it. It has the potential to do great things for the United Kingdom.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, the House will have heard in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, how the assets of the British Council are being threatened with dispersal. Among those assets is the important collection of works of art. Bearing in mind that these are public property, would not the appropriate outcome, if that unhappy event takes place, be for them to be allocated, along the lines of articles which are accepted in lieu of tax, to all the museums the length and breadth of the whole country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think we need a bit of reality here. The idea that the Treasury is going to accept art in lieu of a loan is a little fanciful. It is up to the British Council to decide what it wants to do with its assets. Setting aside the loan, the British Council still has work to do to make itself financially secure and sustainable into the future. It is getting on with that and doing a really good job of it. I commend the British Council for what it is doing. What it decides to do with its own assets is a matter for the British Council.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Labour Benches next and then the Lib Dem Benches.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as the trade envoy to Bangladesh, I hosted here in Parliament, attended by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, the signing of a higher education partnership between the British Council and the University Grants Commission of Bangladesh, which will improve not only higher education links but trade links. Will my noble friend the Minister recognise the power of those kinds of partnerships, not only to improve trade but to provide the soft power that she has referred to, when considering the granting of money to the British Council?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
One of the reasons that we have worked hard to protect the British Council’s funding and are committed to the £160 million is because of the amazing work that it does supporting higher education and opportunities for young people—and some older people too. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I am travelling to Bangladesh tomorrow, due in no small part to her encouragement. I commend her for the amazing work that she has been doing to develop trade in Bangladesh.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I was very surprised to hear the Minister’s response on the art collection and the indication that it would be okay, therefore, if the British Council sold this off. Would it not make a lot more sense for us to keep that within public ownership in the way that the British Council has proposed, as a way of offsetting the loan? Surely the Treasury should be looking at it in that light. To have heard the Minister’s response does not inspire me with confidence. I want to add that, on soft power, I hope the Government will support the BBC, which we now see is under dire pressure. As the Minister said herself, the BBC is very important for soft power and international renown as far as the United Kingdom and the wider world are concerned.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree about the role of the BBC in soft power, particularly the World Service and BBC Verify, which do a tremendous job. I would go so far as to say that they are saving lives every day with the work that they do.
On the issue of art, it is right that the British Council makes these decisions. If it wishes to dispose of assets—it has assets other than an art collection, of course—that is its decision. I am not suggesting that it does this. The council came to me previously with that suggestion. If there is a way for the British Council to avoid doing this, which would be its preference, it is well within the council’s powers to make that choice. There is no pressure from anyone I can see to make the council make a particular decision. However, the British Council would agree that it must get itself on a stable footing. We must make an agreement with the Treasury on the loan, and we will do that. Terms should have been agreed when the loan was made. Other people will have to explain why that was not done, but it needs to be addressed. Even if the loan is taken out of the equation, there must be a stable financial footing for the British Council, with a modern vision for the future of its activities, because it is vital. We will work with it to make sure that that happens, but it needs to take responsibility for this too.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 September be approved.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stockwood
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 September be approved.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
Conflict in Sudan
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Sunday Times reported at the weekend that British military equipment sold to the United Arab Emirates was discovered in Sudan being used by the RSF, which of course was responsible for the horrific massacres that we saw all over social media and other places last week. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have investigated this, whether these reports have been verified and whether they have been discussed with the Government of the UAE?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
Of course, we are aware of those reports and we have investigated them thoroughly. I can confirm that no military equipment from the UK has found its way to Sudan and we will continue to monitor this incredibly closely.
The three items that were found were a seat belt, something for target practice and some engine components. We have been able to trace the export of these items; it happened around 10 years ago. We will continue to keep an eye on it. We want to make sure that the integrity of our arms controls is maintained, especially on the issue of diversion, and I can commit to the House that we will investigate incredibly thoroughly any further reports like this.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I note the very recent ICAI report on the Sudan policy of this Government and the previous Administration, and I declare that I was an implementer of the governance strand over recent years, which was positively recognised in that ICAI report.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the imperative is that we put urgent mechanisms in place to continue to guard against the atrocities against civilians that we are seeing. I hope the Minister will also agree that it is extremely important that we increase our efforts for a ceasefire, with the UK backing the Quad powers and the regional mechanisms for an immediate ceasefire.
Will the Minister also restate what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said on numerous occasions: that the future of Sudan is for the civilians of Sudan, led by civilian groups, so that any ceasefire and post-ceasefire agreement will not be a division of spoils for those very entities that have been carrying out the atrocities in recent weeks?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did on Sudan for many years: certainly, during his role as Minister for Africa, it was outstanding. The leadership that he showed on an issue that, at many points, must have been quite a lonely place to be, given the lack of interest that there was at various times, is highly commendable.
We engage regularly with all members of the Quad. I have spoken to the UAE and the US and my ministerial colleagues at the FCDO do likewise. We are absolutely committed to doing whatever we can, both as penholder at the UN and through our role at the Human Rights Council, and just as a concerned partner and ally, to make sure that we do everything that we are able to do to bring about a ceasefire and then a lasting peace.
Lord Swire (Con)
The Minister is saying we are doing everything, and indeed we are the penholder at the UN, but there are some concerning reports that we are not doing as much as we should be due to financial constraints, particularly with our responsibilities towards women as victims of rape and crime and so on. Is the noble Baroness concerned about that? Is she equally concerned, as the situation there continues to deteriorate, about the possibility of migratory pressure on the UK from that part of the world?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course I am concerned. I think the reasons why the Prime Minister insisted that we protect our aid to Sudan speak for themselves, and we will be making sure that Sudan receives as much, or perhaps even more, support than it has done previously.
I visited the Adre crossing and spoke to many of the women that the noble Lord refers to, and I heard first-hand accounts of their horrific experiences. We will continue to work to support those women who have made it to Chad, to South Sudan and to other neighbouring countries.
We will also continue, difficult though it is, to work with NGOs and mutual aid groups within Sudan to provide support as much as we possibly can. I should emphasise that this is not a question of a lack of aid. There are real difficulties with access for organisations, but we continue to do everything we possibly can.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say what representations the Government have made to the UAE about its continuing support for the RSF, including the provision of military equipment?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We speak to anybody we believe has an interest in this. We urge them all the same: they should not be providing arms or equipment—nobody should. Anyone with any influence over any of the armed groups in Sudan should be using that influence to urge dialogue, de-escalation and the securing of that lasting peace, so we can have a civilian-led Government in Sudan.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, the other element of the involvement of the UAE has to do with gold and rare earth minerals. What are the Government doing, to influence the ability of the RSF, particularly through the UAE, to get into those markets? So long as access to those markets continues, the conflict will continue and the arms flow will persist.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is right that we are reminded of the role that the natural assets of Sudan play in this conflict. The people responsible for this need to know that we are serious about accountability, which is why we have supported the fact-finding mission, why we support the ICC in what it is doing, and why we will not give up. We will make sure that those people who are responsible for these undoubted atrocities are held to account.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the recent announcement of £5 million in additional aid to survivors of sexual violence, and I am pleased that the Minister has met some of those survivors. Can she say what steps the UK has taken to ensure accountability for sexual and gender-based violence, which is being used as a weapon of war across Sudan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The use of sexual violence as a weapon of war is extraordinary and has almost become normalised in this conflict. We will work through our partner agencies, in particular the UN but others too, to make sure that evidence is gathered and testimonies are taken in the right way that means they can be used when proceedings are able to be brought—soon, I hope.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this year, UNICEF released a report entitled Sudan’s Child Rape and Sexual Violence Crisis, which gave some harrowing accounts of armed men raping and sexually assaulting children as young as one. I listened very closely to what my noble friend the Minister said. Specifically, what is British aid doing either to support those children who have already been victims or to ensure that no future child is affected in Sudan in this way?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right. Some of the accounts that we have heard are completely harrowing. I will never forget being told some of these stories, sitting in a tent in Adré and looking into the eyes of a mother who told me her account of what has happened. We need to make sure that accountability is achieved. We also need to make sure that we work with some of those armed groups, even now, to try to make the case—futile though that often seems, you have to start somewhere—for the need to adhere to international humanitarian law. That is not happening by any stretch of the imagination at the moment. We are clear about what we stand for and on the rules of conflict that we expect, but this is not going to stop until the leaders of these armed groups decide that they would prefer a political solution, which involves dialogue, coming to a conclusion and the election of a civilian Government. These things feel a very long way off at the moment, but until they are achieved we will continue to see the darkest shade of hell that I have ever had to bear witness to. I fear for what happens to those communities in Sudan, particularly those women and those very young children.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, those were very moving remarks by the Minister. In addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said a moment ago, there are many other examples that the most appalling war crimes are being committed—crimes against humanity. The Minister mentioned the gathering of evidence. What early discussions have taken place with the ICJ to make sure that these criminals—these barbarians, these war criminals—are arraigned and face justice in the future?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk to competent courts about this, but the thing we are doing at the moment is ensuring that that evidence is there. Unless we do that, accounts become less admissible and have less status within a process. It is essential that we do this, not just for those people who have already become victims but to send a very clear message on such atrocities. The world has not covered itself in glory on this. Too little attention has been paid to this conflict for far too long. I am glad that there is focus on it now. We must use that to put pressure on all those who have any influence in this conflict and to make sure that those responsible are brought to account quickly.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:49 - Division on Amendment 60 - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 195 - Amendment 60 disagreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 65 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 238 - Amendment 65 disagreed.
17:56 - Division on Amendment 68 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 240 - Amendment 68 disagreed.
18:07 - Division on Amendment 70 - Ayes: 66 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 70 disagreed.
18:18 - Division on Amendment 72 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 72 disagreed.
18:30 - Division on Amendment 73 - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 73 disagreed.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
“Amendment to Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023(1) Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The Secretary of State may declare an asylum or human rights claim made by a person who is a national of a State listed in section 80AA(1) inadmissible.”;”.(3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) in subsection (4) after “considered” insert “or if the failure to consider an asylum or human rights claim would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Human Rights Convention”.”. (4) In subsection (3), after subsection (4) of the inserted section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 insert—“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations amend the list in subsection (1) so as to remove a State if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statements in subsection (3)(a) or (b) are no longer true of a state or territory, or part of a state or territory, in relation to a description of person.(4B) In deciding whether the statements in subsection (3)(a) or (b) are no longer true of a state or territory, the Secretary of State must have regard to the circumstances and information listed in subsection (4)(a) and (b).(4C) A description for the purposes of subsection (4A) may refer to—(a) sex,(b) language,(c) race,(d) religion,(e) nationality,(f) membership of social or other group,(g) political opinion, or(h) any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the amendments made by section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to sections 80A and section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. It turns the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. It also creates a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 59 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I thank for their support. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, again for their support in Committee, during which I proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
I proposed that we bring to an end the proposition that states may be declared safe despite the objective evidence that they are not. I explained why there should be no blanket ban on considering human rights claims when such claims have nothing to do with a state’s safety and everything to do with family unity, ties of dependency and the best interests of children. I have no doubt that banning all family claims of European wives seeking to live with their British husbands and children—when American wives, for example, would face no such impediment—will make us no friends in Europe. However, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 does precisely that. It extends what was a minimal pre-existing duty to declare asylum claims from EU nationals inadmissible to also cover human rights claims from EU nationals and a much wider list of states that the former UK Government called safe.
Despite these anomalies, noble Lords will recollect that I did not push my amendment to repeal Section 59 to a vote. Instead, I promised to return to the issue. From my noble friend the Minister’s response, I understand the Government’s position to be that the retention of Section 59 is worthwhile, given the flexibility it offers in ensuring that unmeritorious claims do not unnecessarily absorb limited resources. However, in my noble friend the Minister’s response to the debate on this amendment he said, in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, that the Government are wary of inadmissibility duties that could result in,
“a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible”,
who then
“would be in a holding position, unable to be removed, including those with genuine claims”. —[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]
For the reasons my noble friend set out, Section 59 inevitably will gather in its net fish we do not intend to catch, including those with meritorious human rights claims whom we cannot lawfully remove. Therefore, although I appreciate that there must be a mechanism to manage claims fairly and efficiently, that mechanism, given the Minister’s own words, is clearly not Section 59 in its current form.
Amendment 59—I assure noble Lords that the numbering is an unintentional coincidence—is an attempt to helpfully suggest to the Government how they might turn Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 into something workable and operationally useful. It would alter rather than repeal Section 59. It would further the Government’s objective of keeping a mechanism on the statute book that might be used to increase efficiency while ensuring that it can be operated lawfully and in a manner that does not breach fundamental human rights should the Government ever wish to implement it.
To this end, the amendment would do three simple and minimal things. First, it would turn what would be an unworkable duty to declare claims inadmissible into a workable power so to do. Interestingly, by coincidence, such a change is in harmony with Clause 38, which scraps other unworkable duties in the Illegal Migration Act. In creating a workable power, our amendment would free the hands of the Secretary of State to give her true flexibility over when and in relation to whom the power is exercised. If the Minister disagrees with our amendment, I should be grateful if he would clarify when and why a statutory duty gives greater operational flexibility than a statutory power. If the Minister is able to give an example, that would be greatly helpful to noble Lords.
Secondly, our amendment would provide the simplest and most minimal of safeguards. By “inadmissibility”, the Government are saying, “We do not wish to even consider this claim”. All this amendment would do is say, “You need not consider it if to fail so to do would not result in the UK breaching its obligations under the human rights convention”, a convention to which our Government have committed to remaining a party. Undoubtedly, the courts will not presume that it is the Government’s intention to breach their international law obligations. Rather than leaving the murkiness of exceptional circumstances to save the Government from illegality, it would be much simpler if we—and by “we” I mean Parliament—were to write what we mean in the statute book, rather than hoping that what we mean will be read by the courts into the legal uncertainties of a non-exhaustive list of exceptional circumstances.
I appreciate that if Section 59 were ever fully commenced, the Government would have to issue guidance giving their interpretation of exceptional circumstances, but such guidance is not an aid to statutory interpretation. As this Government intend to comply with their human rights convention obligations, a proposed minimal safeguard should not pose any obstacle to them. However, it would provide guardrails should future Governments have different intentions—and that may be a possibility that is nearer than we would like to think.
If this Government do not intend to implement Section 59, they should amend it if they will not repeal it. If they intend to implement it, they must be prepared for litigation and to be tied up in the courts for the rest of this Parliament trying to explain whether it is compliant with human rights and what they mean by exceptional circumstances. Woolly exceptional circumstances should not be made to do all the hard work and be interpreted expansively to comply with human rights. That will only bring unnecessary criticism down upon our human rights framework and overcomplicate the matter for our courts. I suggest that a matter as important as this should not be left to guidance to be interpreted by the Government of the day. It is our job, it is Parliament’s job, to set the appropriate boundaries. If the Minister disagrees with me on this point, I should be grateful if he would clarify how the exceptional circumstances test would apply to EU nationals making private life claims or even seeking entry to live here with their families. Would they really be considered only exceptionally or would they be considered as a matter of course? How about Georgia? Would protection claims from Georgian nationals be considered only exceptionally? What further exceptional circumstances would the Government need simply to admit the two above claims?
Thirdly, and finally, the amendment would create a simple mechanism for a state to be removed from the safe state list. If the Secretary of State considers that it is no longer safe in general or safe for a recognisable section of the community, in this amendment we have listed the descriptions of persons who may be unsafe because of their sex, language, race, religion, nationality, membership of a social or other group, political opinion or any other appropriate attribute or circumstance. Only truly safe states should be on the list at all. This again would further operational efficiency as it would ensure that caseworkers need not make hard case-by-case decisions about whether to declare a claim inadmissible when the Government already consider that the state generally is unsafe or ordinarily unsafe for minorities. Fortuitously, the Government have already agreed to undertake a continuous review of the safety of the states on the list and to remove from the list states that are no longer safe. Therefore, this amendment is wholly in line with their commitment.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 59—to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee —which was moved so effectively and powerfully by my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. In Committee, I spoke about the importance of our amendment then, and the amendment before your Lordships today reflects changes which we believe will make it attractive to the Government, as well as being a balanced and effective approach; I hope the Government will agree with that opinion.
As has been said, once fully commenced, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act would make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum and human rights protection claims from EU and other nationals introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We believe this will likely result in violations of the United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations.
As my noble friend said, in Committee our Amendment 104 sought to repeal Section 59 of the IMA in full. It was widely supported and I was particularly pleased by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, following my recognition of the importance of the 2010 Supreme Court judgment in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. As noble Lords will know, he was one of the justices in that case. The concern in Committee and the concern now is about the efficacy and legality of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act as currently drafted. The Government have made it quite clear that they believe that Section 59 of the IMA must be retained, hence why we have tabled this new amendment which looks to make changes to Section 59 with the intention of ensuring that it can provide the flexibility that the Government may require, but in an effective and legal manner that has as few unintended consequences as possible.
To put it briefly, the amendment would turn the duty of the Secretary of State into a power. It clarifies the exceptional circumstances test and provides an effective mechanism for the management of the safe states list and the removal of states which are no longer safe. Importantly, it would enable the United Kingdom to uphold the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and would therefore be less likely to be challenged within the courts.
To be safe, a state must be a place
“where its citizens are free from any serious risk of systematic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents which the state is unable or unwilling to control”,
and free from a serious risk of persecution in general. That is from the 2015 Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Jamar Brown (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
As I said in Committee:
“There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 802.]
In relation to the HJ (Iran) Supreme Court judgment, the hard-won legal rights for LGBTQI+ refugees are meaningless if the safety of states does not account for their safety. Such refugees will have to hide fundamental parts of their identity if they cannot leap over the “exceptional circumstances” test currently in place, and are sent back home in contravention of that judgment. But, surely, even if their claims are declared inadmissible this Government will not send them home, forcing them to live in hiding in a state that the UK has called safe but is not in reality safe for them. I therefore look to the Minister to reassure me on that point.
If there is a real risk that a person would suffer inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to their home country, it would be a breach of their human rights to fail to rigorously scrutinise their claim. I believe that such claims must therefore be considered. This means that if the wider inadmissibility test is to be kept, it must be altered. Similarly, hard-won gay marriage rights will mean little if we must still show exceptional circumstances before a national of a safe country may be permitted to live here with their British or settled partner.
These are some of the reasons that we have added to the exceptional circumstances test the requirement for the Government to consider these claims if a failure to consider them would breach the human rights convention—arguably, a minimal safeguard to ask for. I hope the Government will have the courage to do the right thing: accept their human rights obligations and adopt this amendment or, at the very least, further reflect upon it and our submissions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I supported this amendment in Committee. It has been quite improved and I therefore agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Cashman. I do not want to go over what they have said because they put the case clearly.
It must be welcome that this amendment would turn
“the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not”
in the end
“be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”.
That to me is the nub of it and, therefore, the Secretary of State, instead of simply having a duty, would actually have a power to do something about it. There is an ability, under the Human Rights Act sometimes, for people to know that this has been breached—but who should then put it right? It seems that this Bill gives the opportunity to turn a duty into a power.
The amendment would also do another thing. It would create
“a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe”.
To have a list over which you cannot have the power or duty to do that can really prolong a misnomer. When people may have come from some places that were safe yesterday, but tomorrow are no longer safe, it seems to me that the Secretary of State needs to be given the duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is so changeable.
When South Sudan became independent everybody was full of rejoicing. I was involved with a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda, because I was hearing cases as a judge up in the north. After the sheer carnage that went on in South Sudan, where people’s lives were ruined and destroyed for so many years, peace came and everybody rejoiced. Who would have believed that it would not be long before warring factions were tearing that country apart? The carnage in Darfur was quite unbelievable.
Then what happened? Sudan was being ruled by a real dictator, but then that Government were overthrown, and overnight law and order began to collapse. It was not very long before two warring factions were tearing that country apart. Yes, we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations, but, my friends, we almost do not have the wherewithal to deal with such brutality.
Therefore, a country that was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess. We created a list of safe countries under that Act, so the Secretary of State should have the duty to remove such a country when it is judged to no longer be a safe country. This amendment is in keeping with that. I am very grateful to the Government for saying how much they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law. There is nothing here that is not supported by the rule of law, so I support this amendment.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.
In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right
“to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]
That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.
In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his amendment and for his submission today, which I listened to carefully, on the case for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, the general issues of which we explored in Committee. That said, I regret that we cannot support his amendment—I do not think that will come as a massive surprise to him—because it would, in our view, weaken the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous Government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims. Consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord’s attempt to downgrade the duty under Section 80A to a power that “may”, rather than “must”, be exercised by the Secretary of State.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Cashman for the amendment today, and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his support. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet my noble friend outside the House to hear his concerns at first hand. I again wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, all the best for a speedy recovery and return to this place.
Amendment 59 seeks to change the way in which Section 59—that is confusing, I know—of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 would, if fully commenced, amend the inadmissibility provisions of Sections 80A and 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am grateful to my noble friends for the consideration they have given to this matter and I acknowledge the importance of the issues raised.
As my noble friend has said, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act has not been fully commenced. The Government have been clear that we are retaining it to allow for flexibility—that goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made—in its future implementation in a way that best assists us to address the significant challenges brought by asylum and migration.
Section 59 itself will, if commenced, amend Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the effect that the existing inadmissibility provisions in respect of asylum claims made by EU nationals will extend to human rights claims made by nationals from a wider list of countries set out in Section 80AA(1) of that Act. The first part of the amendment in my noble friend’s name seeks to change the duty at Section 80A to a power, and to add an explicit provision allowing the power to be exercised only where it would not result in a person’s human rights being breached. I understand why my noble friends Lord Cashman and Lord Browne of Ladyton put forward this amendment, but, as I hope to explain, it is not necessary and could prevent us implementing Section 59 in a different, more robust way.
Those bringing this amendment are aware of the provision currently set out in Section 80A of the 2002 Act which displaces the duty to declare an EU asylum claim inadmissible in the event that exceptional circumstances are identified. Although Section 80A(5) sets out some examples of when an exceptional circumstance will arise—currently in respect only to certain EU claims—these examples are not exhaustive or indeed rigid. Exceptional circumstances can already be applied more broadly, on a case-by-case basis, to ensure fairness and lawfulness in all EU asylum claims, and well-established case law already sets this out very clearly.
If Section 59 is commenced in its current form, updated policy guidance will be published to set out clearly how the exceptional circumstances safeguard should be applied for all claim types, taking account of the different considerations due in asylum and human rights claims. This will allow us to robustly and promptly process unmeritorious asylum and human rights claims at the earliest juncture, but—and this is the important point that goes to my noble friend Lord Cashman’s point—whenever necessary, it will allow us to divert claims from inadmissibility action and instead consider them substantively, ensuring that individuals’ rights under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights are maintained. It is not our objective to not have those rights upheld.
This amendment seeks to impose a duty for the Secretary of State to remove a country from the list at Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act if that country no longer satisfies the rules in that section. I say to my noble friend that the intent of this amendment is clear and commendable. It is well understood—this goes to the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu—that countries’ conditions may change, and that may mean that a country previously assessed as safe can no longer be regarded as such. It is for that reason—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, was seeking further clarification on the power in Section 80AA(6)(b), under which regulations to remove countries from the list can be made—that if Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced in its current form, and the list at Section 80AA(1) has effect, it is unquestionable that a country assessed to be unsafe would be removed from the list by the Secretary of State under regulation. In the short term, however, ahead of regulations being made in such cases, the exceptional circumstances safeguard would apply, displacing that inadmissibility duty and allowing the claim to be considered substantially.
Noble Lords have asked why we are keeping inadmissibility under Section 80A of the Nationality and Immigration Act as a duty, rather than a power. While the exceptional circumstance provision does admit a measure of discretion, allowing for individual risks or changes in circumstance to be taken into account, the overall duty provides for greater consistency and focus in processing such claims.
I hope that, following the meeting I have had with my noble friend on the issues that he has raised and the debate that we have had today, I have reassured him that although his points are valid, they are covered by the discretion in the legislation currently in place. I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cashman for his contribution to the debate and his continued support on these matters. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for repeating the points he made when we debated this in Committee very powerfully. I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would be grateful if he would wish her well in these circumstances and thank her for her unstinting support.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his personal comments. I am disappointed, as he expected I would be, but not surprised at his contribution to the debate. I recollect that, in Committee, although there were numerous contributions from the Conservative Benches behind him, not one speaker supported the provision in Section 59 of the IMA. Today, there are no speakers at all from his party on the Benches behind him even to support it by their presence, if not by their contribution to the debate.
Behind these amendments is not my legal brain—which has been relaxed for many years—but advice that I got from an expert in the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. I thank them very much for their support.
I am disappointed by my noble friend’s response. I have no intention of dividing the House on this issue, but I reserve the right to keep it open for the next stage of deliberation. I ask my noble friend, who is generous with his time and support, whether he will reflect on—I think that is the phrase used—the implications of the provisions that I have put before the House and why they are a better resolution to the challenges of Section 59 than the view of those who support him.
I should have thanked my noble friend for his willingness to meet me and others to discuss this. We did our level best to find the time on a very busy day last Wednesday to have that meeting. It probably lasted for about three or four minutes, while I was out of the room—if I remember correctly, I was voting, but then I was voting almost every minute of every day last week. Would it be possible between now and the next stage of deliberation on this Bill to have a meeting at a time when those who have been advising me and those advising him can sit in the same room for a reasonable period of time to go through the implications of the differing approaches?
As I say, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter and therefore withdraw this amendment.
“Good character requirement for citizenship(1) Part 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41A, insert—“41B Good character requirement(1) A good character requirement must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—(a) the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,(b) the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women,(c) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,(d) the Convention on the Rights of the Child,(e) the Statelessness Conventions,(f) the Human Rights Convention,(g) the Palermo Protocol, and(h) the Refugee Convention.(2) When considering whether a person (P) meets a good character requirement, the Secretary of State may not take into account P’s illegal entry to or arrival in the United Kingdom—(a) if P was under the age of 18 at the time of such entry or arrival, and(b) except to the extent specified in guidance published by the Secretary of State and in force at the time of such entry or arrival.(3) In this section—“a good character requirement” refers to the requirement or consideration that an adult or young person, applicant, or person who applies for naturalisation or registration is of good character in section 41A (registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (acquisition by registration: special circumstances), section 17I (acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1;the“Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings” refers to the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings agreed by the Council of Europe in Warsaw on 16 May 2005; the“Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women” refers to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women adopted in New York on 18 December 1979;the“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” refers to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted in New York on 21 December 1965;the“Convention on the Rights of the Child” means the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in New York on 20 November 1989;the“Statelessness Conventions” means the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons adopted in New York on 28 September 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness adopted in New York on 30 August 1961;the“Human Rights Convention” means the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4 November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom;the“Palermo Protocol” means the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted in New York on 15 November 2000;the“Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations across a number of instruments. It also ensures that an assessment of good character may not take into account a person’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK if they were a child, and it may only be taken into account to the extent specified in guidance published and in force at the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I declare my interests as per the register. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for their support as signatories and for their guidance, especially as this is the first amendment that I have sponsored to a piece of legislation. My thanks go also to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for rightly explaining in my absence in Committee that I have tabled this amendment because I am passionate about the issues it raises: namely, how best to include, not preclude, those with a legal right to be here—those friends, neighbours and colleagues whom we live, work and worship alongside.
The Government’s change to the good character guidance, enacted through secondary legislation with retrospective implementation, in effect makes the “how” of a person’s travel to the UK a determining factor in their character assessment, not the “why” of the reason behind their travel in pursuit of sanctuary. This is a fundamental cultural shift and introduces a factor that bears no correlation to someone’s moral character, their worth and value or the contribution they might make to British society.
I will try not to repeat the issues raised in Committee, but the Minister raised a number of points that deserve our attention. I thank him for meeting me and engaging sincerely. In his response in Committee, he defended the good character test. There are certainly broader concerns about its application that I will not pursue now, but the point of this amendment is not the good character test per se but the addition to it of the manner of entry to this country. I do not believe that the Government have clarified why entry by irregular means is evidence of bad character, particularly when we consider the challenges faced by people fleeing conflict and persecution, which he earlier acknowledged with some compassion that he could never imagine.
It is important also to remember that many asylum seekers have few, if any, options to apply for asylum before making a journey. Even though a territorial system of asylum will always be required, if the Government provided preauthorised travel routes then asylum seekers could look to travel regularly and not fall foul of the recent altered guidance. Does the Minister agree that currently this is not possible?
I bring to the attention of noble Lords that, since Committee, the amendment is now drafted to be more specific as to what the UK’s obligations under international law are: to protect from discrimination refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking, women and children. The Minister said in his response in Committee that citizenship should not be afforded to those who have broken the rules and entered illegally, but I respectfully argue that the refugee convention makes it clear that it is not illegal to travel to claim asylum; hence, the state rightfully considers the merits of each claim. Why, then, should a legal act, forced upon many in the most desperate of circumstances, be used as a future test of their character and prevent them from ever truly becoming a full member of British society? It is not just too high a bar but an unattainable and, I suggest, an immoral one.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to express my strong support for everything that the right reverend Prelate said. I will not repeat the principled case I made in Committee, but I thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter he sent me after the debate. In it, he stated that
“it is important to ensure clarity both for applicants and decision makers”.
One way of achieving greater clarity would be to accept the right reverend Prelate’s request that the guidance spell out explicitly that a person must not be refused citizenship because of irregular entry if that were to contravene our international obligations, particularly under the refugee convention, and that anyone who entered as a child should not be barred from citizenship on the grounds of the manner of their entry.
Leaving it to full discretion does not ensure clarity, despite the helpful reassurances provided by my noble friend and other Ministers, with the result that some of those who entered as children might be denied citizenship, even though it is accepted that the immigration breach was outside their control. Indeed, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, has already received reports of refusal on character grounds, based on how the person entered the UK as a child. The PRCBC also contests what my noble friend said in Committee about the guidance providing flexibility; in its experience, the guidance is routinely applied in a rigid fashion.
Therefore, I urge my noble friend not to plead flexibility as a justification for rejecting the very modest request of the right reverend Prelate to spell out in the guidance our obligations under international law, including our commitment to upholding the best interests of children. As the Court of Appeal has advised on sentencing policy, children are not mini-adults. No child who entered the country by irregular means should have that held against them when, subsequently, they would otherwise become eligible for citizenship.
I wish we could strike out completely this unjust and, as the right reverend Prelate called it, immoral rule, which will, as we have heard, impede refugee integration. The amendment would, at the very least, erect some guardrails around the rule’s implementation and thereby mitigate its impact. Failing that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the assurances sought by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Her arguments need to be listened to.
Archbishop Robert Runcie defined a saint as a person whose character has never been fully studied or explored. We all have a dark side to ourselves. If we talk about good character, it may appear in a person’s life only when they have moved away from all the bad stuff that was hanging around them. We carry within ourselves both a sainthood and some not so good characteristics—that is why Archbishop Robert Runcie’s definition of a saint was right.
When I arrived in this country in 1974 and went to Cambridge to study theology and my doctorate, I was so unwell in the first seven months that I was going in and out to see doctors. Eventually, they said that I must have lost a lot of blood through internal bleeding, from the blows received from Amin’s soldiers. I was very angry—extremely angry—that I should be subjected to such terrible things. Of course, that was all bottled up, but I was very angry. Had someone said to me at the time, “We want to know how good your character is, so that we may see whether you can become a citizen”, I would still have been extremely angry in those interviews.
It was not until one night, when I remembered my mother saying, “John, never point a finger at anybody, because when you do, three others are pointing back at you”. Friends, noble Lords, noble Baronesses, this whole question of good character can be very subjective and misleading when the person first arrives, particularly when they come as children. We all have the grace and ability to grow out of some of the not-so-good bits of us, but we still remain a very rough diamond. We are never fully polished until we go through the gate of death.
I find it strange that this country—that I have grown to love, that always shows give and take, that always has this magnanimity of meeting people halfway—would, I am beginning to understand, now use good character as a ground for someone being accepted as a citizen. How do you know that at the time you receive them? They could go on and do some outrageous stuff, because within all of us there is the good and bad. Legislation based on good character as a way of allowing someone to be a citizen has probably not understood that we are on a scale of learning, of growing, of finding ourselves in the future. Even when we die, there will still be lots of stuff that we have not dealt with.
May I plead that when the guidance comes, particularly on dealing with people who arrived here as children, there is more grace than the harshness which I sometimes hear has come into this most green and pleasant land. People become more harsh, more judgmental, more unloving, more uncaring. The legislature should be the guardian against such attitudes and behaviour. I support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, we listened to the right reverend Prelate talking about coming to this country, as indeed did the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. Just think for a moment: the right reverend Prelate and her parents arrived in this country as refugees from a place they could not go back to, and where, I seem to remember, the right reverend Prelate’s brother had been murdered. If they had come to this country illegally, would we really have sent them back, as being of bad character? If one thinks about it, it is quite extraordinary.
As Members of this House will know, like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, I was a judge. I spent a lot of my time hearing evidence, often from people of bad character. Bad character is, of course, a wide definition. Technically, I suppose, you are of bad character if you speed: to that I admit—on more than one occasion. Are you of bad character if you are fleeing a place you had to leave because you might otherwise be dead, and are coming to this country by the only means you could? Let us bear in mind that the places people can go to in order to come legally to this country are almost non-existent. Consequently, nearly every refugee to this country comes illegally. Are we to say that doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, all people fleeing for good reason, are to be treated as being of bad character? I say to all Members of this House: we really need to reflect every now and again on what comes before this place and what we ought to do.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I am not able to support the right reverend Prelate on the first occasion she has tabled an amendment, and hope that I will be able to do so on future occasions. I will make a few points to balance the argument.
The right reverend Prelate and one or two noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendment put the case on behalf of the individual seeking citizenship. The amendment refers to citizenship, not to sending people back—that is important to bear in mind. The amendment is also about the decision the Home Secretary and her officials have to make in protecting the rest of the country. They have to make a judgment on whether someone should be granted citizenship. The right reverend Prelate referred to the way in which decisions are made regarding children and the assurance the Minister gave before. Given that over 256,000 people have been granted citizenship this year, it seems that the department is not being overly harsh in its decision-making when it grants citizenship on that scale.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I feel that I must, particularly about those who arrive here as children. Some in this House will know that I was a teacher in my professional life. I dare say that, on some days, some of those I taught showed bad character, but they were all completely redeemable. It is not a matter of how many people we have granted citizenship to until now; we would be bringing into the lives of these young people undue insecurity about their future. As others have said, this is a moral question, and it is so important that those of us in this House who are making these decisions look at things in the round. If we feel that something is a moral matter, we should stand by it.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that my name is attached to this amendment, and I feel very strongly that the House should accept it.
I will not spend time talking about the issues that were raised in Committee: that it is a barrier to people becoming British citizenships, it is very costly, and people may not be able to use their valuable money in order to clarify whether they are part of an exception. We are also an outlier: I listed all the 33 countries—all the big ones in Europe—and nobody else does this. Then there is the whole issue about cohesion and integration, which has been so adequately put on the agenda by the right reverend Prelate.
I draw attention in particular to what will happen if the Government’s policy continues. It may be all right for people to get indefinite right to remain in this country as part of that journey, and it may be that that is where the Government want them to stop—to be people in this country who have only indefinite right to remain. But there are other parties—one of them sitting on my right-hand side here and one of them with a very small representation in the other place—which have a Bill before this Parliament, from the shadow Home Secretary, saying that people’s indefinite right to remain will be removed. So, at a glance, all these people who have entered this country as refugees, who currently have the right to remain in this country and will be given it, will suddenly have that stripped away, according to the Bill before the House of Commons.
The danger then, of course, is this. If the journey to getting citizenship in this country is 10 years—which is what the Government are proposing; it could be somewhat longer than that—and you come as a single person, marry somebody from this country, have children and send them to school, at the end of it all another Government might well say, “Thank you very much. You’re an outlier—you’ll have to go back”, and we would expel them from this country.
Just imagine what the consequence of that policy would be if carried through. This measure started in February this year. We are not talking about people who have come to this country in this immediate time, because it takes time to build up your relationship in this country, to contribute to it in the ways that we have heard from two Members of this House so powerfully today and to build up that good character. To do that, you then have to seek citizenship so that you can become a full member of our society. That journey is one which you will be judged on, but the Government propose to make that judgment right at the beginning, from February. So, people who come may be granted the right to be here because they are refugees and may be granted the right to remain, and they may even be granted the indefinite right to remain, but there are hostile partners in this Parliament, outside government at the moment, who would then say, “No, you cannot become a citizen, and if you’ve got indefinite leave to remain you will lose that right”, after many years.
I ask Members of this House, when they consider this matter, to think of it in the longer term as well as the shorter term. There will be amazing consequences from this right down the track. We are not expecting people who have come here since February to suddenly get citizenship. They have to prove the right to be in this country and that they are part of our society. They have to contribute to our society. It does not take much for us to look around this country and see people who have done just that. We are in danger of splitting up families, splitting up husbands and wives from each other, and leaving children in a state of limbo with a more hostile Government in place in this country. I ask your Lordships to think very carefully about the consequences of not supporting this important amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for her speech. We recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is controlled by the guidance issued by the Home Office. The test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship but must also be applied with common sense and humanity.
However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, I am afraid we cannot support it. It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions. Decisions on who can become a British citizen should be for the UK Government applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.
Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international co-operation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interest. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment in its form.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for Amendment 60 and in particular for her courage in bringing her personal experience to the Chamber today. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for speaking in support of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord German, indicated that there may be different political parties that may at some point in the future have the power to make changes that he and maybe even I would not find palatable. In the event of either of those political parties that he is concerned about winning an election, they could probably do what they wanted in both Houses of Parliament anyway, taking forward those policies that they probably would have won a mandate on. I may not agree with that point, but his argument not to make a change against the right reverend Prelate’s proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment’s acceptance, does not seem to be a sensible way forward. If a Government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would be the Government. Like me standing at this Dispatch Box, they probably would have the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through and the numbers in this Chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion. So I do not accept that contention.
Having said that, my concerns are different. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one that goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made, it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy. This amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry into the UK if the person was a child when they entered the UK.
Apart from this potentially encouraging people to make false claims about their age to benefit from the provision, the amendment also seeks to ensure that the consideration of good character is compliant with the UK’s international obligations. The right reverend Prelate may not have received it yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which she can have a look at later. In it I say that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. Where a person has come directly from a country where they fear persecution, their protection under Article 31 of the refugee convention means that they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered.
I hope that this will partly reassure the right reverend Prelate, but I will say again that the decision-makers are required to take into account the UK’s international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, when assessing whether a person meets the good character policy. Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision-maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. It may not find favour across the whole House, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it is accepted that this is outside the applicant’s control. That case is for the applicant to make when they make that decision.
For example, a victim of modern slavery, or a person who is trafficked, or, indeed, going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child, would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision-maker. I will just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy does not apply to children under the age of 10 on the date of application.
The amendment would seek also a more generous approach for migrants—
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the question of children, the Minister has just said the policy does not apply to children under 10. What is the logic for applying it to children over 10? I do not understand the distinction, and it would be helpful to.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a valid question. I can say to the right reverend Prelate that it will normally—I say “normally”—be appropriate to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted this was outside the applicant’s control. Given that illegal entry is normally considered outside a child’s control, most children would not be held accountable for their immigration breach. Certainly, as I have said before, no child under the age of 10 at the date of their application would be dealt with in that way. I hope that gives her some reassurance.
I consider that individuals seeking to become British citizens should demonstrate an equal regard to immigration legislation as we expect them to show to other aspects of the law, including the criminal justice system. We do not consider there should be an expectation that a person will benefit in the future from the policy in place when they arrived. This is consistent with the position taken in previous changes to the good character policy, such as the change in 2023 to align the criminality thresholds with the Immigration Rules.
I say again that I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing her personal experience to the Chamber on Report today, but the Home Secretary makes the policy—they are accountable to the House—decision-makers have discretion, particularly for children aged 10 to 18, and no child under the age of 10 would be impacted.
I hope that gives her the reassurance that the good character test, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, is valid and accountable to the House, but that changing it today would lead to confusion and, potentially, particularly at the borderline areas of the older child, a contention that would cause difficulties for our purpose in life, which is, in the Bill, to try to stop small boats and illegal migrant crossings, and to not provide an incentive for them. I would hope that, on that basis, she could, with all humility, withdraw her amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for engaging in the debate. Forgive me, I am not going to name individuals, but all the contributions—both those for the amendment and those against it—have been very heartfelt and some of them deeply moving, enabling us to reflect even more widely than the issues specifically pertinent to the amendment.
I have listened with care to the Minister and I want to thank him for his thorough response. However, regrettably, I have not received the assurances that I was hoping for, that the character guidance will adequately prevent a scenario where an immigration caseworker is not having to choose whether to break international law or not, or that, without further changes to the guidance, a child’s right to naturalisation will be safeguarded.
It is not right, I believe, that discretion remains to hold a child responsible for their travel to the UK when they had no control over it, even if that is only a small possibility. As I think I have already clearly expressed, dividing access to citizenship in this way for those who have a legal right to remain in the country will have grievous societal and, I believe, cultural consequences, however unintended. Therefore, I would like, with respect, to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Age assessments: use of scientific methodsThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 specifying scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify scientific methods for assessing a person’s age and to disapply the requirement for consent for scientific methods to be used.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group speaks to an incredibly important issue in the current asylum system. As it stands, there is no standardised method for verifying the age or identity of those who enter the country illegally. These amendments seek to correct that and give the relevant authorities the power to mandate an age test where they consider it necessary. It cannot be right that a person is automatically assumed to be a child if their age is doubted or they lack documentary evidence. We currently exist within a system that grants people claiming asylum innumerable privileges once their applications are processed. People are given a roof over their head, food, electronic devices and many other amenities. Social activities are often offered. Those who need it have access to healthcare. Children are put into schools. Surely the least we should aim for is ensuring that these privileges are not overprescribed to people who should not qualify for them.
The current process does not, unfortunately, provide for this. If the authorities doubt whether someone is of the age they claim to be, there is no lawful way demonstrably to prove the truth. They must give the benefit of the doubt to the age-disputed person, while the same person can avoid taking a definitive scientific age assessment by denying consent. What is worse, incentives exist for people to lie and game the system. It is well documented that asylum NGOs advise that applying as a child offers a better chance of being accepted. A GB News investigation demonstrated a spike in asylum applications, across all nationalities, of people claiming to be 16 or 17. This is what happens when we offer asylum to children and do not include the necessary safeguards.
The result of this system is that many adults are incentivised to masquerade as children, giving themselves a higher chance of being accepted. The state, in contrast, has no way to challenge these people. The prerequisite of consent essentially gives the age-disputed person control over whether they are found to be lying. The consequences have been dire. Take Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, a proclaimed 14-year-old Afghan who, unbeknown to the state, had shot and killed two men in Serbia on his way to claim asylum in Britain. He was placed in a secondary school and was moved to another school after being found with a knife, there injuring a pupil. Then, two years after arriving in the country, he fatally murdered aspiring marine Tom Roberts in a knife attack. Abdulrahimzai was actually 19 when he entered the country. I understand that this is an extreme case, but it highlights the importance we must give to verifying the identity of those who illegally enter the country. If someone is willing to lie at the very first hurdle, who is to say we can trust them in society afterwards?
Verifying the person’s age is the first step to solving this. It prevents adults being placed in schools among children and highlights potentially illegitimate claims from those attempting to game our generosity. Amendments 63 and 64 achieve this balance. Those claiming asylum would still be given the opportunity to state their age and would not automatically be required to take an age assessment. However, the discretion would ultimately lie with the relevant authorities. If the age of a person is doubted, powers would exist to scientifically test their age without being obstructed by consent claims. This is the bare minimum we should expect from a system that is being perpetually defrauded. Removing the requirement for consent takes the process out of the hands of the asylum seeker, encourages honesty and trust, and disincentivises fraud. That is what an asylum system should aim for.
I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Davies. I will also acquaint your Lordships with the information the Government set out in July when the Minister for Border Security and Asylum said what the Government were doing on some of the technology. We discussed in a previous group the potential for artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology to make a big change in this area, and I argued that we should leave open that opportunity. The Minister in a Statement earlier this year confirmed that testing was under way, and said that,
“subject to the results of further testing and assurance … Facial Age Estimation could be fully integrated into the current age assessment system over the course of 2026”.
I do not think the Government’s current position on setting out regulations is that far away from my noble friend’s.
There is a potentially big advantage of this technology, in that previously available scientific tests were not particularly accurate and were medical or invasive in nature, involving MRI scans or X-rays, for example. There are some legitimate reasons why you would not want somebody to be forced to undergo that sort of procedure, and their refusal to undertake such might not be held to be unreasonable. With artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology, there seems to be a very weak case, if any, for refusing to undergo such a test. Subject to the testing being in order, I hope that, if the Government bring it in, they will not give people the opportunity to refuse to undergo it; I see no legitimate case for that. If testing gives Ministers accurate information about somebody’s age, I hope that they will make it mandatory and that if someone refuses to take the test, the presumption of their being a child can be overturned and they will suffer a consequence for not using that technology. So I hope the Minister can update us on how that testing is going and on whether the timeframe the Borders Minister set out earlier this year, hoping that this technology could be rolled out next year, is still on track.
I very strongly support my noble friend’s two amendments.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I feel as if we have been around this one a fair number of times. I am very much looking forward to the Minister saying what he can about AI facial recognition technology, but I want to remind everybody that the Home Office’s own Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee has made it very clear that no method, biological or social worker-led, can determine age with precision. We really need to be very clear about that. Biological evidence can test only whether a claimed age is possible; it cannot set a hard line under or over 18. It is important that we recognise that. AI technology may be able to bring us something, and I know the Minister has said that he is going to tell us more about it. Meanwhile, I think we should resist these amendments very hard.
The reason for that is that the sort of scientific methods, such as X-ray and MRI, that were proposed before—and were on some occasions in use—are unethical. Doctors, nurses and all health professionals will say that using X-ray, in particular, or any kind of radiation for a purpose that is not for the benefit of the individual concerned is unethical. I think many noble Lords know that I have spent much of my working life in and around health services, so I have met a lot of doctors in my time. I have not yet met a single doctor who believes that using either radiation, as X-rays, or MRI for the purpose of age determination is an ethical thing to do.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether that is quite reasonable, given this amendment. I do not think anybody would suggest that I am an extremist on this, but it seems a sensible amendment to me because it is carefully written. I hope that the Minister will take it very seriously. The reason is this: if we are going to get through this difficult period, we have to face those things which the public in general find most difficult. We have discussed before the fact that the public find it very difficult to accept that we do not deport people who have committed crimes in this country. The second thing they find very difficult to accept is when people appear to get away with pretending to be children when they are not. All this amendment does is to ask the Government to take this seriously and to produce, within a reasonable period, the advice that they are going to give. I find it awfully difficult to understand why one could possibly vote against that.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, but the amendment does not refer to the insistence that we should use some invasive system. What it asks is that the Government produce a clear statement as to what may properly be used; I find that perfectly acceptable. If we were talking about the details, that would be a different issue—I am not sure I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, but that is not the issue. I hope that right across the House, whatever view one holds generally, Members will recognise that we have a responsibility to try to meet those points where the public are particularly concerned. If we do not then those on the far right, who have no understanding of what it must be like to be an asylum seeker and who have no care for those people, will have another opportunity to lead other people astray. I very much hope the Minister will take this amendment very seriously.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I very much deprecate people who come to this country and commit crimes. The sooner they are deported, the better. However, I do not really understand why we need these amendments. I am hoping that the Minister is going to tell us, as he previously said he would, how the Government are going to move forward in identifying the age of people. Again, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that those who are not children—and pretend to be—should be found out.
However, as I said at an earlier stage of discussion on the Bill, when I went to a drop-in centre with Safe Passage some years ago, I met two 16 year-old Afghans: one with a beard and the other with a bushy moustache. We need to recognise that boys in other parts of the world mature, particularly facially, at a much earlier age than they do in this country and in western Europe. That is an issue which raises real problems for identification.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that, over the last four to five years, we have been round the Houses on this issue, not just in this Bill but in a large number of Bills. It keeps returning because there are concerns.
I want to start by trying to find some common ground on this issue, as we did last week, with the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular. Age verification—determining whether someone is 18 or not—is extremely difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, it is completely inappropriate for people who are well over 18 to come into a school system where they are treated as much younger, and even these Benches would not support that.
The difficulty—and the reason why we keep raising this—is that it is clear that no doctor will apply any of the scientific methods. We have had this debate since 2023, when the BMA made it clear that they were unreliable. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke in your Lordships’ House about how hormonal change because of poor diet, and the possibility of hormonal change because of minor and benign tumours, are impossible to tell just from looking at an MRI.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments. We have indeed been around the Houses, but in trying to reach some common ground, I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken that we need to have some method of assessing age. Children who are placed in settings with adults are at risk, and adults who are placed in settings with children potentially pose a risk. I think there is common ground across the House today on the need to find some mechanism to establish age verification.
Amendments 63 and 64 refer to scientific methods of age assessment, and Amendment 63 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations under Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act within six months of the passing of the Bill. This is one of the reasons, in addition to those that I have given, that I support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Regulations have already been made under this power that specify X-ray and MRI methods of age assessment.
Amendment 64 would, in effect, reintroduce Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill looks to repeal. Under the powers given to the Secretary of State in Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act, the Secretary of State would not make regulations to the effect that this amendment seeks to achieve unless and until the specific scientific methods in question were sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent would be compatible with the ECHR. The specified methods—that is, X-ray and MRI images of certain body areas—do not currently meet this threshold. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, also emphasised that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harper, to some extent.
That does not mean that the Government do not wish to have age verification measures in place. I can assure the House that, in the context of the Government’s wider work to reform age assessment systems, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, the then Minister for Security and Asylum set out in a Written Ministerial Statement in the House of Commons, which I repeated in this House in July, that this Government have commissioned work to determine the most promising new and emerging methods of age assessment to pursue them further. As a result of that, currently the work to operationalise X-ray and MRI methods of age assessment have been stood down, because facial age estimation methods—this goes to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—are less intrusive, cheaper and faster, and there is no requirement for a physical medical procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, we are not there yet, but facial age estimation technology is currently being explored by the Home Office. It is a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process, and we have commissioned further testing and trialling with the intention of implementing the technology during 2026 if it proves a worthwhile addition to our armoury.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The last Government produced an expert report in the run-up to our 23 debates on various amendments. Will the Government undertake to have an expert report from doctors and scientists, which would then be published in full, so that Parliament and the wider community can actually see the detail? The Minister is absolutely right to say that AI age assessment is not there yet, and I always worry about passing something that might mean that we do not see the detail when doctors are unhappy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it is in the interests of the Government to get technology in place that is less intrusive and more accurate and does not rely on X-rays and MRIs, as we have now, for that physical contact. The question of what that development will be is something that we are working through at the moment, and I am expecting that in the latter part of 2026 I will be able to come to this House—if still in post—to argue the case for the implementation of a better facial age estimation technology. I will, on the basis of what the noble Baroness has said, make sure that I can put into the public domain whatever information I think does not compromise the operation. That is the best I can give her today, but I will reflect on what she said and look at whether I can agree to her request. I do not want to give her an immediate response, because there may be reasons why it is not in our interest to put some of that information into the public domain, because people will always try to subsume facial recognition technology or any other method. I will just reflect on that, if I may.
The key point is that these emerging new methods and the regulations applying the automatic assumption of adult provision for refusal to consent to methods of scientific age assessment as set out in the IMA cannot be laid until the specific methods are sufficiently accurate. Because we do not believe that they are going to be, these amendments are not necessary. For those reasons, I hope that we can share common ground with the noble Lord: his objective, my objective, and I think that of every noble Lord who has spoken, is to ensure that we have accurate age assessment. The methodology he has brought forward in these amendments is not the way forward, but I give an assurance to the House that the exploration of other methods is under way and I will report back when those tests are complete. I urge him, therefore, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but important debate, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, there is clear evidence of adults pretending to be children in order to gain refugee status in the United Kingdom. As boat crossings rise, so does the number of fraudulent asylum claims. This means that there is a high number of unchecked people who should not be here and, perhaps more importantly, a high number of adults in children’s schools. This is a crisis that the Government can and must face head on. Ensuring that people are the age that they claim to be is just one step that we must take to end this crisis, but it is an important step, and Amendments 63 and 64 offer a framework for how it may be done.
Amendment 64 would provide a fair and balanced approach to age assessments. It would not provide the state with overreaching powers to assess anyone who enters the country, but it also would not retreat to the position where the age-disputed person is given the right to deny any form of comprehensive assessment. It would give the relevant authorities the discretion to enforce a scientific test where there are no reasonable grounds not to consent to one. This measure would allow for a fairer immigration system that incentivises honesty, rather than one that rewards fraud.
However, if we are to take away the right to consent when there are no reasonable grounds, then it is just that we also specify which methods may be used to assess age. As I have said, assessing age has become a necessary measure in certain cases, which is why Amendment 64 is so important. Amendment 63 is just as important, as it would allow the Secretary of State to lay out a clear and comprehensive list of scientific methods that may be used to achieve this end.
The current system in place incentivises dishonesty and puts children across the country at risk as a result. These amendments provide a comprehensive framework that goes a long way to resolving that problem, and I hope the Minister considers taking them on board. I have heard what he has said about finding common ground for age assessment, and for now I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Refusal of asylum claims from illegal entrants(1) The Secretary of State must refuse without consideration an asylum claim, protection claim or a human rights claim made by any person to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) commits an offence under sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971, or(b) did not come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) a person is not to be taken to have come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.(4) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply if a person—(a) entered the United Kingdom lawfully,(b) at the time the person entered the United Kingdom lawfully the person came directly from a safe country, and(c) whilst the person has remained in the United Kingdom the person’s home country has become an unsafe country.(5) Where subsection (4) applies to a person and the person makes an asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim, the Secretary of State must consider the claim.(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) a country is a “safe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would not be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(b) a country is an “unsafe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(c) a person entered the United Kingdom lawfully if the person entered the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration Acts.(7) A claim refused under subsection (1) cannot be considered under the immigration rules.(8) This section applies to any asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim that was made by a person to whom this section applies on, after or before the day in which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom illegally.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in 2013, 20,587 people travelled illegally by boat to Australia. The Australian Government instituted Operation Sovereign Borders, whereby illegal migrants entering by boat are either turned back to their point of departure, returned to their home country or transferred to a third country. Australia established an asylum processing centre in Nauru for this purpose. None of them was allowed to stay in Australia. The year after this policy was introduced, the number of small boat arrivals fell to 450. They went from 20,587 to 450; that is how you successfully protect your borders. That is how you prevent illegal migration and people smuggling. It is done not by handing illegal migrants hotel accommodation, giving them money and then permitting them to make all manner of spurious asylum, protection and modern slavery claims. It has been tried and tested before; it can be done. Yet there are political parties in this country—the Government and Liberal Democrats, here in this Chamber—which still refuse to support such action that has been proven to work.
The Government’s policies on border security, illegal migration and asylum have so far failed. My Amendments 65 and 77 would give the Government the opportunity finally to get a grip and follow the positive example of Australia. They are intended to work in tandem with each other to permit the Government to refuse asylum claims from illegal migrants and remove them to a third-country processing centre.
Amendment 65 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to refuse, without consideration, any asylum protection or human rights claim made by a person who has entered the country illegally. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch’s Amendment 65A includes modern slavery claims within that list, and I support that inclusion. The amendment also includes any person who has not come directly from a country where their life or liberty was threatened within the meaning of the refugee convention. My noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has spoken in detail about that during Committee, and I again echo his arguments. Subsection (4) of the new clause proposed in the amendment includes a crucial safeguard for persons who enter the UK legally but whose home country has become unsafe while they have been in the UK and they subsequently make an asylum or protection claim. In this case, their claim would be able to be considered in the usual manner. This ban on asylum claims from illegal migrants would absolutely act as a deterrent for illegal migration. People will not make the journey across the channel if they know their claims will be automatically refused and they will be swiftly deported.
Amendment 77 follows on from this. It would require the Home Secretary to establish third-country removal centres where we would be able to send those who cannot be returned to their home country. Australia has done this with Nauru and the United States has done it with Uganda, Honduras and Rwanda. The Government claim that the previous Government’s policy of sending illegal migrants to Rwanda was unworkable, yet the United States has done precisely that, and it has worked. Illegal crossings across the US southern border have fallen by 89% in one year. Australia and the United States prove that illegal migration can be stopped, yet we are constantly told that we cannot do the same in this country. That is false. We can replicate their success—all it requires is a recognition of the concerns of the British electorate and a desire genuinely to end illegal entry to the UK. I beg to move.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in this group and will briefly speak to mine, which would strengthen the amendments laid by my noble friends on the Front Bench. They have the objective of restoring public confidence in our asylum system. Amendment 65A would ensure that no modern slavery claim could be made by those who arrive under the conditions set out in Amendment 65 and that we eliminate loopholes where we know or suspect that a strong risk exists of bogus asylum claims. Amendment 77A would make it clear that the proposed third-country removal centre would also process any modern slavery claims for those who could not be returned to their home country, for whatever reason.
As a package, in addition to my amendments that I discussed earlier in these debates—I will not repeat myself—this would ensure that the public have confidence that we are supporting genuine victims of modern slavery, not those who seek to use our generous provisions to prey on vulnerable people or those who, for their own evil reasons, decide to exploit our asylum laws to get a fast track into the country under the guise of being modern slaves and then go on to lodge bogus asylum claims. The public are rapidly losing trust in the state to protect our borders and we need to take determined, radical action. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Davies. I will focus in particular on proposed new subsection (2)(b) in his Amendment 65, which would make it clear that, if someone does not come directly to the UK from a country in which they were threatened, they are not covered by the refugee convention. I strongly support that and we have debated it earlier on this Bill.
It may or may not surprise your Lordships to know that it is also the view of the Government. In a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, following our debate in Committee on Monday 13 October, in response to suggestions she made in her amendments, he said that the refugee convention
“is quite clear about the need for migrants to ‘come directly’ to benefit from the protections it affords them. In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the Convention and are entirely safe countries with functioning asylum systems of which migrants are able to avail themselves”.
I could not agree more with the Minister in that interpretation of the refugee convention, which is effectively what my noble friend has set out in his amendment. Given that the Government’s view is that Article 31 of the refugee convention should be interpreted narrowly in that sense, I hope the Minister will support my noble friend’s amendments and, even if he feels that something in their drafting is not absolutely spot on, he will none the less come forward at Third Reading with an amendment that would correct the drafting and put into statute the sentiments set out in that letter, with which I entirely agree.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, it is all very well saying that people who have come from a safe third country are not entitled to asylum here. That is the law; there is no doubt about that. The difficulty is in removing such people. These amendments provide no assistance in relation to that. People who have come here from France and Belgium, which are of course safe countries, cannot be removed to those countries—those countries will not have them back, other than under the scheme that the Government have agreed with France. So they cannot be removed there.
They are also not to be given asylum under these amendments, so are they to be removed to their own country? Are we really going to remove people who have arrived here unlawfully to countries where they face persecution? That seems intolerable to me. The problem is not saying that these people are not entitled to asylum; the problem is removing them from this country and these amendments make no contribution to that.
Lord German (LD)
I strongly support that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, referred to his interpretation of the letter. I prefer to rely on Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will refer to later, as the defence against the offence that he allegedly conducted in his letter.
These amendments target asylum and modern slavery claims made by those who have entered the UK irregularly. They risk compounding injustice and playing directly into the hands of the very criminals we seek to defeat. First, focusing on restriction of access to modern slavery protections for individuals, particularly those identified as illegal entrants, risks undermining the UK’s reputation for compliance with our international obligations, notably with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking. We must remember that victims of trafficking are frequently coerced into criminal activity and that extending disqualification criteria or imposing restrictions disproportionately affects genuine survivors of modern slavery.
Secondly, if these amendments aim to limit the judicial scrutiny of claims made by irregular arrivals seeking protection, they threaten the balance of fairness that underpins our legal system. Any such attempt would introduce legal uncertainty and risks violating individual human rights. Asylum legislation and decision-making must prioritise the principles of compliance with human rights obligations. We resist the temptation to craft legislation based on a political narrative that disregards the plight of those fleeing persecution and violence.
We must focus finite resources on those who truly need our help: the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. For these reasons, based on principles of compassion, international compliance and operational effectiveness against criminal exploitation, we reject these amendments.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, taken together, Amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, further amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in Amendments 65A and 77A, can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Rwanda plan. Again, as was the case with amendments discussed on the second day of Report, these proposals at points take a more unworkable approach than what has come before, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick— I hope he does not mind my praying him in aid—argued in his short but focused contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that our policies had failed. I simply point out to him that, whereas, as he mentioned, 400 asylum seeker hotels were in use under the previous Government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament. We have seen more than 5,000 foreign national offenders deported over the last year, a 14% increase on the 12 months before. If that is what the noble Lord and his colleagues see as failure, that is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum and immigration failed so much itself.
I emphasise again that this Government have been clear in their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and its policy intentions. This Bill repeals it, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention. The Bill, as promised in our manifesto, fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 —a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million and which saw only four people leave the country, all of whom left voluntarily.
Amendment 65 seeks to reinstate Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act in a different form. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk, and regardless of the nature of the person’s claim. Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim on the same basis. This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children.
On Amendments 77 and 77A, I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for their interest in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. However, I respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on 15 May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable. These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await redocumentation by their country of origin.
The effect of Amendment 77, together with Amendment 35A, discussed on day 2 of Report, would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country. The return hubs proposal is fundamentally different: it does not outsource asylum decision-making but instead targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and been found wanting.
We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the Government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in Amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right. I therefore urge noble Lords not to move their amendments, on the basis that they not only duplicate work already in train but constrict that work and militate against the Government’s aim to conclude a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties.
These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention, the ECHR and the anti-trafficking convention. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children and victims of modern slavery. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, not to press their amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Government have, of course, decided to abandon the Conservative policy of removal to a third country, for which we had an agreement. We urge the Government to retain the Rwanda agreement. As I detailed earlier, the Australian model was a great success.
This week, we have seen the second migrant deported in the one-in, one-out scheme returned to the UK. We have also heard that the Government will be handing asylum seekers £100 a week to move out of hotels and move in with family and friends they may have in the UK. These measures will not deter illegal migration. Channel crossings have continued at an even faster rate.
It does not have to be this way. If we leave the ECHR, ban asylum protection, human rights and modern slavery claims, and deport all illegal migrants then we can establish third-country removal centres and replicate Australia’s success. The Government’s policies do not carry the support of the British people. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 65.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Exclusion of judicial review of asylum and immigration decisions(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply where— (a) the Secretary of State has made an initial decision in respect of a relevant immigration decision, or(b) the asylum and immigration review board (“the review board”) have made a final decision in respect of a relevant immigration decision under section (Abolition of appeals for immigration decisions).(2) The decision is final, and not liable to be set aside in any court.(3) In particular—(a) no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to an initial decision by the Secretary of State or a final decision by the review board;(b) the review board are not to be regarded as having exceeded their powers by reason of any error made in reaching the final decision.(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply where the Secretary of State or the review board is acting or has acted in such a manner which exceeds the Secretary of State’s or the review board’s powers under the Immigration Acts.(5) In this section—“the Immigration Acts” has the same meaning as in section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007;“relevant immigration decision” means—(a) a decision to make a deportation order under—(i) section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971,(ii) section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, and(iii) section (Duty to deport illegal entrants) of this Act,(b) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (removal of person unlawfully in United Kingdom),(c) a decision that an illegal entrant is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraphs 8 to 10 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry: removal),(d) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions given by virtue of paragraph 10A of that Schedule (family),(e) a refusal to revoke a deportation order under section 5(2) of that Act,(f) a decision to reject an asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim,(g) a decision to refuse support under section 95 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,(h) a decision to certify a protection claim or human rights claim as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,(i) a decision to revoke a person’s asylum status or protection status, and(j) a decision not to grant immigration bail.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent judicial review of any immigration decisions, except in a case where the Secretary of State or review board have acted ultra vires.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 68 relates to the exclusion of judicial review of asylum and immigration decisions. It has already been debated. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord German
“Humanitarian travel permit(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person, subject to subsection (2).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a monthly cap of the number of applications that may be granted under subsection (1).(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom,(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success, and(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted,(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom,(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has, and(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.(5) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.(6) The requirements are—(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).(7) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).(8) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order. (9) A condition under subsection (8) must include the provision of biometric information under section 34 of this Act.(10) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.(11) For the purposes of this section—(a) “appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph(1),(b) “entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971,(c) “protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—(i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”),(ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection, or(iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”),(d) “persecution” is defined in accordance with the Refugee Convention, and(e) “serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would remove the smugglers’ business by creating a safer legal route. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Duty to remove foreign offenders(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to a person (“P”) who—(a) is not a British citizen,(b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom, and(c) has completed their term of imprisonment and been released accordingly.(3) The Secretary of State must make the deportation order against P within the period of seven days after P’s release from imprisonment.(4) A deportation order made under this section is not subject to appeal under—(a) section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or(c) any other enactment.(5) A deportation order made under this section is final and not liable to be set aside in any court.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment was comprehensively debated last week. It is, for the avoidance of doubt, about the efficacious deportation of foreign national offenders who have been released after serving a custodial sentence. On the basis of an unsatisfactory response from the Minister, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord German
“Temporary asylum processing units(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make such provision as is necessary to enable him or her to develop and provide temporary facilities for the expedited assessment of asylum applications or to enable other persons to do so and for the subsequent cessation of such use and the restoration of land.(2) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any local authorities likely to be affected and such other persons as he or she considers appropriate.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the creation of ‘Nightingale’ processing units to speed up the process of clearing the backlog of asylum applications.
Lord German (LD)
This amendment seeks to set up processing centres to clear the backlog and remove the need for asylum hotels. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Defence under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention(1) Section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is repealed.(2) Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention) is amended as follows.(3) Omit subsection (2).(4) After subsection (3)(c) insert—“(d) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”(5) After subsection (4)(d) insert—“(e) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”(6) Omit subsection (4A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment alters the statutory defence for refugees to ensure compliance with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which prevents penalisation of refugees who transit in a country on their way to receiving sanctuary in another country, if they have come directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened and they have good cause for their irregular entry or presence. This amendment restores the common law position and repeals section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act which sought to overturn it. It also expands the defence to cover not only offences relating to those who enter with false documents but also those who enter without any immigration documents.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I proposed replacing Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because it is incomplete. That section attempts to comply with Article 31 of the refugee convention by providing statutory defences for refugees who have irregularly entered or are present in the UK but who have come directly from a country persecuting them; they have presented themselves to the authorities without delay and shown good cause for their unlawful entry or presence. However, as described by our Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on this Bill, the statutory defence
“is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention”.
Strangely, the defence is available only to refugees who have used false documents; it does not extend to refugees who arrive, enter, or are present here irregularly, with no documents at all.
It is unclear to me why our country would privilege the refugee arriving by plane on a false passport over the stateless person or refugee with no passport or visa. Refugees are often compelled to flee with nothing but the clothes on their backs. What little they have may be stolen or lost along the way. I raised this anomaly in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Katz said that he understood what he called this “specific inconsistency”, very kindly agreeing to write to me on the point—that was on 13 October, at vol. 849, col. 113 of Hansard. As my noble friend helped explain to the Committee, also in col. 113, the defence is also imperfect and incomplete because it fails to protect from prosecution the refugee who, in fleeing persecution, stops in another safe country.
Sadly, those who drafted my noble friend’s letter to me of 24 October demonstrated neither his logic and compassion nor, frankly, any acknowledgement of what he actually said at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, the letter would be more fitting in support of opposition amendments proposed by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and rejected by the Government and my noble friend that day in recognition of refugees who transit countries en route to the United Kingdom. The Home Office letter said:
“The Convention is quite clear about the need for migrants to ‘come directly’ to benefit from the protections it affords them. In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the Convention and are entirely safe countries with functioning asylum systems of which migrants are able to avail themselves”.
It is as if last year’s general election never happened.
Therefore, almost all who arrive in the UK, even if eventually found by the authorities, by the Home Office or the appeal system, to be refugees, have no statutory defence to protect them from criminalisation and prosecution. That is contrary to a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I do not know whether the Opposition want to come in on this, but I may as well jump in. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Her amendment is simplified from her one in Committee. She is quite right that this Government ought to wish to stick to Article 31 of the refugee convention. That is what they maintained over the last few years, and it would be sensible and right to come back to that position. As she said, we can rely on the common law position, which I think was contributed to by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and rely on the court to understand what “directly” means. It can sometimes include short stops in transit— I think we can all understand why that might be—but it is a question of assessment in any individual situation. It is important to go back to the refugee convention definition and understanding for reasons of fairness and justice.
In the closing part of her remarks, the noble Baroness picked up on something that I was keen to ask the Minister. She repeated the statistics that she gave us in Committee: 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted, and the vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum. In her remarks just now, she added that a lot of these people who were prosecuted had refugee status. I wonder: what is the point of adding new pressure on the criminal justice system, particularly in the light of all the demands on it that we heard about in this House yesterday? It cannot cope. Surely the important thing is to get on with assessing someone’s claim so that you can decide whether they have a valid refugee or other humanitarian claim and are allowed to stay—or not, in which case they ought to be deported. What is the point of wasting time, resources and energy, and putting people who may well get refugee status through that process, when you go on to grant them refugee status anyway? What is the point of the diversion? I have never understood this, to be perfectly honest.
The noble Baroness is offering a way to get back to a sensible position. Of course people who are guilty of smuggling and trafficking offences might still get caught by this, but we have a baroque arrangement at the moment. We need to cleave to the refugee convention, which has been the traditional position of the Labour Party in opposition—and ought to be in government—and not waste resources, time and everything else in prosecuting people instead of just getting on with the asylum determination and removing those who have no claim. The present situation does not make any sense, in justice or in practicality. I hope the Minister can give a positive response to the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whose long and well-known experience in these matters I greatly respect. I have sympathy for the underlying principle of her amendment, but I fear that, though well-intentioned, it would take us back to the position that, in our view, Parliament quite rightly sought to clarify in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Section 37 of that Act was introduced for a very clear reason: to ensure that the UK, while complying with its obligations under the refugee convention, could define in domestic law how those obligations should be interpreted and applied. This amendment would lead to the repealing of Section 37 and the expansion of the statutory defence and, in our view, would go far beyond what the refugee convention requires.
Article 31 exists to protect those who come directly from danger and present themselves without delay. It does not exist to provide a blanket immunity for all irregular entrants, including those who have travelled through safe countries and have not claimed asylum there.
In our view, there has to be a system that is firm, not open to abuse and, above all, determined by Parliament. Diluting the provisions of the 2022 Act would undermine confidence and encourage, not reduce, the dangerous business of people smuggling. For those reasons, although I acknowledge the sincere spirit in which this amendment is brought forward, I respectfully urge noble Lords to oppose it.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to remove the requirement that asylum seekers must come directly to the UK to benefit from the defence provided by Article 31 of the refugee convention. Furthermore, it seeks to expand the list of specific offences set out in Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, which asylum seekers who arrive illegally have a statutory defence against. I thank my noble friend for her amendment, while noting the previous amendments she suggested during the passage of the Bill, and for her kind words about my response to the debate on her previous amendment in Committee.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. Indeed, all our asylum-related legislation, rules and guidance will continue to fully comply with all our international obligations. I hope that provides a level of assurance for the avoidance of any doubt. All claims which are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on their individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against the background of published country information.
The Government consider that those fleeing persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country in which it is reasonable to do so. This is in the asylum seeker’s best interest, serves to reduce the risk inherent in making further dangerous attempts to reach the UK illegally, and prevents further profit going to criminal people and those who organise the terrible criminal offences the Bill is designed to stop.
Providing a statutory defence to illegal arrival and illegal entry would, in effect, provide a defence to virtually all individuals who reach the UK by illegal means. It is difficult to see how this could be seen to support the Government’s stance on enforcing the law on illegal migration. Again, it would only undermine the confidence of UK citizens in our wish to maintain a fair and safe immigration system.
Both my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised the question of recognised refugees being prosecuted for illegal entry, so I will spend a bit of time explaining the grounds when considering whether or not to make an arrest. In that case, Immigration Enforcement criminal and financial investigators must consider whether or not the suspect is likely to benefit from the statutory defence in Section 31. They must consider the defence as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as the published CPS guidance on statutory defences. If it is deemed that the individual would benefit from the defence, they are not to make an arrest. If evidence suggests that a prosecution would be possible then continuous liaison between investigators and the relevant asylum caseworker must be undertaken throughout the asylum claim process.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for even being in the Chamber, let alone participating in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his courtesy and sincerity once more.
As to the advice that he has been given, I am afraid there is a circularity about saying, “Do not worry, because we will look very carefully at whether someone has a defence”, when, on the basis of the correspondence I have been sent and this legislation, there will be no defence, even for a genuine asylum seeker or a recognised refugee who came in a boat. To me, that is a huge contradiction: “Welcome to Britain. You are a refugee and the beginning of your life in the UK will be criminal prosecution”.
None the less, I know my arithmetic, and I do not want to test noble Lords’ patience much longer— I know that there is other business. I am afraid this will have to be sorted out by the DPP or in the criminal and appeal courts. Perhaps in the longer term, the Government may think again—who knows? For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Duty to have due regard to family unity(1) A relevant authority must, in the exercise of relevant functions, have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a relevant authority must, in the discharge of its duty under that subsection, have due regard to—(a) the public interest in children being properly brought up,(b) the right of children to be cared for by their parents unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare,(c) the right of children to have direct contact, in person, with members of their families, unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare, and(d) the principle that maintaining contact with family members by electronic means of communication is not an adequate substitute for direct contact in person.(3) This section is subject to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (duty regarding the welfare of children); and nothing in this section requires or authorises a relevant authority to do anything which is contrary to the welfare of any child (whether that child is in the United Kingdom or not).(4) Nothing in this section—(a) requires or authorises the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to refuse to grant a person leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom where they would, apart from this section, have granted such leave, or(b) requires or authorises the First-tier or Upper Tribunal to find that a ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not made out when it would not, apart from this section, have so found.(5) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18, and “children” shall be construed accordingly;“relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the First-tier Tribunal, and(c) the Upper Tribunal;“relevant functions” means—(a) any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration or asylum;(b) any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer in relation to immigration or asylum;(c) any function of the First-tier or Upper Tribunal in connection with the determination of any ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Amendment 75 would insert a new clause after Clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and the immigration and asylum tribunals. This is supported by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safe- guard to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences.
Subsection 1 of the proposed new clause sets out the core duty that every relevant authority, in carrying out its functions, must have due regard to the need to promote family unity. Subsection 2 then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. These principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, teacher and social worker knows: that children who have the love, stability and presence of their families can thrive.
This proposed new clause would complement the existing duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children. Subsection 3 makes that explicit. The new duty would sit alongside Section 55 and be subject to it, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains paramount.
Equally importantly, proposed new subsection 4 provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK. It simply creates a duty of consideration and a framework for fairer, more humane decision-making.
This amendment would not diminish the Government’s ability to control immigration. It would simply require that, when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision-makers take proper account of family unity and children’s rights to grow up in the care of their families. By including the First-tier and Upper Tribunals within the scope of this duty, we would ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the Home Office desk to the final appeal. It would give tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human-rights decisions but are central to them.
The UK has long recognised through international commitments and domestic law that the family is the fundamental unit of society. This amendment would give practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life. It does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child’s welfare and the proper limits of executive power.
I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency and humanity. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.
The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.
The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.
Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I hear so often in this Chamber that the amendments the Opposition have brought are completely unnecessary, it is already in law, and we do not have to worry our pretty little heads about it as it will all be fine. The fact is, it is not. This issue, in particular, will continue to make an awful lot of money for lawyers, who will fight what the Government are doing. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 77A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 77.
Amendment 78
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Rights of Chagossians(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom may not be altered or amended in any way.(2) In this section—“the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom” means any visa, indefinite leave to remain or immigration status, with respect to the United Kingdom, granted to a Chagossian or the descendant of a Chagossian;“Chagossian” means a person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the person’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that any change in the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory would not change the UK immigration rights of Chagossians.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 78 is a saving provision to protect the immigration rights of the Chagossian community, notwithstanding any agreement the Government may make with Mauritius. This is neither the time nor the place to revisit the arguments made in this House and the other place regarding the Diego Garcia military base Bill, but I thank the Government for agreeing not to proceed with Report stage of that Bill until the new year, following calls from these Benches for additional time for further scrutiny. We fundamentally disagree with the Government’s agreement with Mauritius, but if it is to be implemented, the Chagossians must have their say and Ministers must listen.
This new clause would give the Chagossian community the peace of mind and security of immigration status they deserve, and I urge the Government to take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect the Chagossians from any future weakening of their immigration rights as a result of any agreement with Mauritius. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we support this amendment because it would protect the rights of Chagossians. After the treaty enters into force, Chagossians will not be able to apply for British Overseas Territories citizenship under the route that was set up in 2022. Those who currently hold British Overseas Territories citizenship through their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory will not be able to pass it down to descendants born after the treaty enters into force. If any Chagossian who has claimed BOT citizenship has a child born before entry into force, that child will automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship and does not need to make an application under the 2022 route before entry into force. If any member of the Chagossian community does not already have British Overseas Territories citizenship and would like to claim it based on their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory, they will be able to do that through the 2022 route until the treaty enters into force. That is the issue about which we need an explanation. That protection of rights ends when the treaty comes into force.
I remind the House that the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this matter and took evidence from Ministers. The summary of the evidence received was as follows:
“We regret that members of the Chagossian community feel that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the negotiation of this agreement”.
With that knowledge, it is important that we secure the rights of Chagossians—not just resettlement in the Chagos islands themselves, but that the status the United Kingdom has given them is protected.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 78 aims to prevent changes to the UK immigration status held by Chagossians and their descendants, regardless of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under UK law, as noble Lords noted, Chagossians and their descendants are either automatically British citizens or have a right to apply to be registered as British citizens. As British citizens, they are free to make their home in the UK without being subject to immigration control.
The Government have been very clear that the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will protect British nationality rights, so I give the noble Lord, Lord German, that assurance. The treaty and the Bill make no changes to the citizenship that Chagossians currently hold or to their right to claim British citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, this is being debated in respect of other legislation. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK should they wish to. The immigration status of Chagossians living in the UK who do not wish to take up British citizenship will not be impacted by the agreement between the UK and Mauritius.
In the Government’s view, this amendment is therefore unnecessary and would prevent the UK Government exercising their lawful power to amend or alter the immigration status of those subject to immigration control in the UK—for example, if the basis upon which someone’s immigration status was granted changes, or, as we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, if an individual is convicted of a criminal offence for which they receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Furthermore—this is the salient point—the amendment would also effectively prevent Chagossians applying to amend their immigration status and prevent them exercising their right to apply for British citizenship, should they so choose. I therefore ask the noble Lord, in the light of my comments and the assurance I have given, to withdraw the amendment for the reasons outlined.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful, especially to the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support for this amendment. I am delighted finally to be on the same page as him on this Bill, after many days of Committee and Report. He made a compelling argument for the basis of this amendment, and it is a topical question. In our view, it is an opportunity to do right by the Chagossians and give them the statutory certainty they deserve, but in the light of what has just been said by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.
“(1) The Minister may—
(a) investigate or take enforcement action in respect of suspected fraud against another public authority, or
(b) recover money on behalf of another public authority, only at the request of that public authority or if the Minister considers that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.”
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A and will speak also to Motions B and D. I want to start by thanking this House once again for the constructive debates and meticulous scrutiny that the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill has received throughout its passage. It has undoubtedly been strengthened, and I am grateful for the time noble Lords have put into engaging with the Government.
I believe that the Bill, as agreed by the House of Commons, makes a significant step in delivering this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every pound is wisely spent. At the same time, the Bill now contains further significant safeguards on the use of the new powers for the DWP and PSFA, strengthened by the scrutiny and insights of your Lordships’ House.
In moving Motion A, I will, with leave of the House, speak also to Motions B and D, which are grouped together. I turn first to Amendment 1 and the government amendments in lieu, Amendments 1A and 1B. As I said on Report in the Lords, the Government were unable to accept the original drafting of this amendment. However, we have listened to the desire of your Lordships’ House and, with some technical changes, are happy to propose these alternatives. I am grateful for the constructive discussions on these with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger—to whom I wish a remote happy birthday.
The amendments will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. As my colleague, the Minister for Transformation, set out when proposing this amendment in the other place, the Government believe it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise this new power, due to the collaborative approach of the normal working of government, but it will be available if there is genuine necessity. It is the Government’s intention to create a fraud investigation service and this amendment is compatible with that continued intention.
Our amendments in lieu also make some consequential changes to Clause 2 to preserve the intention that the PSFA should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for Social Security, or His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, for the reason which has remained unchanged throughout the passage of the Bill: that those departments already have considerable resources and powers to tackle tax and social security fraud.
I now turn to Lords Amendments 30 and 31. As I set out on Report, the Government support the principle behind these amendments. However, we could not accept the drafting as it stood. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers and that robust oversight, both internal and external, is essential. I am therefore grateful for the constructive and rewarding discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger—who is very young today—and propose the alternative government Amendments 31A, 31B and 31C. They have indicated their support and I hope that other noble Lords will also support them. The amendments mandate statutory guidance and a new reporting requirement and set internal recording requirements. They strike the right balance of ensuring strong ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers, without unnecessarily involving Ministers in operational decisions.
First, the statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline governance arrangements, delegation of powers to authorised officers and authorised investigators, standards for the training and appointment of authorised officers and investigators and how the Minister will collaborate with an independent reviewer. Secondly, a report will be prepared following the end of each financial year and will be laid in Parliament by the Minister, stating how many times investigation and enforcement powers in Part 1 of the Bill have been used. This ensures regular ministerial and public visibility without compromising operational details. Lastly, there is now a requirement for the PSFA to keep internal written records of the exercise of the powers, which will be made available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer.
These records will specify the power exercised, date, reason for use and by whom, ensuring internal accountability. They will be made accessible to the independent reviewer, who will assess the use of the powers and produce a report which the Minister will publish and lay in Parliament. This addresses the need for a written record without public disclosure of sensitive information. Together, these amendments underscore our commitment to transparency, oversight and accountability, which we have maintained over the passage of this Bill.
We further committed during Committee in the Commons to adhering to the Cabinet Office governance code on public appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments; adding the independent reviewer to the Order in Council; following the established process for agreeing posts that should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committee without the need for legislative provision in the Bill; and compiling a list of all the concerns raised in both Houses to put before the independent reviewer, who will also meet with parliamentarians who have raised areas where they think their work should be focused.
I have also agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that, because she really enjoys debating with me at the Dispatch Box, the initial statutory guidance will be subject to a take-note debate in Grand Committee after it is laid in Parliament. Together, the amendments ensure that Ministers are accountable for the use of the powers in Part 1 of the Bill and show how they are delegated. In places, they build on processes that would already have been in place but that we have brought forward into the Bill. I am grateful for the constructive discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on these amendments and I am pleased to put in place these commitments. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motions not to insist from the other place.
Finally, I turn to a minor and technical amendment the Government made to Lords Amendment 75 to Schedule 2. Amendment 75A simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation-making power set out by Schedule 2, if or when the powers conferred under Part 1 of the Bill are transferred to another public authority that is not within the scope of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body. It does not change the use of any powers laid out within the Bill. I hope noble Lords will support the Motion from the other place and I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, myself and others. We are dealing here with Motions A, B and D, so let me deal with Motion A first. The Lords amendment aimed to give more powers to Ministers to take investigatory or enforcement action and we voted against it in the Lords due to it giving, in our view, too many powers to the Minister.
The Government have, to some extent, listened, and the amendment in lieu reaches what I would describe as a middle ground. That seems to be, as far as I know, acceptable to other people who will be speaking in this debate, I believe—coming first, I cannot be certain of that. On that basis, on these Benches, we are willing to accept the amendment in lieu in Motion A.
Turning to Motion B, Lords Amendments 30 and 31 relate to limiting the extent that powers can be used and ensuring that, when powers are used, they are properly reported. As noble Lords will know, we supported the amendments in the Lords and have noted again what the Government’s reaction has been. I am reasonably pleased at the reaction. The amendments reach, as I said on the other amendment, a middle ground, and from these Benches we are minded to accept the amendments in lieu.
Turning to Motion D, the powers to establish the PSFA and transfer functions, the Lords amendment created the Public Sector Fraud Authority. The amendment in lieu is a tidying-up amendment, as the noble Baroness said, and is uncontroversial. On these Benches, we accept that amendment in lieu. I look forward to the other amendments in due course.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as we consider the amendments brought forward by the Government, I want to begin by recognising the diligent and constructive work undertaken across this House throughout the passage of this Bill. We have examined almost every clause in detail, identified weaknesses and proposed sensible, proportionate reforms. I think it is fair to say that, as a result, the Bill before us today is stronger, fairer and more workable. The Government have listened to many of the concerns raised, not least from these Benches and from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I want to put on record our appreciation for the collaborative spirit in which the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, and their officials have engaged.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for what I will take as wholehearted support for what we have done. I am grateful for their contributions and for the constructive engagement that led us to this point, both on these issues and in our earlier discussions with regard to whistleblowing. I genuinely believe that collaboration has got us to a good place with this legislation, and of course very much look forward to our ongoing discussions in Grand Committee.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30 and 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A, 31B and 31C in lieu.
“Guidance on exercise of investigatory functions
(1) The Minister must publish guidance about how the Minister will exercise the Minister’s function in section 1(1)(a) (investigating suspected fraud against public authorities). (2) The guidance must include guidance about— (a) how authorised investigators and authorised officers are to be appointed, (b) the training which individuals must undertake before being appointed as authorised investigators or authorised officers, (c) governance arrangements in relation to how authorised investigators and authorised officers are to exercise their functions for the purpose of the function in section 1(1)(a), and (d) how the Minister will work with an independent reviewer appointed under section 64. (3) The Minister may revise or replace guidance published under this section. (4) The Minister must publish any revised or replacement guidance. (5) The Minister must lay a copy of guidance published under this section (including revised or replacement guidance) before Parliament.”
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B agreed.
Motion C
Baroness Sherlock
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43A.
The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions E and F, with the leave of the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his continued constructive engagement on these issues. I hope that today we will reach a resolution with the amendments in lieu and assurances that I provide.
I start with Motion E and Lords Amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained using an eligibility verification notice, or EVN. As drafted, this amendment carries three key risks: first, it risks DWP not being able to use EVM information properly, even in those cases where it might be a strong indicator of potential fraud; secondly, it risks legislating for a person’s state of mind; and thirdly, it risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Government Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu are therefore presented as a substitute. These amendments address those risks, build on the amendments I tabled on Report and reflect the Government’s stated policy intent throughout; namely, that EVM information considered in isolation cannot constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion or indicate wrongdoing.
These amendments focus on the actions which DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information and clarify that where DWP has received it, staff must also have regard to all other relevant information held before taking further action. This approach would, first, require an authorised officer to consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice under new Section 109BZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as well as the relevant EVM information. As a reminder, an information notice under that new section can be issued only where the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed or intends to commit fraud, and the authorised officer considers the notice necessary and proportionate for the purposes of investigating that suspicion. The amendments in lieu make it clear that where EVM information is relevant to those considerations, the authorised officer must also consider non-EVM information that is relevant to the question of whether to issue the notice.
Secondly, it requires that before a DWP staff member can suspend benefit payments, they must consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to do so, as well as the relevant EVM information. Finally, it requires that before a DWP staff member can make a change to an earlier benefit decision, they must consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to change that earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information.
DWP will always hold at least some further information on benefit claims, such as the presence or absence of relevant capital disregards, claimants’ declarations about capital or known vulnerabilities. This amendment provides the necessary assurance that DWP staff will consider this context carefully before taking further action. I think this reflects the intent of the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as well as the Government’s stated policy intent. I am grateful for his engagement on this matter and hope that these government amendments in lieu offer the necessary reassurance.
I turn to Motion C and Lords Amendment 43 on the requirements of the independent reviewer. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, knows that I cannot accept his amendment; I shall go through each part to explain why. Officials in my department have discussed its proposed paragraph (d) with the finance industry, which agrees that it may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. However, I have put it on record before, and reassure the House again today, that the Government are committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate.
I can assure the House that we will continue working closely with businesses as we implement these measures to ensure it is done in the most efficient and effective way. I have also previously committed to publishing a further, updated impact assessment within 12 months of Royal Assent, taking into account the ongoing work with industry through our test-and-learn period. I am happy to reaffirm that commitment to the House today.
As for proposed paragraph (e), there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM. We have been clear that this information does not imply any wrongdoing, and we have worked closely with the finance industry to provide clarity in the draft code of practice to prevent any such problems. The role of the independent EVM reviewer is not to review every process which DWP carries out; rather, it is to review the exercise and effectiveness of that specific data-gathering power and to consider the Government’s compliance with the legislation.
I have stressed often before that DWP has strong support in place for vulnerable people. For example, all DWP front-line operational colleagues are trained to help identify and support our most vulnerable customers. This includes mental health training and the ability to provide reasonable adjustments.
Amendments 84A and 84B reaffirm that further decisions will not be taken without considering all relevant information, in addition to EVM information. This would of course include any available information on vulnerabilities.
Government amendments made on Report also introduced a specific requirement that the Secretary of State be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to issue an EVM, and clarified that the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued is to assist in identifying incorrect payments. As such, the independent reviewer can assess the Government’s actions against these requirements as part of their consideration of compliance with the legislation. We will work closely with the independent reviewer, especially in the test and learn phase, to identify any issues quickly and take steps to prevent or mitigate them.
Turning to subsection (f), Government amendments tabled on Report address this point. They require the Secretary of State to provide the independent EVM reviewer with all reasonably required material. I hope that this duty, alongside the Government’s commitment to work constructively with the reviewer, is sufficient.
My noble friend Lady Anderson made a commitment that Members will have an opportunity to meet with the PSFA’s independent reviewer. Today, I offer the House a parallel commitment that there will be opportunities for Members of this House to meet with the EVM independent reviewer, once they are appointed, and share their views with them.
I turn to Motion F, and Amendment 97 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which concerns DWP-authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force. As I have made clear to the House, the powers of search and seizure, including warrant applications and production orders, are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This also includes the power of reasonable force, as set out in Section 117 of PACE. These powers will be used by expert DWP staff, trained to industry standards, to tackle only serious and organised crime against DWP.
As I outlined on Report, I am not able to accept Lords Amendment 97 as drafted, although our stated policy intent is that DWP-authorised investigators would not use reasonable force against a person. The reason I cannot accept the amendment is that we cannot break down Section 117 of PACE to make the distinction between property and persons, and there is no precedent for specifying in PACE where or on what reasonable force may be applied. The Government’s preferred approach is for DWP to take powers of reasonable force from PACE, following precedents from other government departments.
However, I have listened to the concerns expressed in the House and looked for another way to reflect the stated policy intent in the Bill. The Government have therefore introduced, as amendments in lieu, Amendments 97A, 97B and 97C to Clause 76, and Amendments 97D, 97E and 97F to Schedule 4. These reflect our stated policy intent and draw a distinction between the power of reasonable force, exercisable by DWP-authorised investigators, and police officers or others with constable powers. These amendments remove the power of reasonable force that was derived from Section 117 of PACE and instead create a stand-alone provision on reasonable force in this Bill. This provision restricts DWP-authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force to force against property only, while retaining the police’s power to use reasonable force where necessary against people and property. This delivers our stated policy intent but brings DWP’s power of reasonable force outside of PACE. I believe this reflects the intent behind Lords Amendment 97, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will welcome it.
However, this is a bespoke approach, and it is important that we maintain the same safeguards when DWP-authorised investigators exercise reasonable force. My department is working closely with the Home Office on this. To ensure that DWP-authorised investigators will still operate in the same way as others with powers of reasonable force under PACE, we will maintain compliance with PACE Code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure.
The Home Office has confirmed that, when parliamentary time allows, secondary legislation will be brought forward to ensure that the stand-alone provision in the Bill will be subject to PACE Code B. My department has also worked swiftly to secure assurances that inspection of the use of this stand-alone provision will be provided by HMICFRS and the IOPC. The other relevant powers of entry, search and seizure, beyond reasonable force, will still be drawn down from PACE, and are subject to the safeguards and operational standards I have outlined over the passage of the Bill.
A different approach has been adopted for the provisions in Schedule 4 which apply to Scotland. These broadly replicate PACE search and seizure provisions to achieve parity but make some small, necessary adaptations for Scots law. Therefore, Amendments 97D to 97F make equivalent changes to powers of reasonable force in Scotland.
I hope this reassures noble Lords and puts this question about the use of reasonable force beyond doubt, as DWP-authorised investigators now cannot use reasonable force against people. I hope that the House will support this Motion. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, as we have just heard, Motions C, E and F relate to amendments that I tabled on Report, and which the House very generously supported.
I will start with Motion C, which relates to Amendment 43. This would have broadened the scope of the independent review of the use of the eligibility verification notice process powers to consider the costs to the banking industry and the potential impact on vulnerable people. I regret that the Government did not feel able to accept that, and I am very grateful to those in the other place who supported the amendment so passionately, including quite a number on the Government’s own Benches.
However, I thank the Minister for the assurances she has given, especially in relation to the publication of a revised impact assessment, and her offer of the opportunity to meet with the independent reviewer once they have been appointed. I also take comfort from the point made by the Minister in the other place, repeated just now by the Minister, that the amendment the Government made on Report, which requires that the use of EVM powers be necessary and proportionate, will potentially allow the independent reviewer to consider impacts on vulnerable people if concerns arise. Therefore, while I would have preferred that my amendment be accepted, on the basis of these assurances I will not push it further.
Turning to Motion E, this Lords amendment would have made it clear that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone could not constitute reasonable suspicion, and that no action to suspend or change a benefit or utilise the extensive investigation powers that the Bill creates could be taken unless the information had first been reviewed by a suitably qualified person. This has been made even more important when we read about how HMRC has behaved recently in respect of child benefit. HMRC used incomplete travel information and stopped paying benefit solely on the basis of that information, unfairly impacting up to 23,500 people. That is a tangible example of how information used in isolation, without proper checks or review, can cause real and unfair harm. It is essential, therefore, that EVM information alone should not be used to take decisions that may have a serious impact on someone who may be entirely innocent, and that all decisions should be reviewed by a person so that we do not see something similar happening at DWP.
Although they do not accept the original amendment, the Government have tabled amendments 84A and 84B, which get us most of the way there. The authorised officer or the Secretary of State must have regard to all the information they have, including, importantly,
“information that is not EVM information”.
Some concerns have been raised in the other place and outside about what would happen if the only information the DWP had was EVM information. The Minister touched on that, but it would be helpful if she could comment a bit further when she winds up. Is there any situation where, because EVM information is the only information the department has, that could be the only basis for a decision?
Otherwise, these amendments in lieu substantially cover the concerns that were raised in this House, especially when we also take account of the Government amendments passed by this House on Report that restrict the use of the EVM process so that it may only be used to assist in identifying incorrect payments. I thank the Minister for her continuing constructive engagement in trying to meet the concerns raised by this House, and I urge noble Lords to accept Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu, and to support Motion E.
Finally, I turn to Motion F. The Bill grants a number of police powers to DWP officials, including the power to use reasonable force. The original Amendment 97 would have restricted the use of reasonable force by DWP officials to force against items and property—the example we have been given many times is breaking into a filing cabinet—rather than allowing force against people.
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for the Government amendments in lieu. These, in effect, turn the amendment around. Rather than taking the general power to use reasonable force but then restricting it to items and property, as the original amendment did, the amendments in lieu removed the general power to use reasonable force but introduce a bespoke power for DWP officials to use reasonable force only against items and property. Ultimately, that is very much the same thing.
I am pleased that the amendments in lieu retain the oversight of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is an important safeguard. With thanks to the Minister for her engagement on this, I urge noble Lords to accept the amendments in lieu and support Motion F.
With these amendments and the others that have been proposed, the safeguards around the use of the significant new powers that the Bill will give to the Cabinet Office and DWP have been strengthened. This is a very good example of how this House can improve legislation. I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House who have been so supportive and constructive throughout the process, and particularly the Ministers, for their always constructive engagement throughout, which has allowed us to make real improvements to the Bill. It now achieves a better balance between achieving what is intended—to reduce fraud and error—while being fairer and better protecting vulnerable people.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive approach. It has not always answered all the questions but it has gone a long way towards that. I put on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his constructive initiatives on which some of these amendments are based, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for all the informative stuff that has come from her.
I will speak first to Motion C. The Lords amendment was agreed upon by this Chamber to ensure that the impacts of this legislation on the most vulnerable in society are properly considered by the Secretary of State. While I stress that the Government have been forthcoming in offering compromise solutions, it is disappointing that they did not offer any real alternative solution. I was pleased to see the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place push this issue to a vote and was disappointed that neither Labour nor the Conservatives supported this amendment. Disappointing as this is, I appreciate that the Government and Parliament have made their mind up on the issue and I am not going to break ranks and push a vote on it.
The Bill introduces an independent review on the use of eligibility verification powers. This Lords amendment expands the scope of the review to ensure that the costs are proportionate, to consider whether the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers in Schedule 3B has had any adverse effect on vulnerable people, and to consider the ability of benefits claimants to access banking services. As noble Lords know, we on these Benches supported the Lords amendment. The Government have, sadly, disagreed, saying that it is not appropriate to make further provision about reviews relating to eligibility verification measures. While it is disappointing that the Government have not looked to be as constructive as we would like them to be, it is clear that we are unlikely to make further progress on this than that which we have reached. On that basis, I do not intend to challenge the Commons response.
I turn to Motion E. The use of reasonable force— a point I raised a lot at earlier stages—lies at the heart of guaranteeing civil liberties for all citizens and ensuring that no innocent party is treated unfairly and without cause. The original Lords amendment would have prevented authorised officers using force against a person during entry, search and seizure. I am pleased that the amendment in lieu continues this principle, while explicitly outlining that it is only constables who are trained in the proportional use of force who will be able to use reasonable force in respect of persons. We spoke about force on filing cabinets, but it is persons we are really concerned about.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will therefore support the Government’s amendments in lieu, but we will continue to make sure that the powers granted in this legislation relating to the use of force are used proportionately. We will carefully scrutinise the independent review that has been promised on the exercise of the functions, including the reasonable use of force, which the Secretary of State must commission and later publish. I hope the Minister will give us some idea of when that is going to be published. Any assurance the Minister can give the House on this independent review and when it will come will be very much appreciated.
On that basis, we welcome the constructive comments that the Government have made and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made in introducing these amendments. We do not intend to press further on these issues.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as we come to this final group of government amendments on the DWP section of the Bill, I begin by recognising the real progress that has been made on the DWP use of PACE powers and eligibility verification provisions—progress that has been driven by this House’s detailed scrutiny and the persistence of Members from all sides, not least the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Throughout, we on these Benches have sought to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance—strong on fraud prevention but fair, proportionate and mindful of its impact on vulnerable people. We therefore welcome the Government’s concessions in several areas, which have come about as a result of the sustained pressure applied by this House.
Amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism. Our overriding concern has been the impact on vulnerable individuals and those at risk of financial exclusion. The system must not lead to people being debanked, subject to excessive deductions or left unable to access essential services. We are pleased that the Government have now committed to an assurance that Parliament will be able to engage with the independent reviewer after Royal Assent to explore these issues, and that the concerns that we have raised here and in the other place will be formally shared with the reviewer.
I am grateful that the Minister in the other place claimed the may/must change as a government initiative—imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery—but it was in fact first proposed from these Conservative Benches. That is another example of the constructive scrutiny that has improved the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister will be keen to correct this on the record.
We welcome the Government’s concession in Amendments 84A and 84B. These make it clear that human decision-makers must have regard to all relevant information and ensure that human judgment remains embedded in the process. This protects against the risks of mechanistic or AI-driven decision-making, not only now but into the future as these technologies evolve and become more widespread. This is a sensible safeguard and a direct result of arguments advanced in your Lordships’ House.
Regarding PACE powers, I am pleased that the Government have finally accepted that DWP investigators should not be able to use reasonable force against individuals. This corrects a serious drafting flaw in the text of the Bill and aligns its provisions with the Government’s stated policy. It makes the law safer, clearer and more coherent. I really thank the Minister for her valiant efforts in this area. However, it is surprising, especially given that it protects the integrity of the Government’s stated policy, that it should have required so much persuasion from your Lordships’ House for the Government to get to this position.
As a result of the changes made to the Bill in this House, the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the DWP will be better equipped to act against frauds while operating within a framework of stronger safeguards. Because of efforts on these Benches and others, the PSFA will be proactive but also more accountable and transparent. As a result of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and other noble Lords, vulnerable people will be better protected and represented in the independent review, and the use of artificial intelligence will be subject to clearer human oversight. Fundamentally, the use of PACE powers will be strictly limited to property, not people.
Having said all that, there are still gaps in the Bill. The Government have yet to engage seriously with the growing problem of sickfluencers, online figures who use their platforms to encourage and advise people to make fraudulent benefits claims. Unless the Government begin to analyse and address this issue, they risk falling behind and missing the opportunity to tackle a significant driver of future fraud risk. We welcome the progress achieved, but we will continue to raise the issues we have championed during the passage of this Bill and keep a watchful eye on how its provisions are enacted. The Bill now better reflects the need to protect the public purse from fraud and the duty to safeguard the public. It leaves your Lordships’ House in a far better place than when it arrived and demonstrates once again, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, the constructive and vital work of this House.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful that all noble Lords who have contributed have conceded that we have reached a point where we are all now content to move forward with this important Bill.
On the specifics, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked whether we would move forward without any other information. DWP will always hold some other information on benefit claims, but it is crucial that appropriate weight can be given to EVM information if necessary. That is the reason we took the approach we did in the new amendment, because it makes clear that, where EVM information is relevant to a question, DWP must also consider non-EVM information that is also relevant. That other information could take different forms; it could be about the presence or absence for disregard or other information, as I went through. I hope that helps.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 75A.
“(4) In this paragraph, “authorised officer” includes “authorised investigator”.”
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 84 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu.
“(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where—
(a) an authorised officer is considering whether to give an information notice under section 109BZA in relation to a person, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether to give the information notice.
(3) The authorised officer must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether to give the information notice, including information that is not EVM information.
(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State is considering whether to suspend payments of a benefit to a person in accordance with regulations under section 21 or 22 of the Social Security Act 1998, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether to suspend the payments.
(5) The Secretary of State must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether to suspend the payments, including information that is not EVM information.
(6) Sub-paragraph (7) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State is considering whether a decision taken under section 8, 9 or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 in relation to a person (“the earlier decision”) should be revised or superseded, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether the earlier decision should be revised or superseded.
(7) The Secretary of State must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether the earlier decision should be revised or superseded, including information that is not EVM information.”
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 97 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 97A, 97B, 97C, 97D, 97E and 97F in lieu.
“(4A) An authorised investigator may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of a power conferred by a provision of the 1984 Act as applied by subsections (3) and (4).
(4B) Subsections (4C) to (4E) apply where a person has the same powers as an authorised investigator by virtue of section 16(2A) of the 1984 Act as applied by subsections (3) and (4).
(4C) Where the person is a constable, the constable may use reasonable force in respect of property or persons if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(4D) Where the person is not a constable, the person may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(4E) But a person may use reasonable force under subsection (4D) only in the company, and under the supervision, of an authorised investigator.”
“(6) An authorised investigator exercising powers granted by a warrant under paragraph 1 may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of those powers.
(7) Sub-paragraphs (8) to (10) apply where, by virtue of paragraph 3(3), a person other than an authorised investigator may exercise powers granted by a warrant under paragraph 1.
(8) Where the person is a constable, the constable may use reasonable force in respect of property or persons if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(9) Where the person is not a constable, the person may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(10) But a person may use reasonable force under sub-paragraph (9) only in the company, and under the supervision, of an authorised investigator.
(11) Sub-paragraphs (6) to (9) do not permit the use of force to enforce the requirement described in paragraph 2(1)(f).”
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we had a vigorous debate on the Bill at Second Reading last week, and I thank each and every noble Lord who participated in that debate. I understand and respect the concerns that have been raised, both inside and outside this House. It is worth repeating what I said last week: this Government are committed to supporting—indeed, encouraging—the thorough scrutiny of this Bill throughout its progression.
Noble Lords will understand the reason for the delay to the committal Motion last week. The Opposition’s lack of notice to the House regarding their amendment to the Motion made it impractical to proceed. I am pleased that, now the dust has settled, we are able to proceed with the committal Motion as originally planned. I reassure noble Lords that this short interruption will not impact the timing of Committee, which will be on 18 and 25 November.
The debate at Second Reading reflected the strength of feeling across the House on this important issue, and I will take this opportunity to address some of those concerns. Last week, we heard the concern across the House that Chagossian perspectives were not sufficiently reflected in the treaty and the Bill. I respect and understand this concern. However, noble Lords will also know that there is a considerable diversity of opinion across Chagossian communities. To inform further debate on this matter, and to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the Chagossian community, the Government invite the International Relations and Defence Committee to engage a range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the Diego Garcia treaty, and to produce a report. This process will not hold up the passage of the Bill but will be a welcome addition to debate in the House. It will be for the committee to determine the timing of the report, and I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who has agreed in principle to undertake this work.
I also welcome the challenge we heard to increase the participation of Chagossians in political processes. Noble Lords will know that the Government have established a Chagossian contact group to provide Chagossians with a formal role in decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. Following last week’s debate, the Government will explore opportunities to enhance that group by increasing its transparency and frequency. We are clear, however, that any decisions about the contact group must be made in agreement with its existing members. The Government will engage the group on this question shortly.
Further concerns were raised at Second Reading about the Chagossian trust fund and British Chagossians’ eligibility for resettlement. The Government are committed to making a Statement about both to the House as soon as can be practically achieved. Noble Lords will understand that this should happen only with the agreement of the Mauritian Government, which the Government are urgently pursuing.
I welcome the discussion we had on the Bill’s defence and security provisions. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that I am committed to writing a response to the forensic questions that she asked last week. This response will be sent later this week and a copy will be laid in the Library of the House.
Finally, I am aware that noble Lords have a strong interest in the protection of the environment around the Chagos Islands. Last week, I mentioned that the Government have welcomed the announcement of the Mauritian Prime Minister’s Office on 3 November, confirming Mauritian plans for the establishment of a marine protected area after entry into force of the treaty. This protected area will utilise the internationally recognised categories of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There will be no commercial fishing across the entire 640,000 square kilometre area. The Great Chagos Bank will be given one of the highest levels of protection, with the rest of the MPA categorised as a highly protected conservation zone. Noble Lords will be reassured that there will be limited provision for controlled levels of artisanal fishing in confined zones intended for resettlement to allow for subsistence fishing by any Chagossian communities that resettle, while maintaining the commitment to nature conservation.
It is clear that this Bill is fundamental to the operation of the base on Diego Garcia and the protection of national security. The Government have also demonstrated their firm commitment to supporting Chagossians and enhancing environmental protections for the archipelago. I look forward to further debate on these important issues in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Callanan will respond to the Minister on behalf of these Benches, but I have been requested to make a brief intervention on defence and security. I am rather in the horns of a dilemma; I feel as though I am being asked to judge the weight of the baby when the baby has not yet been born, because I do not know what the Minister’s letter will say until I receive it. However, I thank her and her colleagues for their genuine and close engagement with me, my noble friend Lord Callanan and our colleagues as we endeavour to clarify issues.
The assurance I seek from the Minister at the Dispatch Box is this. It is possible that, when we receive her letter, we may disagree with the Government’s interpretation. We may consider that areas of ambiguity and doubt remain and would reserve the right to bring forward amendments in Committee. I would be very disappointed if the Government’s response were that these amendments were out of scope of the Bill and that all matters are dealt with by the agreement. That would be a very unfortunate response, so I seek a reassurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that, if we tabled amendments on defence and security issues, the Government would be prepared to debate them.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I mentioned last week the Chagos Refugee Group led by Olivier Bancoult, the biggest group of Chagossians. I want to quote two paragraphs from a statement that he has made today:
“I wish to explain how important it is for the British Government to make amends for the cruel treatment of our Chagossian community, by endorsing the Diego Garcia and BIOT Bill at the Committee stage in the House of Lords … With the UK government set to return Chagos to its rightful sovereign, we urge all House of Lords members to support and pass this measure to aid the Chagossian community. To delay or frustrate it will cause further societal damage to our worldwide community”.
I think that injunction is worth taking on board.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is the bit of unfinished business from last week—it is a little more temperate too, so far. I note the agreement between the Conservative Opposition and the Labour Government to advance the Bill to its next stages in implementing the treaty. These Benches hold our committees in this House in high regard. I am certain that the IRDC will carry out the work diligently and provide much valued information for us in advance of Report.
I hope that amendments that any Member might wish to bring in Committee will be considered in the normal way, within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. Questions have been raised consistently by these Benches on right of return, determining the views of the Chagossian community on self-determination, the legal underpinning of the MPA—it is a positive development but we nevertheless seek further information on how it will be guaranteed and underwritten in Mauritian law—oversight of expenditure to the benefit of the Chagossian community in particular, and the mechanisms by which the community, whose rights have been denied them for generations, as my noble friend said, can have rights going forward. We hope that all these aspects can be aired properly in Committee and, if we seek to test the opinion of the House, on Report. I note the agreement between the Opposition and the Government. We should get on with considering the issues that these Benches have raised consistently.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government and the Chief Whip in particular for the constructive discussions we have had since Second Reading. As the House will be aware, we took the unusual step of tabling an amendment to the committal Motion last week which would have required a government consultation of the Chagossian community before the beginning of Committee. Surprisingly, the Government then withdrew their committal Motion.
I am pleased that, following discussions in the usual channels over the past week, the Government have confirmed that Report will now not commence before the new year, allowing more time for proper scrutiny of this important Bill. This will allow the views of the Chagossian community to be taken into account as part of our scrutiny of the Bill on Report. It is very welcome news that the Government have committed to publishing further details of the Chagossian contact group and on the trust fund for the Chagossians.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about being asked to judge the weight of the baby before the baby is born, I am in a similar position on her amendments. Without knowing what she intends to attempt to table, it is very difficult to know whether they will be in scope. Obviously, the clerks of the House will advise on this. However, I can assure her and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who also raised this, that the Government intend to approach Committee in a constructive way. When helpful amendments are tabled that would improve the Bill and not interrupt the implementation of the treaty but enhance it, particularly around engagement with the Chagossian community, we will debate them as we normally do and we can resolve issues, should we need to, on Report. I very much look forward to getting on with that process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, was probably one of the best-informed participants in our debate last week—she shakes her head very modestly—and I thank her for reminding us of the diversity of opinion there clearly is among Chagossian communities. I expect and hope that this surfaces as part of the committee’s work.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the constructive way in which he has approached this so far. We are still at the early stages but, having worked with him for some time now, I expect that this is how we will continue. I very much look forward to committee so that we can thrash some of this out, get some answers to questions that noble Lords quite rightly have of the Government, and do our job, as this Chamber so often does, with the rigour, passion and diligence that we always apply. I beg to move.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
“Provision of interpreters and translators under the Immigration Rules(1) The Secretary of State must amend paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules as follows.(2) For “an interpreter”, in both places in which it appears, substitute “a qualified, professional interpreter”.(3) After “interpreter”, in both places in which it appears, insert “or translator”.(4) After “case,” insert “or engage with any of the procedures or requirements contained in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025,”.(5) Omit “The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview.””
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the three amendments in this group are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is unfortunately unable to be in the Chamber this evening. I thank him for his support. I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, his officials and the Bill team for the meetings they have had with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and for taking our concerns seriously and sympathetically. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
My amendments are designed to clarify and specify once and for all that, where interpreters and translators are needed by asylum seekers and others to whom the procedures in the Bill would apply, those interpreters and translators must be qualified professionals and, as I said in Committee, not just someone who happens to speak a bit of the language in question—someone from the office or a friend or neighbour, for example. We are talking about serious, possibly life-changing circumstances, and about procedures which will involve technical and specialist knowledge and vocabulary. The use of properly qualified interpreters is for the benefit not just of the individuals concerned but of the Home Office, because it is important for claimants to have their case accurately presented in order to avoid errors of fact or in understanding which could lead to time-consuming and costly appeals.
In the helpful discussions I have had, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has brought my attention to Immigration Rule 339ND, which says, in part:
“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary”.
So far, so good. I have also been made aware of the Home Office’s Interpreters Code of Conduct, which I had not come across before but provides a very strong foundation for what I am trying to achieve, even though there are some gaps there.
Apart from the need to clarify that interpreters and translators should be professional and qualified, my concerns are twofold. First, translators as well as interpreters should be included in the rules, regulations and the code. For example, the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 mention only interpreters, not translators. These are two very different functions, requiring different skills and different training. Secondly, it must be made clear that the code—which is, after all, guidance and not statutory—is rigorously monitored for compliance.
On the question of translators, I understand that the reason why they are not currently included in the code of conduct or in regulations is because translation services are contracted out. Therefore, I would like to know a little more about the outsourcing process and contract, in particular whether there is consistency in the standards of professionalism and qualifications required of translators and interpreters alike.
I understand that the Government are reluctant to place those two key words of mine—“professional” and “qualified”—in the Bill in case that should lead to a loss of flexibility in cases where there is a need for an interpreter of a rare language for which the standard qualifications for public service interpreters simply are not available, meaning that the Home Office has to turn elsewhere for someone suitable. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain a bit more about why they feel this hesitation, especially in view of the fact that the National Register of Public Service Interpreters has its own protocols for interpreters of rare languages in this very situation.
I did not encounter that sort of hesitation or reluctance over those two words, “professional” and “qualified”, when we debated the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. At that time, Labour, in opposition, strongly supported an amendment to the victims’ code to make it say:
“If you have difficulty understanding or speaking English, you have the Right to”
be provided with a qualified professional interpreter to help you to understand and communicate effectively. I have been a bit nervous about promises to amend guidance and codes, simply because that amendment to the victims’ code has never happened.
However, I have had a much more positive experience with the Ministry of Justice on another issue. In lieu of amendments I proposed to the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2022, the MoJ responded very positively by commissioning a detailed, independent review of the qualifications and experience required of interpreters in our courts and tribunals. That has proved to be a successful exercise, which, when fully implemented, will no doubt improve both services and justice, as well as save the Government money by avoiding case adjournments and appeals.
I would very much like to hear something similar and convincing tonight, to reassure me that any strengthening or clarification of the Home Office’s code of conduct—however good a starting point it most certainly already is—will actually be undertaken and not just promised. That should happen in short order and be independently conducted with the involvement of stakeholders in the sector. If that were to be undertaken, along with an assurance about the consistency of standards for translators, I believe that my concerns about professionalism and qualifications could be satisfied without troubling the House to divide on the amendments. For now, I beg to move.
Amendment 79ZA (to Amendment 79)
Baroness Coussins
“(6) After “wherever necessary” insert “and in compliance with the Interpreters Code of Conduct version 5.0”.”
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I second what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has said, in the same way as I supported her in Committee. I was pleased to join her in one meeting with the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and I apologise that I was unable to do so again yesterday. He has been very helpful in making himself available to discuss this subject.
Although the merits of the issue speak for themselves, I was specifically drawn to supporting the noble Baroness because I was involved, in a previous life, in promoting access to interpretation and translation services for defendants in the criminal justice system—that was an EU directive. Therefore, I wanted to transfer my support to the area of asylum law.
I will say a few words on EU-derived law. The noble Baroness mentioned the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. I was interested to see a reference to that in a letter, which was also kindly made available to me, that the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble Baroness on 24 October. That followed the meeting we had had with him and officials, in which it did not cross my mind to look at the implementation of the EU asylum procedures directive. This stuff is all getting quite old for me now; I was involved in the debates on that directive in 2005—good heavens, that was 20 years ago. I was interested, if a little surprised, to see the UK regulations which implemented that directive mentioned, after our meeting, in the letter of 24 October. In it, the Minister says:
“The Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 … implemented basic standards for asylum system procedures including translation provision as part of the UK’s transposition of Council Directive 2005/85/EC … on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Regulation 5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals and in proceedings in the higher courts. This regulation remains in force”.
I think that there is some confusion or confounding of translation and interpretation in that paragraph.
The second to last sentence there is right that:
“Regulation 5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals”.
I have checked the directive and, indeed, it refers only to interpreting; it does not refer to the translation of documents. However, this paragraph in the letter referred to “translation provision”. It is absolutely true that those two terms sometimes get conflated, but I think I have properly understood that the Government are saying that this applies only to interpretation.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, these amendments raise a very important point, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for opening the group with the arguments she made. The important point is the need to ensure that interpretation and translation services in our asylum and immigration system are both adequate and effective. Self-evidently, clear and accurate communication is essential to the fairness and integrity of any decision-making process, and that is particularly true in cases which can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. The amendments before us seek to strengthen the standards applied to interpreters and translators. In principle, that is a very sensible and worthwhile aim.
Before we consider making changes to the existing framework, it would be more helpful to understand from the Minister the current position in a little more detail. The noble Baroness laid out specific deficiencies that she believes are presently affecting the system in providing these services. Objective standards are important, but some are already in place under the current arrangements, such as the interpreters code of conduct—the noble Baroness mentioned this and the need for a review of that code in her speech. If there are demonstrable gaps or failings in quality assurance, that would certainly merit attention. Indeed, we would welcome assurances from the Minister on this point that the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, are being actively addressed. Equally, if existing mechanisms are already achieving those aims, we should be cautious about introducing additional prescription, which may duplicate what is already in operation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need international protection. Similarly, for the asylum decision-maker, and indeed for the whole of the Government’s processes, it helps draw out and test the evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said in moving the amendments, paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules provides that:
“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary. The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview”.
Interpreters are required to interpret to a high standard on a range of protection-based and human rights topics, including, although not limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation, sexuality and gender-based claims, all types and forms of persecution, physical and mental health, and political activity.
It is really important that we are having this debate. I am again very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Ludford, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also salute the indefatigability of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this subject, being flexible and meeting myself and officials to get clarification on this important subject area.
Amendments 79ZA and 79F seek to amend the provisions relating to interpreters in the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. Amendment 79F seeks to include the provision that interpreters must be professionally qualified. For an interpreter to join the Home Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or hold one of the qualifications or assessments listed in the Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred. The code exists to ensure that expected standards of conduct and behaviour are met and that any potential misconduct issues are addressed at an early stage.
Throughout this process, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has been tenacious in stressing the importance of experience and professional standards. We feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and its practice. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional and impartial manner and respect confidentiality at all times, irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person, remotely via video conference or by audio only. Prompt and decisive action is taken when the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.
The Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join its panel to already be a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—NRPSI—or hold a specified qualification or assessment. There may be instances, where a language is particularly rare, when the Home Office will accept documented proof of hours worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or charity, but these are assessed on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by a senior manager. We wish to preserve the spirit of flexibility that the current system has for these exceptional cases, and specification in the Bill might prohibit that sort of approach to a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is required.
The minimum standards are long-standing and demonstrate that interpreters already need to prove that they are proficient before being accepted on to the Home Office interpreters panel. They also allow for a level of flexibility which ensures that even those who speak rarer languages can be serviced by the Home Office, protecting the proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all, published on GOV.UK.
It is considered that amending the Immigration Rules in the way envisaged by the amendment would have little impact. The code of conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the standards of conduct and behaviour that interpreters are required to meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a declaration of confidentiality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code. Feedback is collected on interpreter performance, and any incidents of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best interests of the department, the interpreter, the wider public and, of course, the claimant. The way in which the code of conduct is managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for sensitive, asylum and immigration cases.
Interpreters must comply with any requests from the Interpreter & Language Services Unit for information within the time specified. If there is evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of conduct, interpreter monitoring may be considered, to determine any further action.
The amendment also seeks to include “translator” within the provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations. This relates to providing at public expense a translator to allow an applicant to submit their case and appeal their claim, as well as a translator to ensure appropriate communication at interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her contribution, raised a number of questions around the role of translation in the Home Office rules and code of conduct; I will come to what she was referring to in a short time.
The asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are in a foreign language, the asylum decision-maker must ask what it is and what relevance it has. If the document is or could be useful, they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit a translation, noting this on the interview record.
Specifically on translation services, to be clear, the code applies to anyone conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Office contract for written translation is held by thebigword, whose stringent quality control processes in place should ensure that translations meet the high standards required.
Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for the amendments and indeed the wider debate we have had on this issue both tonight and in Committee, the Government see no reason why the existing framework should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that reason I invite her to withdraw the amendments.
As I said, it is important that we are able to retain some flexibility in the way that we provide interpreter services particularly, specifically because of very rare languages. Too much specificity in the Bill could constrict the effective service that we want to provide to asylum seekers and might also have a negative impact on our ability to provide a fair, effective and efficient system.
However, I am pleased to say that, following our extensive discussions with officials, I am happy to commit from the Dispatch Box that the Home Office will work with stakeholders to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct and provision of translation services—to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—including a section in the code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional experience, including reference to NRPSI standards, as I have set out. Given that additional commitment tonight and the conversations that we have had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and that she will see fit to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, very much for his response, and I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her support. I am encouraged that my concerns have been well understood and I appreciate the commitment to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct, including the involvement of stakeholders and the commitment to look at the role of translators as well as interpreters. At this stage, I ask only that the Government resist kicking this issue into touch and forgetting it, as happened with the victims’ code, but go very quickly to agree a timetable as soon as possible for the review, which I warmly welcome. On that hopeful note, I thank the Minister once again and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Annual report: grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report setting out how many individuals, identified as victims of modern slavery through the National Referral Mechanism, received a grant of asylum or refugee status and—(a) arrived illegally;(b) arrived legally but are no longer in the United Kingdom on a legal basis, including those who have—(i) overstayed their visa, or(ii) violated other terms of their immigration status; and(c) have been detained for removal.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter.”
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, these amendments are tabled after I tried and failed to obtain information that I believe is in the public interest from the Government, from Written Questions and research, including detailed briefings from the Library. Amendment 79C, on modern slavery, would require the Government to publish an annual report of grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds. We currently do not know precisely if, or to what extent, the national referral mechanism and modern slavery support system is being abused as a loophole for illegal migration. When people suggest that it is, we are told that we do not have any evidence for this. Why do we not have this evidence? The Government do not publish any.
I laid out the statistics that underline my concerns in earlier debates, so I will not repeat them. It is not in the interests of charities or those working with victims to agree that the system could be being abused. However, it should be the duty of the Government to demonstrate that public money is being well spent and that we know who is a genuine victim and who is not. I would hope that any Minister serving in the Home Office would welcome this amendment, so that they can hold operational departments to account for their performance. If it is the case that nobody is abusing the system, everybody would be very pleased and satisfied. However, the current approach of the Government does seem, I am afraid, to be just to hope that we will give up asking those difficult questions.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that Matthew Firth is not a bishop of the Church of England?
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, it is my understanding that he is an Anglican bishop, but I will let him speak for himself on this matter. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I resist Amendment 79D. This amendment and Amendment 79E in the next group are both motivated by reports that asylum seekers are choosing to convert to Christianity upon arrival in the UK in order to support their claim for asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. Amendment 79E is of deep concern. I will address this in the next group.
Regarding Amendment 79D, I have no objection in principle to this data being collected, apart from the fact that both it and Amendment 79E are motivated by a desire to make an issue of something that is not an issue.
This is not the first time that this House has examined the question of faith-based asylum claims. Under the previous Government, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence on this very topic to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, as noble Lords have heard. Noble Lords will recall that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield referenced the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford’s contributions in a recent supplementary question when addressing claims of the use of Anglican churches as
“a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 4.]
Noble Lords will be aware that not only did the Committee find no evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through forced conversions but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary regarding this claim. From our previous discussions with the Home Office on this issue, we do not believe that the data spoken of in Amendment 79D can easily be extracted. It seems to me that there are many more problems to be solved in our asylum system before addressing this data point.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I want to draw attention to one factor which has been represented to us here. All the evidence seems to be addressed to the Anglican Church, which of course is the Church of England, and for those of us who belong to a disestablished church in another part of the United Kingdom, these matters have never been discussed or raised with us.
Debating an English-only issue in a Bill which relates to asylum seekers across the whole of the United Kingdom is worrisome, but introducing a statutory requirement for breaking down asylum grants by religion risks shifting the focus away from the merits of individual claims towards demographic patterns. The cornerstone of a fair protection system is that every asylum claim must be determined solely on its merits. The Minister told us in earlier debate on this matter that no judgment is taken on cohorts of people; it is solely on the merits of a case.
The objective of the state must be to focus its resources on those fleeing regimes where oppression and violence are a real and present danger. Decisions should not be driven by statistics based on demographic information, such as religious affiliation, but by the specific personal risks of persecution faced by the applicant upon return. Although transparency is welcome, requiring reporting that segregates data by religion risks underpinning policies that lead to blanket refusals or differential treatment that disregards the crucial individual assessment needed for effective asylum decision-making.
We must ensure that our system focuses on those who truly need our help—the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. Based on the principles of individual justice and effective resource management, we reject these amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for Amendments 79C and 79D. Both amendments are proportionate and consistent with the principles that underpin the Bill; namely, that our asylum and immigration system should be firm, fair and founded on clear evidence.
There is a common theme that has run through a number of amendments tabled by these Benches in this Bill and that is transparency. If we are to build and sustain confidence in how this country handles claims for asylum, and particularly those made on sensitive grounds such as modern slavery or religious persecution, we must ensure the facts are available and that Parliament can see them clearly set out. Without good data, good policy is impossible.
Amendment 79C would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on how many individuals identified through the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery go on to receive asylum or refugee status. This is a vital area of public concern. The link between the asylum system and modern slavery referrals has grown significantly in recent years, and questions have been raised about whether that system is being exploited by those seeking to frustrate legitimate removal or immigration control processes.
An annual report as proposed would shine a light on the outcome of modern slavery referrals, who is granted asylum, on what grounds, and through which routes they arrived. It is about evidence-based policy-making, and it would strengthen, not weaken, our collective efforts against the crime of modern slavery.
Amendment 79D addresses another area that demands careful scrutiny: asylum claims based on religion—in particular, cases where an individual has converted to a new faith after arrival in the United Kingdom. Again, this is a matter that touches on deeply held convictions and our tradition of religious liberty, but it is also an area where the integrity of the system must be beyond reproach. Legitimate concerns have been expressed in this House and beyond about the authenticity of some claimed conversions—for example those said to have been made to Christianity—and the consistency of decision-making in those cases. I simply suggest that we cannot be squeamish about addressing this. My noble friend has asked several Written Questions on this matter. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
My noble friend’s amendment is agnostic on this issue. It does not preclude asylum claims being granted on the basis of religious conversion, nor does it state that all such claims should be declined. It does not prejudge any claim or seek to cast doubt on anyone’s faith. It requires the Home Office to publish each year a factual report on how many asylum claims were granted on religious grounds and, crucially, how many of those cases involved a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. That data will be broken down by religion and laid before Parliament. That is transparency in action. It would not alter a single individual’s right to claim asylum or change the grounds on which such claims are assessed, but it would give Parliament and the public the information necessary to scrutinise and understand how such claims are being made and determined, and give reassurance to genuine converts and the faith communities that support them that the system operates fairly and consistently. The amendments are about ensuring that government policy is grounded in evidence and that Parliament can fulfil its duty of oversight.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for tabling the amendments before us. They have certainly begun a short debate. I regret to inform her that I will not be able to accept them. I hope that she can withdraw them, but I will give her an explanation as to why.
The amendments seek to make the Government publish two annual reports. Amendment 79C would commit the Government to an annual report on asylum and refugee grants for those identified in the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery, and Amendment 79D would provide for an annual report on how many of the cohort of asylum seekers were granted asylum based on their religion or religious conversion.
The important point, which I think has been recognised across the House, is that every asylum claim is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Each claimant is given the opportunity to explain their reasons for seeking protection in the UK through an asylum interview. Although individual records are, of course, maintained for each claim and record the reasons for a grant of asylum, we do not publish statistics which set out in total all the reasons why individuals fear persecution. The Home Office publishes a significant amount of data on a range of different aspects of the asylum system, but not in the way that the noble Baroness asks for.
I take very strongly the comments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on her view, and that of other members of the Church, of the issue of religious persecution. Faith and belief—or, indeed, lack thereof—can be very complex. Just like the pride we have in providing protection for those who need it, we should pride ourselves on the religious freedoms that we enjoy in the United Kingdom. I want to continue protecting those who need it, particularly when they face persecution for having a belief that differs from the faith they are expected or, indeed, forced to have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, wishes for the annual report to include the number of those who changed their religion after arriving in the UK. Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with changing your religion when you arrive in the UK. Those matters will be explored in the individual claim when it is presented by a claimant and, as part of the process, decision-makers must take into consideration and test the claimant’s motivation, for those adopting a new faith and those who have renounced their previous faith.
Officials at the Home Office have worked with stakeholders, including the Church, to ensure that asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution are well considered, that those in genuine need are supported, and that there are no loopholes for claiming asylum in this country.
As a resident of Wales myself, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the Church of England is one aspect of Christian religion and there may be other aspects, and indeed other religions, where persecution results in change. That could be due to marriage, personal beliefs, or a whole range of reasons, and these will be tested in the individual interview.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for his consideration of the points I have raised. I thank my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel for his comments supporting my amendment and the right reverend Prelate, who has also spoken, although she has obviously opposed what I have suggested.
I agree that these are sensitive issues and, having served in the Home Office previously, I understand how difficult, practically, some of this data is to collect. Nevertheless, we should not shy away from demanding transparency on a matter of such importance, so that the public have confidence in this system. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Interpretation of the Refugee Convention in cases of religious conversion(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.(2) In section 30 (Refugee Convention: general), at end insert—“(7) Any person, court or tribunal making a determination as to whether a person is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention under sections 31 to 38 must not grant refugee status as a result of religious persecution where the person converted to the religion concerned after arriving in the United Kingdom.”.”
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, this amendment in my name follows on from the previous group of amendments and seeks to go much further. I have no doubt that the Government will not accept this amendment and that many others in this House will reject it out of hand. The Government have already indicated in answers to the Questions I have tabled to the Home Office that they do not agree with this amendment.
We have seen reports of bathtub conversions in asylum hotels and of multiple asylum seekers in accommodation, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, seeking to convert to Christianity. Concerns have been raised about establishing whether or not these conversions are genuine. I recognise, as a Christian myself, that it is extremely difficult to look into a human heart and say what a person really believes. I also wish to protect our reputation as a country of religious freedom and as a refuge for those fleeing persecution around the world. At the same time, it is a leap of faith beyond any practical considerations to say that every single person in the reports is a genuine convert to Christianity.
We cannot shy away from this area of debate. I will seek to return to this subject during my future work in this House. I care deeply about the institutions of our country and our national culture, which is a Christian culture, and about our established Church, the Church of England. As a Conservative, I believe that we must fight to protect and defend these institutions from forces and individuals who could seek to destabilise and undermine their authority.
When I see our Christian faith being used as a fast track for subverting our British open-heartedness and tolerance, I feel it is simply wrong, and I know this view is shared by the general public. I am afraid I can find no evidence of anyone converting to Islam in order to avoid deportation or to lodge an asylum claim. Perhaps the Home Office Minister, in his response, can correct me if it is the case. It seems to me that it is always Christianity that is used in this way. While as Christians we are called to follow the teachings of Jesus, as policymakers we must be pragmatic and work with our knowledge of human nature, which is not perfect. There is evil in people’s hearts. With humility, we must recognise this and pray for forgiveness, but we must also open our eyes and be honest that incentives are strongly aligned for illegal migrants to lie and cheat, using Christian conversion and possibly other religious conversions too. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I believe that the first duty of our Government is to protect our borders. That means not being a soft touch for abusers and being able to show that our system is robust and discriminates between genuine and fake conversions. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, as noble Lords may imagine, I have deep concerns about Amendment 79E. The World Watch List 2025, produced by Open Doors, found that more than 380 million Christians worldwide were subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith last year, and just under 4,500 were killed for faith-related reasons. Data on the persecution of Christians makes it clear that people are willing to, and indeed do, die for their Christian faith today. We should tread extremely carefully when legislating on such profound matters.
What is more, conversion to the Christian faith is, for most, not like flicking a switch. It is a process that may take years. It is for many Christians not possible to point to a day or hour when they committed their lives to Jesus Christ. John Wesley called it “being strangely warmed”. A public declaration of faith is an important moment in that process, but if that declaration may cost you your life or the lives of those you love, you may think very carefully about when and where you make it. What better evidence in many ways of fear of religious persecution in a country of origin than that a person might wait until they are in the UK to publicly declare their faith? Amendment 79E does not recognise this context. It is also deeply problematic in its denial of the freedom of religion of people living in this country. I need hardly remind noble Lords of the horrors that promoted the creation of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As I said on the previous group in relation to Amendment 79D, under the previous Government, the Home Affairs Select Committee looked at the question of fake religious conversions to support asylum claims. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence to the committee. Not only did the Home Office fail to produce evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through fake conversions, but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary of the committee’s findings, which speaks for itself.
I imagine that there are some asylum seekers who might well believe that converting to Christianity will help their asylum claim. One can hardly be surprised about that, when some politicians keep implying that that is the case. Clergy are not naive. We train them to discern as best they can, through teaching, discussion, reflection, observation and prayer, whether a person, whoever they are, is ready for a public confession of faith through baptism. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, said, no one can see into the heart of another person: that remains between God and that person alone. It is not the job of clergy to assess asylum claims. The Home Office has stated that evidence from clergy or church members in an asylum case does not determine the outcome of a claim.
In January, the Church of England published a guidance document for clergy, Supporting Asylum Seekers; I understand that the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have also published similar materials. I am proud that the church into which I am called to serve welcomes, indeed embraces, any and all who express a genuine, considered and informed decision to follow Jesus Christ. Churches ought not to feel anxious about supporting and baptising asylum seekers if, to their best knowledge, the clergy are confident there is sincere desire for conversion and a commitment to Jesus Christ and discipleship.
We live in a world in which people regularly die for their Christian faith, and where many hide their Christian faith for fear of persecution. Thus it remains just as important now as it ever has been to offer protection, sanctuary and peace to all those who exercise their right to freedom of belief on our shores. Amendment 79E presents a concerning threat to this.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I must start with what may have been a slip of the tongue from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, when she talked about safeguarding this country’s conditions and living standards. In so doing, she mentioned the established Church. I have to say once more that it is the established Church in England; it was disestablished in Wales, and there is the Episcopalian Church in Scotland and so on. If we are trying to protect the nature of our society in its broadest context, we have to recognise that we are very diverse. We are diverse in religion, across nationalities and across language and diverse in all sorts of other ways as well. As a country, we should celebrate that diversity no matter where it comes.
This amendment introduces what I would call an inflexible barrier to protection based solely on the timing of a person’s religious conversion. The long-established principle in our asylum system is that claims must be evaluated strictly on their merits. Amendment 79E mandates a blanket refusal based on a characteristic—post-arrival religious conversion—rather than considering the genuine risks of persecution faced by that individual on return. We must focus ourselves on this matter.
Adopting such a provision would also place the United Kingdom in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention, which is built on core principles including non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement. The timing of religious conversion is a deeply personal matter. If a court or tribunal determines that a person genuinely holds a religious belief, established after arrival in this country, the removal of that belief protection solely because of when the conversion occurred would undermine the foundational commitment to non-refoulement. We must resist the temptation to attempt to fundamentally change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation—an approach which has rightly been scrutinised elsewhere.
We should not tie the hands of the courts and decision-makers by removing their ability to grant protection in cases where genuine risk of persecution has been proven, merely because the threat arises from faith adopted while seeking sanctuary here. For those reasons, we therefore uphold the principle that justice demands we look at the substance of the persecution claims regardless of when the circumstances giving to rise to them developed.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for this amendment which, as she said, addresses the interpretation of the refugee convention in cases where an individual claims asylum on the grounds of religious persecution following a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. The amendment would make it clear in statute that refugee status should not be granted solely on the basis of a claimed religious conversion that occurred after a person has entered the United Kingdom.
Again, the purpose of this amendment is not to question the sincerity of anyone’s personal faith, nor to diminish the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Rather, it seeks to uphold the integrity of our asylum framework and ensure that the refugee convention is applied as originally intended: to those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, not to those who have created new grounds for asylum only after arrival here. This is a matter of fairness and of public confidence. It is no secret that concerns have been raised, both within this House and among the wider public, about individuals who, having exhausted other immigration routes, subsequently claim asylum on the basis of a newly professed faith. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, how will the Government address this issue?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful, again, to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for her amendment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made a compelling case in arguing against the amendment. I thank her for her support, as I too will not be supporting the amendment.
I took the words “blanket refusal” from what the noble Lord, Lord German, said, which is a really important point on this amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment would mean that there was a blanket refusal for anybody who claimed status on the grounds of religious persecution, even if that person converted to a new religion after they arrived in the UK. It would mean there would potentially be people who would arrive in the UK, or who are here, and did not fear persecution when they left their country, but who may well have found religious faith on arrival in the United Kingdom, through a range of routes, and therefore would not be able to claim persecution before returning to their country. That does not seem fair to me. The 1951 refugee convention applies a definition regardless of where the fear of persecution arises. It includes situations where fear develops after arrival in the host country, in which case the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, would apply.
I took strongly what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the independence of decision-makers who will consider claims involving religious conversion. They will fully explore the motivation of that conversion and what it means in a person’s life. They will explore whether the conversion took place in the UK. It is reasonable, even taking on board the right reverend Prelate’s comments, to ask for some evidence of that conversion. As the right reverend Prelate said, ministers in the Church of England are not going to take every conversion on the face of it; they have a strong process to go through to ensure that someone is welcomed into the faith.
In cases of religious conversion, conversion alone does not guarantee refugee status. Ultimately, an individual could convert and say that that is the reason they should stay, but the decision-maker will look at whether the risk of return to the person’s country of origin has an implication for the credibility of the religious conversion, based on the evidence before them. Conversions may be rejected as not genuine or accepted as genuine but, even where a conversion is accepted, there has to be some form of detailed examination of an individual’s circumstances and the situation in the person’s country of origin.
In determining whether an individual has a well-founded fear of persecution, the assessment cannot be disregarded on the basis of actions taken after arrival in the UK, even where there is suspicion or evidence that such actions were taken in bad faith to generate or strengthen an asylum claim. Frankly, every claim must be judged on its merits according with the rule of law and our international obligations. Decision-makers scrutinise the timing of conversion and consistency with prior beliefs and behaviour. A finding of a person acting in bad faith can be relevant to the person’s credibility and whether they will face risk on return to their country of origin.
I cannot accept this amendment. If it were adopted it would reduce the volume of grants and potential bad faith claims, but it would also breach our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, which was put in place after a conflict that caused a significant number of refugees.
Sufficient guidance is in place for Home Office decision-makers to make a judgment on the basis of each claim. The noble Baroness’s amendment would cause difficulty and result in individuals who have genuinely converted being returned to their country of origin, maybe to face further persecution—which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is not a matter of being chided or ostracised but could result in their deaths because of their religious faith. I therefore cannot accept the amendment and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for listening to my comments and responding in such detail. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we should tread very carefully with this issue. I thank her for her detailed observations and welcome what she said about the work that she does with the clergy in relation to baptism of asylum seekers and conversion to the Christian faith.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord German, that I understand that there are vast numbers of denominations in the Christian Church. My comments should be interpreted as meaning the Christian faith and its various denominations, of which I am not an expert but many others are. We are talking about Christian baptism, which can include the Church of England and many other denominations, including churches in Wales, where the noble Lord lives.
As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out, this is a question of fairness. The fact that there is no evidence of abuse does not reassure those of us in this House who are concerned about this issue. The Minister mentioned that it is possible that bad-faith claims exist within the system. I say to him that we cannot find evidence of something if the Government are not going to look for it; I note they rejected my earlier amendments.
As I said at the beginning, I will return to this topic in further contributions to this House. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister would agree to meet me and his officials to discuss this further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(ba) section 42;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would bring clause 42 (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc) into force on Royal Assent.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 62 at page 67, line 33.