Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
This Government are committed to bringing the cost of living down, while supporting opportunity and aspiration across the whole of the UK. From March, regulated rail fares will be frozen for the first time in 30 years, meaning that over 1 billion journeys can be made in the coming year for the same price as this year. On top of that, the great British rail sale has returned, offering discounts on over 3 million tickets, making rail travel more affordable for everyone.
Chris Hinchliff
The fact that this Labour Government have frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years is hugely welcome, but for many of my constituents, recent years have felt like death by a thousand costs, and they desperately need to see rail fares come down even further. Would the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the amendment that I have tabled to the Railways Bill, which sets out an option for going even further and securing permanent reductions in rail fares for every traveller?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is completely right to raise the issue of affordability for the travelling public. After the relentless fare hikes under the last Government—ticket prices went up by 60%—I think the announcement by this Labour Government will be welcomed by millions of people who are using our trains this year. I will certainly ask the Rail Minister to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss his amendment. I can assure him that as we set up Great British Railways, affordability will be a key priority for that new organisation, alongside balancing costs for taxpayers.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
While keeping fares down is welcome, as is simplification, the Secretary of State will be aware that London North Eastern Railway introduced what it called a simplified system a few months ago, which has actually resulted in a number of increases, and that is causing considerable concern to my constituents and others. Does the Department intend to review LNER’s ticketing process in due course?
Heidi Alexander
Many of the cheapest fares on LNER are still available. In the long-distance fare trials, the vast majority of people will benefit from the simplified ticketing system. Of course, as these trials take place, we will want to review this process and ensure that we are providing good value for money for as many of the travelling public as possible.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
But it is not just LNER, is it? We have also heard worrying accounts about Greater Anglia and c2c, shortly after they have been nationalised. The Government say that fare simplification is one of their key objectives; fair enough, but there are increasing numbers of accounts of discounted tickets being removed in the name of fare simplification. How will the Secretary of State prevent the fare simplification process from turning into just the removal of discounts?
Heidi Alexander
As we extend contactless ticketing, passengers will benefit from simpler, more flexible travel, and the majority of single tickets will be the same price or even lower. We do not want this positive change to have any perverse impacts, so we will monitor it as it beds in.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. You wait for one bus question, and seven arrive at the same time! We are transforming local bus services through our Bus Services Act 2025, which empowers local authorities to deliver better services in a way that works for local people. To back this up with investment, we are putting £3 billion into supporting local leaders and bus operators across the country in improving bus services for millions of passengers.
Mr Dhesi
Many of my Slough constituents have been complaining for years about cuts to their bus services, so the Minister will appreciate why I lobbied so hard for a large increase in funding for public transport in our town. I want to place on record my immense gratitude for the huge amount—over £2.3 million—of funding for bus services in Slough, but does the Minister agree that the local council must now use that funding wisely to reduce bus fares and increase the number of bus routes available to long-suffering passengers?
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless work in campaigning for better bus services and funding for his constituents. I was delighted to confirm the over £3 billion of funding from 2026-27, including £5.1 million for Slough borough council. Local leaders should work to ensure that local authority bus grant funding is used to expand services, improve reliability and reduce fares for local people, and I support my hon. Friend in pressing his local council to do just that.
Perran Moon
The recent Pretty Poverty report highlighted just how vital buses are to the daily lives of Cornish people, and given the massive lack of investment in public transport by the Conservative Government, it is no wonder that Cornwall suffers from one of the highest figures for car ownership per capita in the country. With First Bus, one of our main operators, pulling out of Cornwall next month, constituents fear that essential routes will disappear. Will the Minister meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss how the integrated national transport strategy will ensure long-term funding for Cornwall’s bus network?
Simon Lightwood
I have met Go Ahead, which is working with the council to pick up services that otherwise would have been lost. The Government are providing long-term investment for bus services, totalling £30.2 million for Cornwall, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about bus services in Cornwall.
Luke Myer
I have raised many times in this place the state of our bus services in rural east Cleveland. I am grateful to the Government for the powers and funding that have come to Tees Valley for public transport, but we are still not seeing the benefits in east Cleveland. On 20 March, Tees Valley combined authority will vote on the next stage of bus funding. Does the Minister agree that it should prioritise our rural villages, which have been left behind for far too long?
Simon Lightwood
The Tees Valley Mayor has all the powers and funding from the Labour Government to fix the buses, so it is disappointing, if not surprising, that he is choosing not to do so. In the meantime, I applaud my hon. Friend’s efforts to ensure that east Cleveland is not forgotten, and I support his call to ensure that the available funding is used to better connect its villages.
Amanda Martin
Buses in Portsmouth are not meeting the accessibility requirements of visually impaired passengers, and my constituents report that bus colour displays are unsuitable, audio and visual stop announcements are not functioning, and drivers are not calling out stops or identifying visually impaired passengers at bus stops. My team has contacted the council, which has not provided a clear timeline for improving driver training or facilities. What is the Department doing to work with councils and service providers on improving accessibility?
Simon Lightwood
I am concerned to hear that. Disabled passengers much be able to use the buses as easily as non-disabled passengers, and from October, most local bus services must provide on-board audible and visual announcements. Our Bus Services Act 2025 will require authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, and mandate that all drivers complete disability assistance training. I too will write to my hon. Friend’s local council.
David Williams
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. In Stoke- on-Trent, the Labour-led council has already delivered lower fares and new and improved routes, such as the 9A, which links the communities of Mill Hill, Chell and Bradeley with Hanley and Tunstall. Will the Minister please outline how the multi-year settlement, including the amazing additional £72 million for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, will allow councils to lock in those gains and provide longer-term certainty for our passengers?
Simon Lightwood
The multi-year allocations that we are providing to local authorities will give passengers greater certainty about their local bus services, allowing local leaders better to decide how they want local bus provision to look for years to come. It is great news for local people that Labour-run Stoke-on-Trent council is cutting fares and improving routes, and I would urge Reform-led Staffordshire council to take a leaf out of the book of its Labour-led neighbour, and put Government funding to good use.
Julia Buckley
I welcome the additional £13 million in the multi-annual commitment for bus funding for Shropshire through the local authority bus grant. That will greatly improve connectivity for my constituents in Shrewsbury, who have missed out over the last decade, in which our bus services were depleted by 65%. Ministers will be delighted to hear that in Shrewsbury we recently launched a successful night bus trial, offering evening services right through to midnight, thanks to the support of local partners such as Shrewsbury BID, councils and the police. What further steps will the Department take to ensure that such services can be maintained and expanded in wonderful rural communities like Shrewsbury?
Simon Lightwood
The Government recently allocated Shropshire £13 million of bus funding from 2026-27, and for the first time the formula used to calculate allocations now includes consideration of rural areas. In addition, our Bus Services Act 2025 gives local leaders the tools to deliver the bus services on which communities can rely.
Jessica Toale
The subject of improving local bus routes, particularly those that connect the town centre, station and airport, frequently comes up in my conversations with Bournemouth West residents. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has received £6 million from the Government to sustain and improve bus services, but despite that, it is threatening to cut vital routes, such as the No.36, on which lots of elderly and vulnerable residents rely. Will the Minister join me in condemning that decision, and call on the council to protect the vital routes on which residents rely?
Simon Lightwood
Government funding to improve bus services for passengers should do just that, and should protect vital services. It is frankly shocking that Lib Dem-led Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council is cutting support for local bus services. I encourage the council to listen to my hon. Friend and ensure that the £17 million allocated to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole over the next three years delivers improved bus networks for her community.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In my rural north Yorkshire constituency, community bus providers—such as Stokesley Community Care, Hambleton Community Action, Reeth and District Community Transport and the Little White Bus—provide a vital lifeline for elderly residents, taking them to doctors’ appointments, and to social events to combat loneliness. Will the Minister join me in thanking and commending all the volunteers who make those services viable, and ensure that community bus providers remain uppermost in the Government’s mind as they think about bus policy, and perhaps about D1 licences, this year?
Simon Lightwood
The community bus network does a fantastic job, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the work of those organisations across the country.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Young people in my constituency have already seen the promised Aldridge train station scrapped by Labour, so will the Minister join me in calling on Mayor Parker to back young people by introducing a £1 bus fare cap for under 22s, like the one that Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen has already delivered in Teesside?
Simon Lightwood
As I have already mentioned, the Government have provided over £3 billion of funding across the country. Importantly, we are giving local leaders the power to take back control of their buses and decide how they operate, because they are closer to their communities and understand their needs better than someone here in Parliament.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The bus grant announced for the west was portrayed by the Government as a win, but in reality it was a real-terms cut. The three-year bus grant settlement announced by the Labour mayor last month is down 35% on the previous three-year allocation, and will result in real-terms cuts. How can the Government call that a win?
Simon Lightwood
The local authority bus grant allocations have been calculated using a fair and transparent approach that considers population size, levels of deprivation, the extent of existing bus services and, importantly, rurality. We are continuing to work to end the unfairness of the competitive “Hunger Games” style allocations of the previous Government.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Straight after questions, I have a meeting with the managing director of Stagecoach in my region. I have worked closely with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) to mitigate the impact of increased prices for young people travelling to school from villages like Horrabridge and Yelverton. We have had success on fare zone changes, with decreased fares for some, but—because of rural services—not all. When will my constituents see the benefits of the Bus Services Act, which the Minister has referred to, and what needs to happen locally for those benefits to be realised?
Simon Lightwood
I have already mentioned the fantastic benefits of the Bus Services Act. It gives local leaders the tools that they need to take back control of their bus services, and to shape them around their communities, through improved enhanced partnerships, franchising or local authority operated bus companies.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I receive regular correspondence from constituents raising concerns about unreliable bus services. These are especially problematic in areas like Croxley Green, where residents are already suffering because of limited bus routes and late-running services. Given that many people rely on buses to travel throughout my constituency, what steps are the Department taking to ensure that the residents of South West Hertfordshire have access to a reliable transport network?
Simon Lightwood
The Bus Services Act empowers local leaders to choose the model that works best for their area. It includes a measure on socially necessary local services. Under that new measure, local transport authorities with an enhanced partnership will be required to identify local services that are considered socially necessary. They will need to put in place requirements that must be followed before any services can be changed or cancelled.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his answers to the seven questions on the Order Paper about buses. The Holy Bible refers to seven as the perfect number. If we are to improve local bus services, we need to improve the type of buses that are manufactured, make them energy efficient, and provide an hourly service. What discussions has the Minister had with Wrightbus in Northern Ireland about the production of more electric buses? Will he acknowledge the superior quality of those buses, and the company’s capacity to deliver high-quality buses, which are best of British, at a good price?
Simon Lightwood
There are 14 questions now, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I launched the bus manufacturers expert panel, which is working with mayoral combined authorities, manufacturers and operators to ensure that British manufacturers have the best possible chance of success in the United Kingdom and abroad.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Government.
Yesterday, the Minister for nature, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), told the House that there was no national bus fare cap under the last Conservative Government. That is not surprising, as the Prime Minister keeps gaslighting the public by saying exactly the same thing. Does the Minister accept that he must ensure that his colleagues correct the record, since there was a national £2 bus fare cap under the last Conservative Government? The Conservative manifesto committed to a £2 fare cap for the duration of this Parliament. This Government are taking the public for fools, as they increased the fare cap by 50%, which is hammering hard-working people up and down the country, costing them hundreds of pounds every single year.
Simon Lightwood
It takes real brass neck for the right hon. Gentleman to pipe up on this issue. It was his party that oversaw 300 million miles of bus cuts. In one year alone in which he was a Transport Minister, 2,000 routes were cut across England. This Government have introduced legislation to protect the lifeline routes that were cut on his party’s watch, preserved cheap bus travel for passengers, and legislated to bring back better buses.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. Following a decade of decline, we are starting to see train reliability stabilise. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus, in order to return performance to acceptable levels. More broadly, we are nationalising the railways to put passengers first. Great British Railways will have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers in decision making to improve performance, reliability and passenger experience.
Claire Young
The west of England growth strategy identifies the Severn estuary growth zone as having the potential to create more than 15,000 jobs. It is important that the half-hourly rail services on the Severn Beach line are maintained to support them. Similarly, the half-hourly trains serving Yate support both jobs and access to college, and will enable hourly services at the new Charfield station, when it opens. Will the Minister give an early commitment to extending those half-hourly rail services to support growth and remove uncertainty for students before the exam season?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to identify the importance of rail connectivity to economic growth in her part of the country. I reassure her that there are no plans to reduce the half-hourly service between Bristol and Gloucester, and I acknowledge the point she raises about Yate station, where performance has recently fallen behind Great Western Railway performance as a whole. I also reassure her that the Rail Minister is meeting with the managing directors of all train operators to address any instances of poor performance, so that we can level up the passenger experience, create economic opportunities and ensure that young people in her constituency can access the economic opportunities that they need.
Cameron Thomas
Good morning, Mr Speaker. In the early days after the election, I did not always cover myself in glory with the type of language I used to describe the state of GWR services between Paddington and Gloucestershire. Nevertheless, a year down the line, I still regularly have to stand in a corridor or aisle for hours on end, if I am able to board at all, and I know that my constituents have the same issues. Can the Minister tell me when we can expect things to get better?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member is a champion for his constituents, and nobody should have to face the sort of conditions that he describes. That is why I am pleased to say that the Railways Bill, which is soon to enter Committee, will create an independent passenger watchdog that will ensure minimum consumer standards for passengers on the railway, so that their travel can be an affordable, reliable, pleasant experience that matches how we would like our Great British Railways system to run.
Dave Robertson
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are looking forward to seeing the number of trains from Lichfield city to Birmingham double as a result of the midlands rail hub project, which this Government are pressing ahead with, after it sat on a shelf under the previous lot for far too long. I am really eager to see those additional trains delivered as quickly as possible, including a later evening service to Lichfield, which we are currently missing. Can the Minister confirm that bringing the line back into public ownership under Great British Railways will help us to drive these changes faster?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to champion his constituents’ right to frequent and reliable public transport. Great British Railways will bring the fragmented rail responsibilities into a single body. It will provide clear leadership to plan and run the railway for the long term, simplifying journeys, reducing delays and improving timetables to deliver better value for passengers and taxpayers. We continue to work with partners on options to achieve the benefits of the midlands rail hub as soon as possible.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I met East Midlands Railways to give the new ticketless travel app it is trialling a go. It is exciting new tech that will ensure passengers always pay the best price for travel. EMR says that that system should save passengers money and, with capped prices, will mean cheaper fares. Does the Minister agree that alongside the freezing of rail fares, innovation such as this could make a real difference to passengers’ experience and to their pockets?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to champion the principle of innovation in the rail network to make the travelling experience better for the public. As she rightly notes, innovations such as digital pay-as-you-go mean that passengers can get the very best price for their journey. Innovation will be at the heart of Great British Railways as it works to deliver a better railway for all.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Rumours are swirling around the northern mayoralties that the Government are about to row back on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Is this going to be another U-turn from the Government, or can the Minister take this opportunity to put those rumours to rest by saying from the Dispatch Box that the scope, funding and timeframe for Northern Powerhouse Rail are not going to be changed?
Keir Mather
I am perplexed at the Opposition’s new-found support for passengers on the rail network. Fares in our system rose by 60% from 2010 to 2014 under the last Government, including for residents in the north of England. This Government are committed to levelling up our railway across the United Kingdom, including in the north of England. We will put passenger experience and affordable fares for those passengers at the very heart of what Great British Railways seeks to do.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to embrace our 10-year-long campaign for a rail fares freeze. However, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that passengers have had to bear above-inflation fare increases for two decades prior to that, yet experience trains that are late and overcrowded, and lack the right onboard amenities such as luggage storage, functioning toilets and effective wi-fi. Does the Secretary of State support the idea of a 21st-century railway passenger charter that would guarantee the better passenger experience our passengers deserve?
Keir Mather
The Lib Dem spokesperson is right to identify the fact that passengers deserve access to a rail network that serves their needs, which is why accessibility will sit at the heart of Great British Railways. It will have a legislative requirement, with the licensing watchdog ensuring that accessibility is always considered— there will be an accessibility duty within the Railways Bill. On fares, the Bill and the rail fare freeze will save passengers £600 million in 2026-27; contrast that with the period from 2010 to 2014, in which fares rose by 60%. If the Lib Dem spokesperson is interested in the rights of passengers and affordability on the railway, he should have supported the Railways Bill on Second Reading.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
People using private e-scooters on the road or the pavement face criminal prosecution, having points added to their licence, and having their e-scooter seized. The Government have committed to legislate for micromobility vehicles, including e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. This will help the police crack down on those using them unlawfully or irresponsibly.
Tom Hayes
In Dorset, we have just seen record numbers of e-scooter seizures. The police and crime commissioner, David Sidwick, and I are prioritising tackling this issue, because not only is it a form of antisocial behaviour, but it is an ideal way for drug dealers to get around. Residents in Littledown and Iford are particularly concerned. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that if parliamentary time allows, he will bring forward a Bill. Can he say whether that Bill might include mandatory registration and identification plates for e-scooters, among other things?
Simon Lightwood
As part of any future legislation, any regulations—including potentially requiring registration or licence plates—will be publicly consulted on before they come into force.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
There are 1 million privately owned scooters, which are illegal to use on public roads. I declare an interest, having bought one a few years ago in the expectation that I would be able to ride it legally by now, but that is permitted only under state-licensed schemes. Why have the Government extended trials that began six years ago by a further two years, rather than getting on with allowing people to use their e-scooters with proportionate regulation to deliver the benefits of micromobility, particularly in areas such as North West Norfolk that have limited public transport?
Simon Lightwood
The extension of our e-scooter trials will deepen our understanding of e-scooter safety, their impacts on disabled people and pedestrians, and how they can be better integrated with the wider transport systems in communities with different populations and geographies. Extending the trials will give the certainty needed by industry to continue investing in our trials and more time to learn how best to regulate e-scooters.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Transport is a key enabler of economic growth. That is why we are investing £92 billion to maintain and modernise our roads and railways, to deliver major projects such as HS2 and East West Rail, and to support leaders in our towns and cities to improve local public transport networks. This will strengthen connectivity, unlock productivity and support a thriving UK economy.
Dr Gardner
My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages is home to internationally recognised visitor attractions, including the iconic World of Wedgwood and the stunning grade-II listed Trentham Estate and its gardens, yet public transport access to those sites remains limited. Two local railway stations, Barlaston and Wedgwood, continue to be placed under a lengthy temporary closure of 19 years. Will the Secretary of State support the reopening of the Stoke-on-Trent South railway stations to better connect communities with jobs, skills and tourism opportunities to boost economic growth in my constituency?
Heidi Alexander
I appreciate what a fearsome and impatient advocate my hon. Friend is for her constituency, and I am sure she will leave no stone unturned in exploring potential funding options with local partners to reopen some of those stations. I will gladly ask the Rail Minister to sit down with her to discuss the art of the possible.
Sally Jameson
Junction 3 of the M18 in Doncaster is one of the biggest bottlenecks to growth in our region, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the possibility of its inclusion in the road investment strategy and how the Department can further support the mayoral combined authority and the council to make sure we get this sorted out?
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to ask the Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), to meet my hon. Friend, who has campaigned hard to secure a viable future for Doncaster Sheffield airport, and I also appreciate the importance of this junction. We have given a significant amount of funding to the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority to determine what its local investment priorities are. I encourage her to continue discussions with the Mayor of South Yorkshire to that effect.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Being able to commute to work easily is vital for economic growth, but my constituents using Ash Vale station have to climb the equivalent of two storeys of stairs, making it virtually impossible for people in wheelchairs, older people or young parents with prams to get up and get on to the main line to London. There is an excellent proposal under Access for All on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will my constituents find out whether there will be a happy new year for them?
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of accessibility at this station with me at Transport questions, and he is right to say that it is one of the schemes being considered as part of the Access for All programme. He is also right to say that decisions about that scheme are literally on my desk at the moment. He does not have too long to wait until we make an announcement about which schemes we will be taking forward, both for further design work and to construction.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituency is the highest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London, and most of the people who pay those huge taxes commute into London on South Western Railway, which is London’s least reliable train network. A major cause of that poor performance is an outdated signalling system at Clapham Junction. It is way out of date, and in November alone it accounted for 7% of all cancellations. Will the Secretary of State set out what plans exist to go beyond piecemeal repairs to a root and branch reconstruction of the signalling at Clapham Junction?
Heidi Alexander
I am fully aware of how important South Western Railway is to the hon. Lady’s constituency and to the economic performance of the south-east as a whole. I can give her good news: we have appointed a new integrated managing director of South Western, who is responsible for both the infrastructure and the train operations. I will be sure to write to the hon. Lady with more details about potential improvements to the signalling system, so that we can see the greater levels of reliability and punctuality that I know her constituents want to see.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Reliable transport links are vital to the prosperity of Blackpool. Although it is the most deprived town in the UK, we rely heavily on tourism, yet because of the Office of Rail and Road’s restrictions, Avanti announced before Christmas that it has slashed our direct routes to and from London by over 50%. There is now a direct service from Blackpool to London only at 7 in the morning, and then a return at half-past 6 and half-past 8 in the evening. This is not good enough, and it will damage our local economy. Will the Secretary of State please arrange for me to meet the Rail Minister to see how we can solve this issue? It will dramatically damage our local economy, and we need to get it sorted.
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to ask the Rail Minister to meet my hon. Friend. I fully appreciate the importance of direct services to London, and we will make sure that we look at the detail of what has happened in this situation and see whether any mitigations can be put in place.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Communities near Cambridge, such as the towns and villages of West Suffolk, need better transport connections, especially given the new housing developments. The wider east needs the Ely-Haughley upgrade, and we need a dualled line from Cambridge to Newmarket and a new rail link to Haverhill. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how developments and transport policies can be better aligned in the east of England?
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss these issues. I am aware of the significance of the Ely-Haughley junction improvements. It was not possible to fund that scheme in the spending review, but it is part of the longer-term pipeline that we are looking at, not least because of the important freight links to the port in Felixstowe that could be improved. I would be happy to have a further conversation on the wider issues.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to how reversing the last Conservative Government’s 5p a litre fuel duty cut will help the transport system to support economic growth? Is it not the truth that, come September, this will be known as Labour’s back to school tax?
Heidi Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are freezing fuel duty until August this year. We need to get the balance right in terms of securing income for the public finances, but I also point out that we are investing a record amount in highways maintenance—£1.6 billion last year, which is £500 million more than was spent the year before, under his Government. We will double investment in roads maintenance by the end of this Parliament, and that is what people using our roads want to see.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government know how important local rail links are in supporting work, leisure and aspiration, which is why we are overhauling the railways through the creation of Great British Railways. A scheme to improve performance at York station and across the local area remains under review following the spending review, and we are working closely with Network Rail and key stakeholders to understand how it can best be delivered in the future.
Tom Gordon
Constituents of mine who rely on the Leeds to York via Harrogate line face regular disruption, because part of the route is single track. Given the indefinite pause of the York area capacity scheme, which means that the Harrogate to York trains still have to go on to the fast east coast main line, we will continue to see delays. Will the Government think again about this pause, which is indefinite, and what alternative plans will they set out in the meantime to address capacity constraints and improve the reliability of services for my constituents?
Keir Mather
As a near neighbour of the hon. Member, I know the line that he describes. The Harrogate line interventions have not been funded in this spending review period, but that does not preclude doubling the single line between Knaresborough and York as part of a future local or national infrastructure pipeline. Platform extensions and electrification have previously been developed to a strategic outline business case level of maturity. Based on current and future demand forecasts, the work did not consider dualling the line, but I am happy to continue engaging with the hon. Member on this very important question.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government published the long-term, multi-year allocations for local transport authorities under the local authority bus grant in December last year, giving local authorities both the funding and the certainty they need to plan for the long term. This is part of more than £3 billion that we are investing over the next three years to improve services for passengers around the country, including the £30.2 million allocated to Cornwall council.
Jayne Kirkham
I thank the Minister for that answer. I was very pleased to hear that he has already spoken to Go South West, which is working to fill the gaps left by our private bus provider’s recently withdrawn services. Those buses were vital for getting students to university and our two large further education colleges, because it can take hours to get to college and apprenticeship placements in Cornwall. I therefore ask the Minister if I could join the meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that he agreed to earlier, particularly to discuss buses to get those aged 16 and over to school and further education in Cornwall.
Simon Lightwood
Access to opportunity, including education, is of course a top priority for this Government. Our Bus Services Act 2025 and the multi-year funding allocations, including over £30 million for Cornwall, will help improve vital connections. I very much welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend, which I believe will be next week.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. This Government are delivering a record £1.6 billion for Liverpool city region, £46 million for Cheshire West and Chester council and an additional £64.4 million for Liverpool city region through the local authority bus grant for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to deliver improvements to public transport for the benefit of local people. My Department continues to work closely with local authority officers across the country to ensure that this funding is put to the best possible use for local communities.
Sarah Pochin
I thank the Minister for her response. Given that the 2016 funding agreement for the construction and operation of the Mersey Gateway bridge requires a review of the tolling arrangements this year, will the Minister commit today to ensuring that MPs representing directly affected constituencies, such as Runcorn and Helsby, are formally involved in that review, so that the concerns of local residents are properly heard?
Lilian Greenwood
I am very glad that the hon. Member was able to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), in October to discuss the tolls on the Mersey Gateway crossing. As she will know, the charges are the responsibility of Halton borough council, and thanks to additional funding provided by our Department, residents of Halton, for an annual fee of £12, can make 900 free crossings a year. Any changes to the toll arrangements are a matter for the local council.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I assure him that I am in regular contact with the Mayor of London on a range of matters, and he and I discussed the proposed devolution of Great Northern inner services to Transport for London when we last met in November. My officials have been in close contact with TfL and Greater London Authority officials on this matter, and following TfL’s business case submission, the Department is assessing the potential benefits, including for housing growth.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will well know, as a former deputy mayor for transport in London, that the confusing picture of the use of the underground and of Overground services has been a problem for Londoners and for the mayor. However, it would be very controversial to introduce such a measure for all the Overground services and National Rail services for commuters into London. Are the ongoing conversations about the entirety of the network, or are they limited to just one service?
Heidi Alexander
The discussions at the moment are limited to the potential transfer of services that form part of the Great Northern inner network. This is a fiendishly complicated thing to do, but I do recognise the benefits of bringing certain commuter lines into London Overground and making them part of that network, as long as there is agreement with the local authorities representing those further along the line. We will continue those discussions with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to bring reliable, high-quality public transport services to the people of London.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Commuter services are extensively disrupted in Putney by the six-year closure of Hammersmith bridge. I will be holding a bus crisis taskforce again tomorrow to look at the impact that the closure of the bridge is having not just on bus services, but on active travel and commuting through Putney. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she supports the reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, and when the next meeting of the Hammersmith bridge taskforce will be? It last met on 30 January last year.
Heidi Alexander
I recognise how disruptive the closure of Hammersmith bridge has been to people in my hon. Friend’s part of London. I understand that the Minister for Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be convening a further meeting of the Hammersmith bridge taskforce in the near future to discuss next steps for the project. Officials will be in touch with key local stakeholders to arrange that in due course.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
E-bikes are only road-legal when they comply with the requirements of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983. The legislation applies to all cyclists, including delivery riders. The Department has previously written to delivery platforms on this subject. A copy of that letter is in the Library of the House.
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for her response and for her written statement this morning on pavement parking. The illegal use of e-bikes by delivery companies is a matter of real concern for people in Edinburgh South West. I wrote to the Just Eat delivery company this week, and it said in its reply that it could act only if I could tell them the rider’s name or the delivery order number. That is absolutely preposterous. It could proactively use its app to monitor rider behaviour. I fear that it is both exploiting the riders and exploiting the use of illegal e-bikes. If it will not act and be a responsible company, will the Government take action?
Lilian Greenwood
I absolutely agree that delivery companies should be working to ensure that their drivers and riders remain safe and do not pose a danger to others. The Government’s road safety charter, the first in a decade, includes plans to pilot a national work-related road safety charter for businesses that require people to drive or ride for them. I will be making a statement on the strategy in this House later today. Clearly, we encourage delivery apps to sign up to that.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Yesterday marked a turning point for road safety in Britain. Our new road safety strategy, the first for 10 years, will save lives and end years of complacency. Our targets are ambitious: reducing those killed or seriously injured on our roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. That means stricter penalties for dangerous drivers; clamping down on illegal number plates and those driving without insurance; and new measures to support those most at risk, such as younger and older drivers. Today we are also outlining plans to restrict pavement parking, which will make our roads safer and more accessible to everyone. Every life lost on our roads is not only tragic, but preventable. I am proud that the steps we are taking will mean more people in more places can travel more safely.
Mr Snowden
Earlier, one of the Ministers dodged a very straightforward but important question, so will the Secretary of State now set the record straight? Do the Government have any plans that would change the scope, funding or timelines for Northern Powerhouse Rail—yes or no?
Heidi Alexander
It is a simple fact that communities in the north of England have had to put up with second-rate transport systems for far too long. I can guarantee that this Government are fully committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is impatient for announcements. He may have to wait a few days or weeks longer to find out exactly what the Government’s plans are, but I can assure him that we are making progress.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing those improvements. This Government are committed to modernising our roads and getting Britain moving, which is why we have already announced that we will be investing £25 billion on the strategic road network over the next five years. We will be setting out our plans for the third road investment strategy shortly.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
At oral questions in September, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) asked the Minister to apologise for failing to bring down the driving test backlog, which Labour had promised to do. The Minister told the House then that there were “early signs of improvement”. Can he tell the House now whether driving test times have increased or decreased since Labour came to power 18 months ago?
Simon Lightwood
The Secretary of State announced various new measures at the Transport Committee to continue to bring down the waiting times for learner drivers. [Interruption.] Look, what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that his party did virtually nothing to help the situation, and it is this Labour party that is making the structural changes and the real effort to bring down waiting times once and for all.
Mr Holden
The Minister has still not properly answered the question and, frankly, should be embarrassed by that answer. Labour promised to reduce average waiting times to seven weeks—[Interruption.] Wait for it. Instead, we are now seeing waits of up to 22 weeks—almost a month longer for a driving test than at the general election. The desperate headline-grabbing announcements about calling in the Army, which in reality will increase capacity by less than half of 1%, and for one year only, will simply not cut the mustard for the hundreds of thousands of people waiting for driving tests up and down the country. Can the Minister tell the House when he expects average test waiting times to fall below the levels that Labour inherited at the general election?
Simon Lightwood
Once again we see the brass neck of the right hon. Gentleman. The National Audit Office, in a report published in December, was very clear that
“DfT had limited involvement in helping DVSA tackle driving test waiting times up to mid-2024”—
I wonder what happened in 2024. Prior to that, the Department for Transport largely left the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to try to resolve the matter itself—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, you are getting very excited. Hale and Pace are not setting a good example. Come on.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I agree that waiting times have been too high for too long, which is why this Government are taking the decisive action that I have talked about. We are reforming the booking system so that only genuine learner drivers can book and manage tests, and we are making changes to crack down on bots and resellers. Members will have seen the announcement yesterday of the road safety strategy. Importantly, the minimum learning period is expected to improve safety and raise pass rates by up to 7%—for every 1% saved there, there are an extra 40,000 test bookings.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Across the country, people enjoy traffic-free walking, cycling and wheeling on disused railways such as the Tissington trail in Derbyshire, the Mawddach trail in Gwynedd or the Deeside way in Aberdeenshire. What steps will the Secretary of State take to make it easier for local government and communities to gain access to the 8,000 miles of disused railway that we still have, which creates such a good opportunity for family-friendly cycling trails, as part of a national network?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The disused part of the rail network is currently in the custody of National Highways. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of those trails provide excellent opportunities for walking, wheeling and cycling; indeed, I have spent many happy times cycling on the Tissington and Monsal trails in Derbyshire. We will continue to work through Active Travel England and with local authorities to encourage them to make great use of those greenways.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I have travelled on that line and I know the challenges. The Friends of the Barton Line do incredible work to raise issues relating to passenger experience, and East Midlands Railway is working to improve train performance on this route. I will support my hon. Friend and the Friends of the Barton Line to improve the service further.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Heidi Alexander
When planning permission was granted for the expansion of Luton airport, careful consideration was given to how people would access the airport, by road and by rail, and Luton also has the DART link. When it comes to the accessibility of the new Universal theme park, we are investing in rail networks such as East West Rail at Stewartby.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of aviation noise. It is one of the reasons why the Department is pursuing an ambitious programme of airspace modernisation, which aims to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, both for passengers and communities such as the one she represents.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I remember from my time as deputy Mayor of London the perennial problem of leaves on the line, particularly on the Piccadilly line. I am happy to raise the hon. Member’s comments with the transport commissioner, Andy Lord.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood
The Government are committed to supporting walking, wheeling and cycling. In addition to the £626 million funding announced on 10 December, we have consulted on the third cycling and walking investment strategy. The consultation closed on 15 December, and we expect the strategy to follow by this spring. I am personally committed to making it as ambitious as possible so that many more people can enjoy the benefits of active travel, including in rural and semi-rural areas such as my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is not enough just to freeze rail fares; they should be cut, as the Scottish Government have done in Scotland. It is fair to say that English rail commuters should enjoy the lower level of cancellations enjoyed by rail commuters in Scotland. That is why ScotRail, with its public ownership, has the highest customer satisfaction of any rail operator in the United Kingdom. Would the Secretary of State like to facilitate a meeting with the Scottish Government to find out how to optimally run a rail operator?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have regular meetings with my Scottish counterpart, Fiona Hyslop. I can also assure him, as I have for other Members already today, that affordability will be a key priority as we set up Great British Railways and create a railway in England that puts passengers before profit. It will be a railway run by the public and for the public.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Keir Mather
I welcome the fact that CrossCountry has increased calls at Water Orton, although I know that many commuters find that there is still standing room only on those peak services. Some changes can be made to help; for example, the capacity for standard-class passengers was increased by removing a dedicated first-class area on CrossCountry’s Class 170 trains. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to advance the issue further.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State could update the House on the plans to connect Tonbridge to Gatwick through the rail network. As she knows, there have traditionally been links in that direction and it requires only a very minor change to the timetable to make it work. If she wanted, she could even connect it to the rest of the kingdom of Kent at the same time.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his role as spokesperson for the kingdom of Kent. I am keen to maximise the number of people who are using the rail network to get to Gatwick airport. We have granted planning consent for Gatwick to bring its second runway into use in future and I want to continue discussions with Network Rail and the train operating company there, as it comes into public ownership, about how we can look at direct routes to Gatwick and increase capacity on the rail network to that airport.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Government have given mayoral authorities greater devolved powers to develop local transport infrastructure projects. Will the Secretary of State ensure that such powers provide the opportunity to speed up joint planning and decision making so that much-needed transport infrastructure, such as the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, can be accelerated to meet the needs of communities and local economies?
Keir Mather
The Government fully support the Mayor of West Yorkshire’s ambition to deliver mass transit in the region. People in West Yorkshire have waited too long for better transport infrastructure and too many promises from the previous Government have been broken. We are determined to put that right.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The latest cost projection by Labour-run Bradford council for building a pedestrian bridge between Silsden and Steeton over a busy dual carriageway is now a whopping £24 million, and the proposed design looks like some bizarre Scalextric track. Will the Secretary of State meet me to get those ridiculous cost projections under control?
Heidi Alexander
I am happy to ask the Local Transport Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me as if this is a locally managed project, and we would not interfere in that, but I am happy for a further conversation to take place.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Accessing airports via public transport is hugely important for sustainable aviation. With Govia Thameslink Railway’s Thameslink franchise coming under public ownership through Great British Railways later this spring, will the Minister meet me to discuss the benefits that that could bring for accessing Luton airport?
Heidi Alexander
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. I also assure her that I have raised the importance of public transport accessibility with the leadership of Luton airport, as well as the integration of the National Rail network and the Direct Air-Rail Transit link. I am happy to discuss that matter further with her.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Government talk about affordable transport for passengers in the UK, but on the Isle of Wight we are at the mercy of privatised, unregulated ferry companies that charge extortionate prices for unreliable services. If those companies refuse to lower prices and improve services, will the Minister intervene, given that he would not accept that for any other community in the United Kingdom?
Keir Mather
I know just how hard the hon. Member works to represent constituents on the Isle of Wight. He knows that the Government are committed to supporting a locally led solution to the challenge. Crucial to that is the appointment of a chair to the cross-Solent group, and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) will be pleased to know that I will have information on that announcement very shortly.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier, Ministers talked about the benefits of bus services. In London we have been at the forefront of improved bus services, but unfortunately some aspects of that, such as low-traffic neighbourhoods, have had an impact on main routes, and now the No. 38 bus route is under threat of curtailment. Is the Department for Transport doing any strategic work on how we see those interactions, so that it can advise mayors and others in local areas on how to manage the interaction between different transport uses on our roads to ensure that buses run fast and deliver for the people who really rely on them?
Heidi Alexander
I know that the Roads and Buses Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), would be happy to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss that issue in more detail. As far as we are concerned, best practice when establishing schemes such as low-traffic neighbourhoods requires consultation with bus operators about projected impacts on bus routes, bus frequencies and bus journey times.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Before Christmas, Colyford in Devon was subject to the death of a member of the community who had herself said that someone would be killed on that road. How will the Government’s road safety strategy help to prevent road deaths like the one that happened in Colyford last month?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and extend my condolences to his constituent. It is vitally important that local authorities use the powers they have to introduce measures to improve road safety. We will be issuing new guidance on the deployment of speed cameras and red light cameras and on the introduction of lower speed limits to support local authorities in exercising those duties.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The illegal and antisocial use of e-bikes and e-scooters is causing huge concern for residents in my constituency of Shipley. Just last week in Roberts Park in Saltaire, it caused thousands of pounds of damage to the much-loved cricket ground. How are the Government ensuring that the police have the powers they need to seize illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, including from domestic settings?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the problems caused by the antisocial use of e-bikes, and indeed of illegal e-bikes. Police already have the powers they need to seize any non-compliant e-bikes and we encourage them to use those powers, as I know they are in parts of the country.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
One of my Woking constituents is a nurse at Great Ormond Street hospital. Due to her long hours and shift patterns, she is unable to use a return ticket to go to and from work, which means she has to spend more money to give vital care to children. Will the Transport Secretary agree to look into this to ensure that my constituent and other key NHS staff and workers are able to spend less money to support us by having a longer return journey ticket?
Heidi Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with the specifics of his constituent’s travel patterns, I will look into it and come back to him. I appreciate that, for key public sector workers, the affordability of the public transport system is key.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
A train station serving Magor and Undy will take cars off the badly congested M4 and open doors to new opportunities for local people. It is also excellent value for money, because the track and so much infrastructure is already there. I am delighted that the Government made funding available for the long-awaited Burns stations, which include Magor. Can the Minister give an update on progress towards delivering this all-important station?
Heidi Alexander
We are working closely with the Welsh Government and the Welsh rail board to determine the best prioritisation of the £445 million that we made available for the Welsh rail network at the spending review. I caught up with the Welsh Transport Minister, Ken Skates, a couple of weeks ago at the refurbishment launch of Cardiff station. I will be talking to him more about this in the coming weeks and will update my hon. Friend as soon as more information is available.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
As a Yorkshireman, I love a bargain, so I welcome the great British rail sale, but members of the Young Liberals have told me that they cannot use their railcards when purchasing rail sale tickets. Can the Minister justify a rail sale that excludes young people, and will she look to fix it?
Heidi Alexander
Millions and millions of people will benefit from this Government’s rail sale, which is running this week. That is in addition to the over 1 billion journeys that will be captured by the fares freeze, which we have introduced for the first time in 30 years after relentless fare hikes under the previous Government.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
As temperatures have plummeted across the country this week, road conditions have deteriorated. Sadly, the Conservative council in Dudley removed 500 grit bins before the winter, creating dangerous conditions for all and making day-to-day errands simply impossible. Will my hon. Friend work with me to hold Dudley council to account and ensure that Dudley’s roads are safe all year round?
Simon Lightwood
I will indeed. It is for local highway authorities to determine the most appropriate measures to achieve the gritting of roads based on local circumstances. We continue to offer support by maintaining a national emergency salt reserve.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I warmly welcome the Department’s announcement this week that it is consulting on its review of the law on powered mobility devices. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now consulting on changing the current maximum weight limit for powered mobility devices? Currently, those with the heaviest wheelchairs break the law when they use their devices on the pavement.
Simon Lightwood
Certainly. The 40-year-old laws on powered mobility devices will be brought up to date to better support those who use electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I can confirm that weight limits form part of the consultation, along with size, speed and usage rules, to better reflect modern technology.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Many constituents tell me how fed up they are with the long waiting times for driving tests. By the time they secure a practical test, their theory certificate has expired, forcing them to pay again. What steps will the Minister take to help people who cannot afford to pay for another test?
Simon Lightwood
By law, theory tests certificates are valid for two years, for road safety reasons, to ensure that road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills are up to date when the individual takes their practical test. The Government have no plans to change that. My focus remains on driving down test waiting times once and for all, so that we are never in this situation.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am delighted to inform the Secretary of State that the long-awaited footbridge with lifts has finally been installed at Stowmarket station and is due to be commissioned very soon—
Peter Prinsley
But indeed. [Laughter.] There remain several hazardous crossings on the busy east-west line between Ipswich and Cambridge, including at Thurston, where pedestrians are obliged to walk across the track. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must support all initiatives to improve the safety of such crossings?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree. I am pleased to hear that progress has been made in one location, but our ambition to improve safety in and around the rail network does not stop there.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Sixty-six years ago this week, the last regular passenger train called at Middlewich railway station, drawing to a close 92 years of passenger rail travel from the town. A number of students from Middlewich high school have written to me to ask whether the Government would consider reopening the station, and Enterprise Cheshire and Warrington undertook considerable work under the Restoring Your Railway scheme. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the merits of bringing back railway services to the largest town in Cheshire without a station, and restore that vital connection to Manchester, Crewe and beyond?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. How can I resist the invitation to do so when he has been contacted by the next generation about the importance of improving our rail network? I look forward to our discussion.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Consider this a pincer movement from South Norfolk to talk about Wyndham railway station and Access for All. I have already had a productive meeting with the Minister for Rail this week. Will the Secretary of State help me to bang some heads together with Network Rail to ensure that we shorten the sidings so that Wyndham station can provide easy access for all?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has spoken to me and the Minister for Rail about Wyndham accessibility issues. I thank him for his hugely pragmatic and practical approach to working out how we can fund an affordable scheme there. I will say more about the Access for All programme in the coming weeks, and I will be sure to stay in touch with him on that particular issue.
Business of the House
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 12 January includes:
Monday 12 January—Committee of the whole House of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 13 January—Committee of the whole House of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Thursday 15 January—General debate on new towns, followed by a general debate on financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 January includes:
Monday 19 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Sentencing Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
Tuesday 20 January—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.
John Lamont
Mr Speaker, may I begin by wishing you, the Leader of the House, right hon. and hon. Members and all staff of the House a very happy new year? I appreciate that the Leader of the House may still be recovering from the excesses of the festive season, so I will try not to add unduly to his discomfort, but I will start with a simple request: will he give a clear commitment that the Government will stop making significant policy announcements when Parliament is not sitting?
I know that you take this issue very seriously, Mr Speaker, but we had another significant announcement made not to Parliament but to the media. While Conservative Members welcome the partial U-turn of the vindictive and cruel family farm tax, it was utterly wrong for the Government to sneak out such a major policy shift just a few days before Christmas, when the House was not sitting and Members could not properly scrutinise Ministers about their change of course.
We then saw Labour Members rush to social media to claim that they had
“always thought it was the wrong policy”,
and had been
“working hard behind the scenes”
to persuade Ministers to change it. I have to say to the House that that will simply not wash with farmers. Farmers are not daft. They will remember right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches trooping through the Lobby to vote down Conservative attempts to stop the dreadful family farm tax. They will remember Labour MPs clapping like seals from the Back Benches every time the Prime Minister insisted that the tax was the right thing to do.
There was, however, one exception: the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). He did the right thing. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He stood up for farmers and businesses in his constituency and voted against this disastrous policy because he knew that Labour had promised before the election not to introduce such a tax, and he knew that that pledge had been broken. Now that events have proved him correct, when will the Whip be restored to him? If the Government now accept that the policy was wrong, will they accept that punishing those who opposed it was wrong, too?
The turn of the year is traditionally a time for reflection and resolution. Before Christmas, the Leader of the House informed us that he does not make new year’s resolutions—may I ask him please to think again?
In truth, 2025 was a year defined by U-turns. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that the Government are better led, more stable and more honest with the public in the year ahead? In 2025, we had U-turns on: inheritance tax on farmers and small businesses; a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs; winter fuel payments; the two-child benefit cap; income tax; welfare reform, national insurance; and compensation for WASPI women. The Prime Minister warmly welcomed el-Fattah back to Britain only to claim that he regrets it. The Deputy Prime Minister forced to resign over her tax affairs. The US ambassador Peter Mandelson was sacked for his links to a notorious paedophile, and the Homelessness Minister quit after making her tenants homeless.
On issue after issue, the Government have lurched from announcement to reversal, creating uncertainty for families, for businesses and for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. With all that chaos and uncertainty at the very top of Government, does the Leader of the House believe that the Prime Minister will still be in his job this time next year? If the Prime Minister’s beloved Arsenal stay top of the table and win the league this year, will he be enjoying that as Prime Minister or as a punter?
There has been speculation that His Royal Highness the King will open the new Session of Parliament on 12 May. Can the Leader of the House confirm that and when Parliament will prorogue?
Finally, the pub and hospitality sector face a bleak “dry” January, but this winter is particularly bad because of the policy decisions taken by this Labour Government to hike their taxes. Hundreds of pubs, restaurants and hotels across the country have now banned Labour MPs from their premises. One publican said:
“Everyone is fed up because the Labour government hasn’t listened and instead has taxed us more.”
Why do the Labour Government not understand the important role that local pubs and hotels play in our economy?
The country is ready to call time on the Prime Minister. It is last orders for his Labour Government. After just 18 months in power, the Prime Minister’s leadership is stale. He is like a flat pint—even the regulars have had enough. Will the Leader of the House commit to make representations to the Chancellor to lessen the tax burden on this industry, and will he tell us if he has been banned from his local pub?
Sir Alan Campbell
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everyone across the House a happy new year. I congratulate parliamentarians past and present who were recognised in the new year’s honours. It is right and proper that people who make an exemplary contribution to public service are recognised, like so many others across our country.
I was saddened to hear about the passing of Sir Patrick Duffy at the age of 105. He was a committed Member of Parliament for Colne Valley between 1963 and 1966 and then for Sheffield Attercliffe between 1970 and 1992, and he served as Minister for the Navy. He is the longest-lived MP in British history, and I send my condolences to his friends and family.
I must say that it is a shame that the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is not here today. I understand that he has been described in Tatler as “the last upper-class” Tory MP and the “truest renaissance man in parliament”. He does always bring some class to our proceedings, but I am delighted to be responding to his more than capable deputy today.
This week the Government have published the road safety strategy. The strategy makes our roads safer and will cut road deaths by 65% by 2035. We will save thousands of lives on our nation’s roads and are taking decisive action to make our roads safer for everyone. We will tackle drink driving, improve training for young drivers and introduce mandatory eye tests for older motorists. This is another example of the Government responding to the concerns raised by Members across the House, including at Business questions, and the Transport Minister will say more in her statement later today.
But that is not all: thousands more free breakfast clubs will open in the coming months, 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers will be on our streets by March, almost 120 community diagnostic centres will be open seven days a week across the country by April as we bring down waiting lists and renew our NHS, and new rights for renters and workers will come into effect in the spring. That is why, after 14 years of decline and drift under the previous Government, our aim is that 2026 is the year of renewal, when it becomes real, visible and felt.
The shadow deputy Leader of the House asked about announcements. He knows my view, because he has quoted it back to me, that wherever possible announcements should be made in this House first, but the reality was we were very aware of the concern among the farming community. We have listened to the farming community, and at the earliest opportunity we wanted to inform them of our plans. I have to say, contrary to the impression he has given today, that the announcement has been warmly welcomed by farmers. We will have an opportunity to debate this matter more fully because I have just announced that we will debate the Finance (No. 2) Bill shortly. On whipping, I am delighted to say that whipping is a matter for the Chief Whip, no longer for me.
In terms of Government being better led and more stable, it is not in our gift alone to decide that, because that was decided by the country at the last general election, when they were very clear that they voted for a stable, well-led Government, and that is what we are delivering. We have said that the King’s Speech will be in spring 2026. That will obviously depend somewhat on the progress of business.
Finally, the hon. Member raised the issue of hospitality. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are listening and actively looking at further measures to help the hospitality industry and pubs, whether they are in rural or urban areas. But we are not going to take any lessons from the Conservatives, because a record number of pub closed during their 14 years, and they did nothing to help the situation, which is why we have a job to do, and we are getting on with it.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. Delays in the court system mean that one of my constituents has been in prison on remand awaiting trial for over a year. She is in New Hall Prison, 200 miles away from her mother, who is disabled and cannot make that journey. She has requested a transfer to Bronzefield Prison, so her mother can visit. Today, Heba Muraisi is close to death because she has been on a hunger strike protest for 67 days. I plead with the Leader of the House to let common sense and humanity prevail, to urgently intervene to agree the transfer, and to consider allowing her release on bail to her family home in my constituency—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to be very careful. You are getting into the details, and I cannot afford that. Have you finished?
Sir Alan Campbell
If my hon. Friend gives me the details of the case—I am talking about where the person concerned is currently—I will raise that with the Justice Secretary. On the wider point, we continually assess prisoners’ wellbeing and will always take appropriate action, including taking prisoners to hospital if their situation requires that. If he raises the issue with me, I will not only draw it to the attention of the Justice Secretary but make sure he gets the assurances that he and the family need.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and everybody in the House. To respond briefly to something the shadow Deputy Leader of the House said: I sincerely hope that Arsenal do not win the league.
Over Christmas, some people have had the unfortunate experience of finding themselves in their local hospital, and they will have been met by a packed emergency department and possibly treated in the corridor. New statistics from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine this week show that over 1.5 million people had to wait longer than 12 hours in emergency departments last year, with over 16,000 excess deaths as a result of those long waits.
At my local hospital, St Helier, the situation is worse than the national average, with over 80%—the vast majority —of people remaining in the emergency department for longer than is deemed medically necessary. This is, of course, down to a multitude of reasons, including the inadequacy of social care, bed capacity in hospitals, which we know is worse in the UK than in comparable economies, and the condition of the estate. The many delays in the new hospital programme mean that my local hospital is having to close wards and do repairs and maintenance, which is exacerbating the problem.
When corridor care first came up in my inbox, I was shocked by it. I understood how tragic the situation was and how undignified it was for patients and families, but I hoped it was a temporary, urgent measure that would resolve itself in time. That is not proving to be the case, so can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the matter of corridor care and how we can hasten its end immediately?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I pay tribute to the staff who are currently working across our NHS and who worked throughout the holiday period, in what is still a challenging situation, despite the progress that this Government are making. We are committed to investing in the NHS not just for today but for the future, to improve waiting times and access to care. Spending will increase by £29 billion in real terms by 2028-29. We are committed to cutting waiting lists, which have fallen for the first time in years, and we are investing £450 million in our urgent and emergency care plan.
The Secretary of State understands the scale of the challenge that we inherited and the challenge going forward. However, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to his attention, because the Secretary of State is not short in coming forward to this House to update it about the challenges but also the progress we are making in the NHS.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy new year to you and to the House, Mr Speaker.
High street banks have left many towns high and dry, leaving whole communities and businesses without even basic banking facilities. The roll-out of banking hubs is welcome, but our ambition should be for every town to have a bank, including Chadderton and Royton, where postmasters at the post office are ready and willing to take on that challenge. May we have a debate in Government time on banking hubs, to explore that further?
Sir Alan Campbell
I appreciate the issue of high street banks, which has been raised with me on a number of occasions. The Government are making progress with the roll-out of 350 banking hubs, but we have been clear that that is not the end of our ambition and that we intend it to go further. This sort of issue resonates across the House, and should my hon. Friend seek an Adjournment debate on the matter, he may get from the Minister our further plans going forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
At this time of year, sadly we often have to report on deaths, including those of Martin Chivers and Terry Yorath. Indeed, Kevin Keegan is facing a fight against stomach cancer. I am sure the whole House will wish their families a long life, and Kevin Keegan a swift recovery.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, there will be a statement next Thursday from the Justice Committee on drugs in prison and what action needs to be taken. The Leader of the House did not announce whether the Backbench Business Committee will be getting time on 22 January, so we have not allocated any business for that day as yet. If we are given Thursday 29 January, there will be a full day’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day.
On Tuesday in Westminster Hall next week there will be a debate on a statutory duty of care for universities, and on Thursday a debate on the impact of food inflation on the cost of living, followed by a debate on the impact of gambling harms on children and young people. On Tuesday 20 January in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing homicides and domestic violence, and on Thursday 22 January a debate on transport connectivity in the midlands and north Wales, followed by a debate on the International Day of Education.
The whole House will be well aware of the outrageous crimes of David Carrick and Cliff Mitchell. This morning a report has been published about the Metropolitan police and the way it has recruited police officers and staff. Between 2018 and 2023, because of the need to recruit more police officers, normal vetting procedures were completely ignored and 5,073 individuals were recruited without vetting. Some 4,528 had no special branch approval, and 431 had no Ministry of Defence approval. Even more scandalously, 114 of those who were vetted and refused were allowed on appeal to join the Metropolitan police. The estimate is that 1,200 officers and staff who would have been refused were recruited to the Metropolitan police.
The vast majority of police officers—the overwhelming majority—do a brilliant job on our behalf and keep us safe. However, this is a clear scandal where vetting was not carried out, and it creates a crisis of confidence in the police. It also casts doubt on the police themselves, who want to see the bad apples removed and indeed prevented from coming into the police force in the first place. There is concern that this may have happened in other police forces across the country, so could we have a statement from the Home Secretary—I know she has condemned the position—about what action will be taken to prevent such things from happening?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Gentleman in sending our condolences to the friends and family of Martin Chivers, and our best wishes to Kevin Keegan for what we hope will be a swift recovery.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of the Backbench Business Committee, and for updating the House on Backbench Business debates going forward. He is right that I did not announce the business for 22 January and I have listened to what he said. I will do everything that I can to ensure that we find time for the debate which I was disappointed was postponed on Monday, and we will see if we can accommodate that.
On the serious matter that he raised about Met police recruitment, the Home Secretary has launched an investigation into the Met’s recruitment and vetting processes, which will be led by the police watchdog, His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. Abandoning vetting checks on police officers was a dereliction of the Met’s duty to keep London safe. The public rightly expect officers to undergo robust checks so that the brightest and best, not the criminals, are the ones policing our streets.
On updating the House on what action needs to be taken and whether the issue goes beyond the Metropolitan police, I am sure that when the Home Secretary has the findings of that investigation she will, of course, want to update the House.
Mr Speaker
The debate was postponed on Monday because of the number of urgent questions and because the Government decided to provide statements outside the normal time. I am sure that when the Opposition applied for those urgent questions, they thought that they were important, so I am only carrying out my job and ensuring that Back Benchers have their voices heard. Let us hear one now—I call Dawn Butler.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of the staff.
In common with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), I have a constituent who I would like to talk to the Leader of the House about. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee mentioned today’s very worrying report about the Met police. In addition, the Met informed me last year that only half of its police are on the Met’s DNA database, when that should be 100%. Can that be included in the investigation? As well as a statement, can we have a debate on this issue in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks about the extent of the investigation and I will see whether her concerns can be addressed. As I have already said, once that investigation is concluded, I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to find time to update the House and, if necessary, have a debate on the subject.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of your staff in the Speaker’s Office.
I would like the Leader of the House to know that I am very concerned to hear that several police and community support officers, who are currently under transport policing command in the Metropolitan police, are being forcefully redeployed to a private contractor within Transport for London. That has caused a tremendous amount of upset for those concerned, including one of my constituents whose only other option is to resign. Will the Leader of the House consider having a broader debate on the structure of the Metropolitan police and its relationship with outside, private organisations?
Sir Alan Campbell
Should those issues arise from the investigation that we have just been talking about, I am sure that there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise those concerns. However, the way that resources are deployed is a matter for the Mayor of London and I am sure that he is doing everything that he can to ensure that officers are deployed where they are most needed. It is an unsettling time for the people who are in that situation, but deployment is fundamentally a matter for the Mayor of London.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker.
In this new year, I am looking forward to seeing how the policies that this Government have delivered in their first 18 months have a real impact on the day-to-day lives of people in Rossendale and Darwen. Despite much-needed investment, including from the Pride in Place programme, Rossendale remains the only borough in the north with no commuter rail link. The fragmented nature of Lancashire politics has held that back for years, but the local government reorganisation that this Government are delivering now finally gives us the chance to give this project a fresh start. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how devolution can enable projects, such as the Rawtenstall rail link, to deliver vital transport to local areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will deliver on the Government’s commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England and give communities stronger tools to shape their local areas. We are committed to delivering and improving the infrastructure that communities need, as outlined in our 10-year infrastructure strategy. I encourage my hon. Friend to raise this matter at the upcoming Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government oral questions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Can we have an urgent debate on the need to proceed with the local elections in May? In July 1945 we held a general election, even though we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, why can we not have local elections in peacetime four months from today, including in Labour-led Basildon, Southend and Thurrock? What is Labour frightened of—other than losing, of course?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friends are saying, it is certainly not the Conservative party. We have made absolutely clear our reasons for this decision; more time is needed in some areas to reorganise local government. Many of these requests come not from Government, but from local areas themselves.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
A happy new year to you and your staff, Mr Speaker.
Like many Members across this House, I receive regular alerts from the Environment Agency warning of potential flooding in my constituency. Every time the phone rings, I get the feeling of dread that this will be the time when my town floods. Every time the alert is downgraded, my constituents and I breathe a sigh of relief, as happened most recently on Monday. A major flooding event is expected every 20 years in Lowestoft, which is the only UK coastal town with no formal tidal flood defences. I know the devastation that a flood would bring, like the last time in 2013, when 152 homes and businesses were flooded. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on coastal flooding?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to supporting coastal communities and ensuring that coastal risk management is fit for the challenges we face now and going forward. We are making a record £10.5 billion investment in delivering the largest flood and coastal investment programme in history, but I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a debate on this matter, as a number of MPs will also be concerned. If she wishes to meet with the Minister responsible to discuss this matter, I will help her to arrange that.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
This past week, we have all been speaking about the need to respect the rule of international law, yet transnational repression in which authoritarian regimes extend their jurisdiction beyond their borders and powers is worryingly present on UK soil. My constituent Shahzad Akbar, who is a former human rights lawyer, cabinet Minister and political dissident from Pakistan, has faced repeated and violent attacks against him and efforts to intimidate him. He has suffered an acid attack in his home in front of his four-year-old daughter. Just on Christmas eve, he had a physical assault against him, resulting in a broken nose and jaw, which again happened in front of his young family. Just before new year’s eve, he had a terrifying arson attack on his home. I have made the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary aware of those attacks, but does the Leader of the House agree that that cannot be allowed on British soil? Further measures are needed to protect political dissidents here in our country, and a debate on transnational repression and the Government’s measures to combat it is in the interests of democracy and this House.
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Lady gives me further details on that case, I will ensure that it is raised with the appropriate Department to see what else can be done to assist. The Government believe that political matters or faith matters, even though we may disagree with them, should never mean that people are threatened or attacked. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office raises these concerns regularly where necessary with countries and Governments across the world. I will ensure that she gets a response if she lets me have the details.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
During Parliament Week last year, I had the absolute privilege of going along to Seaton Delaval first school and meeting the year 3 and year 4 classes to receive a grilling—it has to be said. They asked some excellent questions. Since then, the pupils have got in touch to raise a range of issues, including the environment, vaping, schools, the NHS and social media and its impact on young people. Especially as the Leader of the House is a former teacher, does he agree how important it is that we ensure young people have a stake in our politics and feel that their voices are heard when we discuss these important issues?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the staff and pupils at Seaton Delaval first school for their hard work, and thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important that young people are at the heart of decisions that affect their lives; that is why we recently published the national youth strategy, and it is why we are committed to extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, but also to making sure that they are equipped with knowledge about how voting works and about their role as voters. My hon. Friend may wish to attend Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on 12 January to learn more about our work to ensure that young people are equipped and empowered to participate in democracy.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When we lost our police station in Aldridge, we were told that the choice was between bobbies and bricks. Now, under Labour’s police and crime commissioner, there is a £41 million funding gap, which means that there will be 80 fewer officers on our streets next year. Can the Leader of the House explain how cutting police numbers in my constituency delivers Labour’s promise to get more police into our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to increasing the number of police officers; the situation we were left at the time of the last election was a disgrace. We are committed to a neighbourhood policing guarantee, and are putting 13,000 more officers into neighbourhood policing roles, which is a 50% increase. As for choosing between police stations and bobbies on the beat, it is up to police and crime commissioners to make a choice about where their resources can best be deployed.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As you know, Mr Speaker, we had a good discussion at Transport questions about bus services. Many Members from across this House are passionate about that issue, because bus services are such an easy way for people to get around, and they make transport accessible, financially and otherwise. In London, bus ridership has dropped by 23%; there are a number of issues, but I am particularly concerned about the 38 bus route. Consultation is under way on curtailing that route, so that it only goes as far as Holborn in the Prime Minister’s constituency. That might be good for him, but we all want to go as far as Victoria and theatreland. A number of MPs from across the House are concerned about this. Is it not time for a debate in Government time about the great stuff that the Government are doing on buses, so that Transport Ministers can learn from MPs across the country, and so that we share best practice and learn from each other?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for the part of London that she represents. She is absolutely right to raise concerns on behalf of her constituents about the No. 38 bus route. Those concerns will be shared by a number of colleagues, and I invite her to pursue an Adjournment debate to get reassurance, or certainly to inform Ministers about those concerns, and to see what can be done about the situation.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
While Reform UK welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s update to the House on Monday regarding el-Fattah, will the Government give consideration to allocating time for debate on my presentation Bill, introduced yesterday, which addresses the national security risk posed by individuals who are convicted abroad of national security offences? If not, will the Home Secretary at least make a statement to the House on her assessment of the threat posed by this individual, and on whether the Government intend to deprive him of his British citizenship and deport him?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am aware that the hon. Lady has raised this matter. We will study carefully what her Bill says, but the Home Secretary has been clear about how strong the Government’s stance is on these matters. I will raise this matter with the Home Secretary after this session of business questions, and will ensure that the hon. Lady gets an answer.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Constituents in the upper Rhymney valley face unacceptably high petrol prices. When I wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority about that, it referred to a forthcoming fuel finder scheme; however, that scheme has no confirmed launch date. I get that this is complicated, but will the Leader of the House please encourage Ministers to provide a statement on when that scheme will be delivered, in order to improve consumer information across the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because the Government made it clear before the Christmas recess that we intend to introduce a fuel finder scheme. It happens in other countries, and it can happen in this country. I am not sure of the date of introduction, but I will arrange for my hon. Friend to have a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that he can express his concerns and perhaps find out from Ministers what the timescale is.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Twelve out of the 15 constituencies in Lancashire benefited from the Pride in Place scheme, I believe, but people may not be surprised to learn that Fylde, the only Conservative constituency in Lancashire, was not on the list. We will not let that deter us, however, because we have pride in our place and ambitions for it, whether that be the pier link, the Island site in St Annes, the public realm improvements we want to make in Lytham and Poulton, or reopening the derelict Kirkham baths. Can we have a statement from the Government about how those areas that have been left behind and are not in the Pride in Place scheme can attract investment to continue to improve their towns and villages?
Sir Alan Campbell
Improvement in local areas is not dependent on the Pride in Place scheme, but will be significantly helped by it. I am not entirely surprised that not that many Conservative constituencies or authorities are in the scheme, because there are not many of them left after the general election. The hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the right thing: he is raising concerns on behalf of his constituents about how best they can improve their area. My advice to him is that if he wants to hear from Ministers about our ambitions for every area—we are ambitious for every area—he should seek an Adjournment debate, make his points there, and see what the Minister has to say.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
My constituents, like those of many Members across the House, have been horrified by the wreckage we have seen in Gaza. While there has been a ceasefire, there is still violence, and aid is struggling to get in. I thank my constituents who have raised the issue with me, and I thank Members for raising this issue, too. Can the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will do everything we can to help rebuild Gaza and ensure that aid goes in?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to raise this crucial matter. It is essential that all parties build on the foundations of the peace plan, so that we can move along a sustainable path to long-term peace. We will play a leading role in accelerating Gaza’s reconstruction. This financial year, we are providing £116 million for humanitarian and other aid, including healthcare, food, clean water and sanitation. The Government continue to keep this area at the forefront of our mind. We want to ensure a better future for the people of that area.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The village of East Halton in my constituency is partly cut off at the moment because of a sinking road. Natural England is refusing permission for the local authority to move in and carry out the work because of badgers in the area. This is causing complete chaos, and tractors and heavy goods vehicles are having to use country lanes. That highlights yet again that Natural England and other agencies have the power to overrule democratically elected authorities that want to carry out work on behalf of local residents. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the powers that these agencies have, and how we can return some of those powers to elected authorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are looking across planning to ensure a balance between the natural world, which people are very concerned about, and development, or in this case improvement or repair. We want perhaps more of a balance than there has been in the past. I will draw this matter to the attention of the appropriate Minister, so that they can set out for the hon. Gentleman our plans to ensure that organisations such as Natural England have proportionate influence.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Access to a local GP is vital for every community, and residents in Shenstone and Stonnall are rightly concerned about a consultation that proposes reducing services at Westgate surgery from five days a week to three. That raises concerns about the long-term future of the practice, and risks forcing patients to travel 4 miles to Lichfield to access the services they need. Can we have time in this House to debate rural healthcare services and GP access?
Sir Alan Campbell
We absolutely recognise the challenges faced by rural areas, which is why we are increasing capacity in general practices by recruiting more GPs and ensuring that the necessary workforce are in place. However, my hon. Friend may wish to raise this issue directly with Ministers at Health questions on 13 January.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Cancer patients are suffering due to variations in cancer care across the country. In particular, clinical nurse specialists—a key part of cancer care—are stretched very thinly and are unable meet patients’ needs in many regions. A Breast Cancer Now survey found that a quarter of respondents had not seen a clinical nurse specialist since their diagnosis. Can we have a debate in Government time on how best to tackle variation in cancer care, and particularly the problems in accessing clinical nurse specialists?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important matter. The NHS plan, and the investment that we are putting in, will not just address the issue of where in the NHS people are, but ensure that there are more of them. Let me gently say to him—this also applies to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean)—that we all support the ends, in that we want more specialists, in cancer care and in everything else, but we also have to support the means. That means voting to put in the money, when it comes to Budgets. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Back Benchers in this House strengthen the hand of Ministers in tackling injustice, as was shown when the Housing Minister called in the managing director of FirstPort in real time during a debate. Labour Members are holding an informal inquiry into such issues, which are really important. A constituent of mine has seen his FirstPort service charge nearly quadruple in two years. Can there be a debate on the issue in Government time, so that Back Benchers can shine a cleansing light on the malpractice of such companies?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those concerns on behalf of his constituents, and they will be echoed by a number of colleagues from across the House. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that those living in the leasehold sector are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, and we will strengthen regulation of managing agents to drive up the standards of their service. We will publish the draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill as soon as possible, and alongside that, there will be the opportunity for debate.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Hawarth village hall is a vital community asset in the centre of the Worth valley in my constituency, but it is in desperate need of repair, upgrade and maintenance. Under the last Conservative Government, over £1 million was allocated to this project back in 2021, but since then, the money has sat with Labour-run Bradford council and remains unspent, while the asset deteriorates. Can we have a debate in Government time on making sure that money that is allocated is spent in a reasonable time, so that assets do not continue to deteriorate?
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Gentleman gives me details of the case, I will make sure that the matter is taken up with the appropriate Ministers. Although these issues are to be decided locally, this is public money, so if Ministers can do anything to help resolve the situation, that would be appropriate.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Happy new year to you and your staff, Mr Speaker.
I have some pleasing news: knife attacks in Lewisham have reduced by 23% over the last year, which is to be celebrated. I thank the council, the police, our Mayor of London and all the local community organisations that have helped to achieve this and to bring more peace to our streets. However, you will probably remember, Mr Speaker, that last year, there were two deaths due to knife crime in my constituency. Any knife crime, and of course any fatality, is awful news that nobody wants to hear. Can we have a Government statement on progress since the announcement on the coalition to tackle knife crime in September 2024, and on the knife crime action plan promised in the Labour manifesto?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved in this initiative. There is a long way to go, but important progress is being made. Tackling knife crime is a top priority for this Government, although there are still too many cases. Knife crime overall has fallen for the first time in four years, but there is a great deal more to do. The coalition to tackle knife crime has helped to shape key policies, including the ninja sword ban and the online sales review. However, I will draw her remarks to the attention of Home Office Ministers. We are bringing forward further measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to the strengthen legislation on knives.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in recognising people who were awarded honours in the new year’s list, including those who live and work in Harrogate and Knaresborough such as Simon Roberts, Jane Bayliss, Professor Piers Forster, Miriam and Terence Wilcox, and Master Ali, who was awarded an MBE for services to taekwondo. I have had the pleasure of attending some taekwondo sessions, but fortunately not of participating in them, and I was a guest at one of the contests held locally last year. Martial arts and taekwondo in particular play an important role in health, wellbeing, discipline and providing an opportunity for young people. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister for further support and promotion of martial arts?
Sir Alan Campbell
Local sport plays such an important part in our local communities, and the many volunteers who get involved literally change people’s lives for the better. The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to those involved and to draw to our attention the fact that many of them have quite rightly received an award. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister and see what more we can do, but the Government are ambitious in this regard.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Every year since 2021, the residents of Wrenbury Drive in Rochdale have turned their street into a spectacular display of Christmas lights—a real winter wonderland—all in aid of our brilliant local hospice, Springhill hospice. This year, they have raised more than £6,000, as families of all backgrounds came to marvel at what is really Rochdale’s own Blackpool illuminations. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Maria Brierley and all other Rochdalians who make this such a fantastic event in our Christmas calendar?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Maria Brierley and everyone involved in making Rochdale’s Christmas celebrations a success and in raising a significant and very welcome amount for charity. I also thank him for raising this matter. He is such a diligent and hard-working MP, who always has the interests of his constituents at the forefront of his mind, and I thank him for that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for the opportunity to ask an important question, and this week I would like to turn our attention to Nicaragua. The country has witnessed a recent severe escalation in human rights violations and religious persecution. The Nicaraguan Government have banned the Bible—the very Bible we start our business with in this Chamber each and every day—at border crossings as part of a broader crackdown on the Catholic Church that has been ongoing since 2019. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary what steps the Government will take to raise these violations with the Nicaraguan authorities, and to ensure that freedom of religion or belief is upheld?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy new year, and I thank him for raising such an important question, as he always does. We do share his concern about the suppression of human rights in Nicaragua and elsewhere, including in relation to freedom of religion or belief. I will raise that with Ministers, as he asks, but he may also wish to raise it directly at Foreign Office oral questions on 20 January.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I recently met the Morley Indian community, who raised concerns with me about the proposed changes to the indefinite leave to remain rules. Many of these people are highly skilled and highly qualified, work in key sectors and claim no benefits, but they are seriously worried that their families will not qualify for ILR under the new rules, despite they themselves meeting the new higher eligibility requirements. I want to recognise that this community have enriched life in Leeds South West and Morley, and make a significant contribution to the UK. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the urgent need to clarify the new ILR rules for those that work hard and make a significant contribution to our country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the contribution of the Indian community in his constituency, but also across our country. The changes we are making are about tightening the rules for future claimants, not a retrospective policy that would risk harming families who have made their lives here and have made such an important contribution. He may wish to raise his concerns directly with a Minister in the Westminster Hall debate on indefinite leave to remain on 2 February.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
In towns such as Dudley, bus routes are the lifeblood of the community. That is why I was disappointed when part of the 215 bus service serving Sledmere was going to be scrapped and residents were, rightly, upset. I am delighted that that decision has been overturned after lobbying Transport for West Midlands and I thank it for its change of direction. Will my right hon. Friend welcome that reinstatement and grant time for a debate on the importance of protecting bus routes where other forms of transport are not available?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will join my hon. Friend. I congratulate her on lobbying for the bus service to be reinstated, which I understand from what she has said has happened. We need to congratulate her and everyone else who campaigned for that. The Government believe bus services are vital to local communities. I invite her to seek an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate on bus services, where colleagues would be able to join her in appreciating the importance of those services and hear directly from Ministers.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Evri are the worst. My constituents faced misery over Christmas, with no customer service. In fact, customer service was provided only in the form of chatbots. I recently received a woeful reply after writing to Evri’s CEO. There are many excellent couriers, including Rodrigo, Martin and Tony in Bournemouth, and I thank them, but they are being let down by Evri. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when private parcel operators deliver appalling customer service without minimum standards, it is workers and customers who suffer, left shouting into the void? Can he advise me on how I can secure meaningful redress for my Bournemouth East constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend had been talking to my wife about the success or otherwise of Evri. The delivery practices exposed in a recent “Panorama” programme are simply unacceptable. The Government expect all parcel operators to meet their service requirements, protect customers and support retailers at the busiest time of the year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to shine a light on this. I hope colleagues will continue to do so until Evri, or any other operator, improves its performance.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
For years, solicitor Andrew Milne has been bullying, threatening and harassing leaseholders, including my Horwich constituents, into buying freeholds off him at massively inflated prices—sometimes as much as £25,000—yet the Solicitors Regulation Authority has done nothing to stop his outrageous behaviour, which has caused immeasurable pain and suffering to my constituents. Homeowners in Bolton West should not have to live in fear of being ripped off by crooked lawyers, so will the Leader of the House set aside Government time for a debate on the lack of action by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in cracking down on lawyers like Milne, who continue to act with impunity?
Sir Alan Campbell
This sounds like a concerning case and I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the behaviour my hon. Friend describes. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is an independent regulator, however the Minister for Courts and Legal Services is writing to it to seek an update and assurance about what action is being taken or what action it intends to take. I will ensure that he is updated on that.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
A happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. At community meetings in Victoria, I hear from my constituents who see open drug dealing on the streets and experience aggressive harassment, but there is hope in the work that Westminster city council is doing to invest in its staff so that they can work collaboratively with the police and other local community organisations to tackle this issue head-on. Will the Leader of the House support me in my request for the Minister for Policing and Crime to join me on the streets to see some of their good work and to ensure that it continues with additional investment in neighbourhood policing going forward, so that we can keep Victoria safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will know, we are recruiting 13,000 new police officers into neighbourhood policing roles to tackle issues and concerns such as the ones she describes. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister in the Home Office, so she can make her case and give that invitation to join her herself.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
In 2020, my constituents Christine and Francis Saunders experienced the worst loss any parent can endure when their daughter, Juliet, died at only 25 years old after signs of bowel perforations were dismissed. Juliet’s death was avoidable; had she received timely treatment, she would have had an 80% chance of survival. Juliet lived with Cornelia de Lange syndrome—a condition that causes learning disabilities and physical health complications—and her tragic death is not isolated. Many people with learning disabilities are routinely failed by healthcare services, and they are more than three times as likely to die prematurely from treatable causes. Will the Leader of the House make time for the Minister responsible to make an urgent statement on the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the concerns of patients with learning disabilities are treated seriously, so that no one else suffers in the way Juliet did?
Sir Alan Campbell
I want to first extend my deepest sympathies to Christine and Francis, because every avoidable death is a tragedy. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this serious matter and will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to make his case further and hear from Ministers about what further action is planned to address these concerns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can see Members reviewing their questions; please keep them short.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming today’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland of £140 million of local growth funding for Scotland, including £60.9 million for the Glasgow city region? Does he agree that this funding, together with the record Budget settlement for the Scottish Government, demonstrates that Scotland really is at the heart of this Labour Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming that investment. As she rightly points out, we provided the biggest funding settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution began, proving that Scotland truly is at the heart of this Labour Government. Our mission is to improve living standards for working people, and the local growth fund is one way we are achieving that for every part of the United Kingdom.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Every parking fine from rip-off private operators hurts drivers and our city centres, and Derby is no exception. Last October, Jumpin Fun play centre closed its doors for good because families could not trust that they would be treated fairly at the nearby Copeland Street car park. I welcome the Government’s recent consultation on fairer parking rules, but will my right hon. Friend encourage a timely response to the consultation so that we can put an end to the rip-off private operator parking industry?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend mentions, we are cracking down on unjust private parking charges through a new, stronger private parking code of practice. I will ensure that he receives an update on the timing of the response.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On Monday, a terrible fire took the life of an elderly resident in Guisborough in my constituency; my thoughts are with her family and loved ones. This is one of three serious fires in my constituency in recent weeks. Cleveland firefighters have raised with me concerns about the funding formula for fire brigades, as they believe that deprivation such as exists in our region ought to be taken into account, as happens with the funding formulas for local government and the NHS. Will the Government look at this matter to ensure that our brave firefighters are given the resources they need to tackle blazes like this one?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to everyone involved in these horrific events and thank the emergency services for their response. Following the fair funding review consultation, our reforms will ensure that funding is allocated to local authorities and fire and rescue authorities taking into account the different needs of communities across the country. My hon. Friend may wish to attend oral questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 12 January to ask Ministers further about this vital work.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
People living in Goldenhill and Sandyford have an absolutely brilliant residents association led by the remarkable Tom Simpson. I recently visited a Tesco Express store alongside them to hear from staff who were concerned about having to deal with regular shoplifting. Does the Leader of the House agree that while we have taken big steps forward as a Government, we have lots more to do and we must continue to do all that we can to protect and support our retail workers?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why we are taking the steps we are taking and looking at what further measures we can take. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we will end the effective immunity granted to those who shoplift goods worth less than £200. We are also supporting a specialist analysis team to crack down on organised gangs that target retailers.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I recently visited Derby athletic club and met volunteers including Ernie, who is 100 years old and has been volunteering for more than 70 years. I know that Ernie doesn’t like a fuss, but will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Ernie for his incredible commitment, and will he consider how we might best celebrate the work of volunteers in grassroots sport across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is doing just that by raising the work of volunteers, as often happens during business questions. She highlights the fantastic contribution made by people like Ernie—70 years of volunteering is very impressive indeed. Grassroots sport is at the very heart of our local communities, which is why we are investing £400 million in grassroots sport facilities, but they depend on people to make them work. Not only are those people at the heart of our local communities, but they change people’s lives for the better. I absolutely join her in thanking Ernie and all other volunteers.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. For decades, remote coastal areas such as Cornwall have seen education funding inexplicably lag well behind urban areas. Under this Labour Government, the particular challenges and costs associated with delivering services in deprived remote coastal areas have begun to be recognised in some Government funding models, but not all. Will the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education to discuss funding for Cornish schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
I was pleased to have a meeting with my hon. Friend earlier this week. He once again demonstrates that he is a champion for Cornwall. I am pleased to record that there is some success in the campaigning that has been done by our fantastic MPs in that part of the country. I will be happy to facilitate the meeting that he requests.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker, and happy new year to you and your office.
This year provides an opportunity to secure our vital local and national infrastructure, so I ask the Leader of the House for Government time to be allocated to discuss the impact on local residents and businesses of the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry tolls, including the recent proposal to increase the monthly admin fee for TamarTag holders. It has resulted in an extraordinary meeting of those responsible for the crossings to be held next week, following opposition from myself, fellow Labour MPs and other local residents.
Sir Alan Campbell
I was pleased to have a meeting with my hon. Friend this week, during which she raised this matter with me and stressed the importance of the Tamar crossings to the communities she serves. The toll levels were set by the operator and the council, and it is for them to assess the impacts for local residents and businesses. Should she apply for a Westminster Hall debate on Tamar bridge, I am sure that it would be well attended and she could highlight her concerns.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The legendary Jock Stein famously once said that football without fans is nothing, and of course he was absolutely correct. I invite the Leader of the House to join me in recognising the fantastic Alloa Athletic football memories group, led by John Glencross, which meets up regularly to talk about all things football. The meetings support people living with dementia and some who are experiencing loneliness and social isolation. It is an example of great camaraderie, friendship and community spirit.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking the Alloa Athletic memories group for all the work it does. I was reflecting the other day on how that part of the world has produced not only so many fantastic footballers, but players who go on to be fantastic managers, so I am sure the group has a lot to talk about.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
My constituents in Glossop and the surrounding areas are up in arms at the news that Reform-run Derbyshire county council is proposing to close their local tip. Reform does not seem to understand or care that that would force residents to take an hour-long trip to the nearest tip in Buxton, making disposal of household waste almost impossible for many. It will increase the risk of fly-tipping and litter across my constituency. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for a debate on the importance of having accessible recycling centres and maintaining vital local services?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his concerns to the Floor of the House, which he is right to do. Fly-tipping is a serious crime that blights communities. Local authorities are responsible for keeping public land clear of litter and refuse, so it is hugely disappointing to hear of what is happening in that part of the country. I join my hon. Friend in urging the Reform-led council to take its responsibilities seriously, use the powers it has and, most of all, listen to the residents it is meant to serve.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Guru Nanak gurdwara in West Brom recently suffered a horrible incident of anti-Sikh hate. An unidentified vandal ran past and dumped a bag of meat on the doorstep. As many Sikhs are vegetarian, that is obviously a horrible, offensive incident. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate about how we reject that type of hate, how we protect our places of worship, and how we celebrate the contribution of Sikhs and all faith communities in our areas?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these matters, and I am sorry to hear of the case she raises. Everyone should feel safe in their communities, irrespective of their race, religion or belief. This year we are investing almost £71 million to strengthen security at places of worship and other community sites, and we brought forward new legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill to address protest outside places of worship.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Lowdham Flood Action Group, led by the formidable Peter Cross, and groups in other villages in my constituency, including Epperstone, are working hard to protect their community from flooding. At a meeting with Ministers in Lowdham, we heard concerns about liability when it comes to local flood groups taking action to protect homes. Reform-led Nottinghamshire county council is currently standing in the way of essential flood prevention in Lowdham due to perceived potential litigation. May we have a debate on what support the Government can give to such local flood groups, so that people can protect their local communities? It seems utterly ridiculous that local government red tape is allowed to put homes at risk.
Sir Alan Campbell
If my hon. Friend raises her concerns in detail, I will ensure that they are passed on to Ministers. I am also happy to facilitate a further meeting with the relevant Minister to follow up on any visit that might have taken place. Let me re-emphasise what I said a moment ago: Reform-led councils have a responsibility to their local residents. It is their job, as locally elected representatives, to do their very best to address those concerns, not to get in the way.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I attended Burton addiction centre’s inspirational celebration of recovery. There, we celebrated hundreds of people who are in recovery—people who had overcome huge battles with addiction to rebuild their lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those who were there and the staff at the centre, and recognise the importance of residential rehab services?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Burton addiction centre on its work and, indeed, the vital addiction services across the country on their work too. This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that anyone with addiction problems can access the help and support they need. The work in local areas is of such importance going forward.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Blackpool experiences homelessness rates that are higher than the national average, with a record number of rough sleepers recorded last year, so I was delighted to secure over £3 million to tackle that. With the current spell of extreme cold weather, conditions are especially dangerous for those sleeping rough in my constituency on the sea coast. I pay tribute to the council’s outreach team and local charities, including Helping Hearts, Street Angels and Streetlife, for the work they do. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all those who support our most vulnerable, and will he assure my constituents that the Government are committed to delivering long-term solutions so that Blackpool residents have a safe, secure and affordable place to live?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend demonstrates, once again, not just that he is an effective constituency MP but that he recognises that there is much more work that needs to be done. He is a real champion for the fine town of Blackpool. I will certainly join him in thanking charities across the country that provide invaluable services that support those experiencing homelessness. We are committed to ending homelessness and ensuring that everyone has a safe place to live. Our homelessness strategy aims to halve the number of people sleeping rough long term by 2029.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My constituent Lisa has a severe condition that affects her nerves. She cannot stand, feed herself or use the bathroom unaided, she has a tracheotomy to help her breathe and, without the aid of a wheelchair, she can only leave her house for hospital appointments. In 2024 she was referred to AJM, a company contracted by the NHS in Staffordshire to provide wheelchairs. It took almost a year, and the intervention of my office, even to get her an appointment to be measured for a wheelchair by AJM. She was then told that it would be at least a year more before she gets the wheelchair that she needs. She has finally been given a wheelchair but it is not the correct one, and there is some uncertainty about whether she will ever get the care she needs. Will the Leader of the House ask the Government to publish a written statement on how our new wheelchair quality framework will ensure providers such as AJM are held to much higher standards than Lisa has experienced?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. We understand how important it is that people can access wheelchairs to support them to live independently. As he points out, our wheelchair quality framework sets out quality standards relevant to all suppliers, regardless of Care Quality Commission registration status, and I will ensure that Ministers have heard his concerns and update him on the progress made.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Mill Hill Broadway is Barnet’s busiest station, but its steep flight of stairs means that people with mobility issues struggle to use it. Sadly, its lack of accessibility has already had tragic consequences: Priscilla Tropp died after falling at the station. Step-free access at Mill Hill Broadway is essential. The previous Government promised to install lifts at the station but failed to deliver time and time again. Under this Government, progress is finally being made and detailed designs are being worked up. I urge the Department for Transport to give final approval once the design phase is complete. Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the importance of making our transport network more accessible?
Sir Alan Campbell
This Government are committed to improving the accessibility of Britain’s railways. We have confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over the next four years. I am pleased to hear that development is under way at Mill Hill Broadway. I have been reassured that the DFT will update my hon. Friend and key stakeholders once the review has been completed.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I have been working closely with local teacher and Labour Wymondham town councillor Lowell Doheny on the pressing issue of youth provision and wellbeing in our growing market town. Can we have a debate in Government time on youth provision, including access to affordable leisure and youth clubs, to explore how best the Labour Government can ensure that youth support keeps pace with expanding market towns?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know about the Government’s commitment to the youth strategy going forward. We have heard his concerns. It is not about any particular area; it is about all areas where young people get the support and access they need. I will ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I want to pay tribute to Colin Brookes, the president of Halesowen Town FC, who passed away at the end of last year doing what he loved most: watching his beloved Yeltz. After playing as a professional footballer and serving as a police officer, Colin dedicated 25 years of his life to Halesowen Town FC. He led the club through the ups and downs that all non-league clubs face. Colin was a champion not just of football, but of Halesowen and the surrounding communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Colin Brookes and celebrating the impact of the good people who, like him, keep our non-league clubs alive and contribute so much to our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in recognising the legacy of Colin Brookes, and I extend my sympathies to his family and friends. Grassroots sport is an important part of our local communities. I thank Mr Brookes for his contribution not just to his local football club, but to the wider local community, and for the very positive impact that he had on the lives of people in his local area.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on tackling child poverty, and not only in the light of the Government’s decision to lift the two-child cap, but to recognise the vital work of the Multibank charity? That charity supports hundreds of children in my constituency, where the first Multibank was established by Gordon Brown and Bob Garmory, who most deservedly received an OBE in the new year’s honours list for his contributions to this amazing initiative.
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I congratulate Bob Garmory on his well-deserved OBE, which illustrates how vital the work my hon. Friend refers to really is. There will be ample time to debate child poverty when the legislation to remove the two-child benefit cap is considered by the House. At that time, we may see the disgraceful coalition that has been formed between the official Opposition and the Reform party not just in theory, but in practice. If they had their way, children in poverty would not get that help.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
After the chaos of their former leader being exposed as a fan of white supremacy, and with DOGE still nowhere in sight, Reform UK on Staffordshire county council are so desperate for savings that they are cutting £1 million from concessionary travel in their first budget. Does the Leader of the House agree that concessions can be a lifeline for vulnerable people who do not drive, and the fact that Reform looked there to make their cuts says a lot about their values? Can we have a debate on the importance of concessionary travel?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree that concessionary travel is invaluable for many people, particularly the most vulnerable. We are beginning to see across the country what it means to have Reform in office. This Government understand how important accessible transport is and we are prioritising keeping costs down. Transport oral questions took place this morning, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are drawn to the attention of the Department for Transport.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
At a recent constituency coffee morning that I hosted on the subject of public transport, some disabled passengers told me about the specific barriers they still face when they choose to travel by rail. Woolston station has step-free access to only one of its platforms, so those with limited mobility have to make a 20-minute round trip in the other direction in order to then travel eastward. That is, as I am sure the Leader of the House would agree, ridiculous. As we roll out Great British Railways, will he make time for a debate on how we might make all our stations accessible to all constituents and travellers, including those who live with disabilities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to improving the accessibility of British railways. We have confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over four years. There have been a number of recent debates relating to the accessibility of our railways, but I think further such debates—perhaps Backbench Business or Adjournment debates—would be of great interest to Members across the House.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Yesterday, with Highlands and Islands airports at the centre of international events, there was no Scottish news programming on STV—the ITV channel in Scotland—because journalists were on the picket line in Aberdeen and Glasgow. Their strike centres on STV’s plans to cut the cherished northern edition of news output—formerly Grampian News—and to cut 28 editorial jobs and merge them with central belt news services, which would dilute and diminish northern coverage. Does the Leader of the House agree that, when facts are so precious, it is important that we protect local journalism and value the distinct voice that it provides?
Sir Alan Campbell
I support my hon. Friend in what he says about the importance of local journalism and the distinct voice that it provides. My understanding is that Ofcom has launched a consultation on the proposed changes, and I encourage everyone with a view on this matter to respond to it.
Road Safety Strategy
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our new national road safety strategy.
It is a sad truth that, by the time I finish speaking and we hear the Opposition’s response, it is likely someone will have died or been seriously injured on our roads. It is an even sadder truth that that would likely have been entirely preventable. Even though we have some of the safest roads in the world, more than 1,600 people died on our roads last year, and nearly 28,000 were seriously injured.
Over the course of my lifetime, road safety has improved immeasurably—in no small part thanks to a titan of my party, Barbara Castle—but it is safe to say the last 10 years represent a lost decade. Death and serious injury numbers have plateaued despite improvements in vehicle safety. The UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings, and the human cost of too little action and too much complacency is clear: lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition, and lives grieved by the families left behind.
If that was not enough, a decade without a comprehensive road safety strategy has meant that the country lost out on nearly £7 billion in economic output last year. That should not just give us pause; it should spur us to action. We would not tolerate that on our railways or in our airspace, and I am determined to ensure that we no longer tolerate it on our roads. That is why I am standing here today: to say quite simply that enough is enough.
The targets that we are setting match the full measure of our ambition. We want to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. Our vision is clear: any road user—however they choose to travel—should be able to move safely on our roads. There are four main ways in which we will deliver that vision through the strategy.
First, we will put all road users at the heart of the strategy. When it comes to protecting vulnerable road users, we will be guided by the evidence. We know, for example, that young drivers between 17 and 24 are at a higher risk of death or serious injury on our roads. They account for 6% of driving licences yet are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. That is why we will consult not just on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, but on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers. I would also recognise the important debate on young driver safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) secured last January.
Another key area is the safety of older drivers. In 2024, about 24% of all car drivers killed were aged 70 or older. While driving is rightly seen as a vital form of independence in older age, it cannot come at the expense of safety, so we will consult on mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 and explore options for cognitive testing, recognising the risks of driving with conditions such as dementia.
We also will not ignore the fact that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads compared with car drivers, so we will reform the motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime. That starts today with a consultation, including on removing the ability to ride on L-plates indefinitely.
Let me move to advances in technology and data. We will consult on mandating 18 new vehicle safety technologies under the GB type approval scheme—a change that could prevent more than 14,000 deaths and serious injuries over 15 years. That includes autonomous emergency braking, a proven safety technology that Meera Naran has tirelessly campaigned for as Dev’s law, after the tragic loss of her son. I am delighted to see her in the Public Gallery; she has been an incredible campaigner on this issue.
To learn from collisions and prevent future harm, we will establish a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain. It will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations. To give those involved in collisions the best chance of survival, we will ensure that police-recorded collision data and healthcare data are shared more effectively.
The third theme is about infrastructure. Safer roads and effective speed management are essential pillars of the “safe system” approach that guides the strategy. That starts with investment. The Government are providing £24 billion between 2026 and 2030 to improve motorways and local roads, building on record funding for pothole repairs. We will also publish updated guidance on setting local speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras, supporting local authorities to make evidence-based decisions.
Because rural roads remain among the most dangerous, with motorcyclists often navigating sharp bends, we will build on the success of Project PRIME—perceptual rider information for maximisation of enjoyment and expertise—in Scotland, which saw real safety improvements thanks to new road markings.
Finally, let me talk about enforcement. We know that most drivers are safe, and we do not want to get in their way. However, they need to feel confident that the Government have their back, so my message to the minority of drivers who are unsafe and reckless is simple: if you drive dangerously, if you drive illegally or if you make our roads less safe, you will face the consequences.
Take drink and drug-driving. We know that it was a contributory factor in 18% of road fatalities in 2023, so we will consult on lowering the drink-drive limit, which has not been changed in England and Wales since 1967. We will review penalties for drink and drug-driving offences and explore the use of alcohol interlock devices. New powers will be considered to suspend licences for those suspected of the most serious offences.
We also propose tougher penalties for those who drive without insurance—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We will also look at penalty points for failing to wear a seatbelt and failing to ensure that child passengers are wearing theirs, too.
Thanks to the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), we are tackling illegal number plates. We will increase penalties for using illegal plates and ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is empowered to carry out more robust checks on number plate suppliers.
These rightly bold ambitions cannot be met by Government working alone. We call on the support of Members from all parts of the House and extend our hand in partnership to the devolved Governments, mayors, local authorities, the police and other stakeholders. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her support on behalf of the Transport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety for his advocacy on this important issue.
I have sat with families torn apart by deaths and serious injuries on our roads—it is one of the hardest parts of my job. Even through intolerable pain, they campaign, fight and demand change so that others can be spared their sense of loss. This strategy is for those brave families. I truly believe that this is a turning point for road safety in this country, when we finally put victims at the heart of policymaking, see road safety as a shared responsibility and understand that, while driver or rider error is inevitable, fatalities and serious injury are not. A multilayered system, from safer speeds and vehicles to safer roads and robust enforcement, is how we protect every road user. That is how we ensure that people walk away from collisions rather than being carried and how we deliver safer roads for everyone who relies on them. I have laid copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although obviously some of it was reported in The Times earlier this week. I welcome the fact that the Government have published the road safety strategy, and I welcome the broad ambition, shared right across the House, to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As a former Roads Minister and as a local MP, I too have met many grieving families torn apart by deaths on our roads. The fact that we have seen a 10% to 15% reduction since 2010 does not mean that we do not need to go further.
In that spirit, I welcome the comprehensive look at motorcycle training that the Minister has announced, as well as the expansion of Project PRIME from Scotland on motorcycle safety. That will be a major improvement to our road safety. I also welcome stiffer fines and enforcement against bad faith drivers, particularly those on ghost plates, as has been mentioned, and against those trying to evade justice via the use of dodgy number plates and other things to conceal their identity. I also welcome the road safety investigation branch and the better use and collation of data and data sharing—those are incredibly important. I also welcome the inclusion of Sharlotte’s law, which will help to prevent people trying to evade justice by ensuring that timely blood testing can take place in the most serious of cases.
It is clear that there will be concern about some of the new moves announced and whether they are wholly related to road safety, and I would like to look at a couple of those. In oral questions, the Minister appeared to suggest that part of the reason for the six-month delay after getting a theory test was to ensure that more driving tests are available. In reality, it will mean an even larger group of people waiting to book driving tests, so I fear that the Government have not fully thought through the consequences of that. I remember meeting a woman aged 60 who had just lost her husband of 40 years. She lived in a small village with no bus service. She had always relied on him to drive. Are we really telling her that she will have to take a theory test and then wait six months after passing it to take a driving test?
I can think of women in similar circumstances—men take more driving tests than women at an earlier stage in life—who maybe only take a test when they move for jobs or after having children. We need to properly think through the consequences of some of what the Government are proposing. It is important that we look at this broadly to ensure that we are not restricting freedoms via legislation to fix problems that are the result of not sorting out driving tests.
No one in this House disputes that drink-driving is totally unacceptable, but I hope that Ministers and the Secretary of State will reflect on the experiences in Scotland, where changes in this space have already been made, and on the concerns right across the hospitality sector that there is no clear evidence of improved road safety outcomes following those changes. In fact, it is extraordinary that the Department—to quote an answer to one of my written questions—
“has not made an assessment of the impact on the economic viability of pubs in Scotland”
as a result of the changes that have already happened up there. Changing the legal limit alone will not change behaviour, and any reform must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and impacts, not on attempts to look tough.
Alongside alcohol, the House must not lose sight of drug-driving, and I welcome some of the measures announced today. However, the commitments to testing seem rather vague. It would be great to hear more from the Minister on that because the police are pushing for more roadside drug testing. Governments of all stripes have pushed for an emphasis on education and behavioural change. However, that sits uneasily with this Government cutting the budget for the THINK! road safety campaign by £1.2 million last year, particularly when lifelong learning and changes are so critical to many of the plans that the Government have announced today.
That brings me to my final major point, which is around enforcement. This place can pass all the laws it wishes, but if they are not enforced, all that does is undermine faith in our democratic institutions. The House will be aware that police numbers under this Government are down by around 1,300 in the latest figures. Enforcement sits at the heart of any credible road safety policy, so are there are plans to ensure additional roads policing to ensure that enforcement happens?
Finally, there are some omissions. Why still exclude vulnerable road users and motorcyclists from bus lanes in many areas? There is a real missed opportunity to improve safety and survival for those people. There is also a glaring absence when it comes to tackling the scourge of unlicensed and uninsured criminals driving with impunity. Measures such as requiring proof of identity to register a vehicle could have been included, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) might mention that in her remarks, too.
Road safety is not delivered by strategies and consultations alone; it is delivered when the law is clear and evidence-based, enforcement is consistent and the Government are willing to confront difficult issues, rather than relying on process and pre-briefed headlines. While we welcome many of the measures, there are still many questions to be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lilian Greenwood
I welcome the support from the shadow Secretary of State for our measures to tackle road harm. I was slightly surprised by his comment about the coverage in the press because we did of course publish the strategy yesterday, giving him the opportunity to have a full 24 hours to read it. Nevertheless, I note his comments and welcome his support. I also note his comment about the reduction in those killed and seriously injured over the previous Government’s term. I welcome the fact that the numbers went down slightly, but they are nothing to the level of ambition that this Government are showing and the seriousness that this problem requires.
The right hon. Member questioned why we are introducing a minimum learning period for new drivers. This is a safety measure. It is about saying that in order to set people up for a lifetime of safe driving, whenever they take their driving test and learn to drive, they need to get a range of pre-test practice in a variety of conditions. We want people to take the time to learn properly, to ensure they know how to cope with things like extreme weather, driving at night and driving on different sorts of roads. We think that that is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, it is, of course, subject to a consultation, and we will listen carefully to all the views expressed in that.
When it comes to drink-driving, of course we do not want to stop people going out and enjoying our hospitality sector. What we are clearly saying is, “If you’re going to go out and have a drink, leave your car at home.” Reducing the drink-drive limit would simply bring England and Wales into line with Scotland and the rest of Europe. We are the only countries, except perhaps Malta, that have this higher drink-drive limit—
Lilian Greenwood
We are no longer the safest. We have been dropping down the rankings, and progress has stalled compared with other countries across Europe. Sir Peter North’s review in 2010 estimated that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save an estimated 43 to 168 lives each year and avoid a very large number of serious injuries—a conservative estimate put it at 280. We are acting on the evidence.
When it comes to drug-driving, we are looking at how we can make better use of testing. I know that too many people who have suffered as a result of someone drug-driving wait a long time for their case to come to court. It takes too long to process, which is why we are looking at things like roadside testing. Through our award-winning THINK! campaign, we continue to target publicity at those who cause the most danger: young men aged 17 to 24. At the end of last year, we did an anti-drug-driving campaign—the first in 10 years—using the sorts of media channels that get to those we are trying to target, including TikTok and Instagram.
Finally, the shadow Secretary of State is right to speak about enforcement. That is why this Government are investing in additional police officers—an extra 3,000 police officers by March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are responding to the requirements of the police. We are giving them the legislation and the powers they need to crack down on those who cause danger on our roads. I am pleased to see that our strategy has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for roads policing, Jo Shiner. I welcome the right hon. Member’s other comments, and we look forward to reading the official Opposition’s comments in response to our consultations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This strategy and the many elements within it are hugely welcome, and I congratulate the Government on addressing what the previous Government spent 14 years not properly addressing, during which time too many people have been killed or seriously injured on our roads in preventable incidents. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Transport Committee previously, she spoke positively about London’s “Vision Zero” strategy. Now that the road safety strategy has been published, are the Government planning to adopt a “Vision Zero” strategy nationally, and if not, why not?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her support, and she is right to commend Transport for London. Indeed, a number of mayors and local authorities have adopted “Vision Zero” strategies. Of course, we want to get to a position where the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads is zero, but in setting out this strategy, we have established national road safety targets that we think are achievable. Of course, in the longer term, we want to work towards a position where no one is injured on our roads.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for the strategy. We welcome it, having called for an updated road safety strategy for some time, following years of neglect of our roads by the previous Conservative Government. The strategy shows serious intent, and I commend the thought and research that has gone into it and the breadth of thinking on display. It is welcome that it is largely substance rather than gimmicks, which could have been the case. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Ryan’s law campaign on penalties for hit and run, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), is incorporated into the strategy.
Our concern is that much of the strategy is based on a commitment to undertake consultations. I hope the Minister agrees that we would not want to see a repeat of the time it has taken to undertake a pavement-parking consultation—admittedly one initiated by the previous Government—with a wait of five years until the welcome announcement of something today. Consultations need to be meaningful, but they also need to be time-bound and then translated into action.
A number of areas need focus. We need to consider the significant impact on some groups in society that these measures will have, right though they are for advancing road safety. The first group is older people. The older generation have grown up in an age of decades-worth of Government policy promoting travel by car, so this runs the risk of having a significant impact on them. As I know from constituency casework, they also suffer from DVLA administration failures in processing medical changes and so on. This underlines the importance of improving public transport to reduce car dependency—in particular, the development of demand-responsive transport in rural areas, which the Transport Committee has looked at in detail.
These measures also run the risk of placing further pressure on the rural economy. Our pubs and farming communities are already under real pressure from increased alcohol taxation, business rates and inflation and poor international trade arrangements, which makes it even more important that they are properly supported and that the Government listen, including to Liberal Democrat calls for a 5% cut to VAT for hospitality.
It is welcome that the strategy mentions potholes, which drive all our constituents mad—particularly mine on the A4130 between Didcot and Wallingford and the Milton interchange in Queensway. Most importantly, we need to support young drivers. More is needed, given that the Government have twice moved the deadline for reducing the wait for tests to seven weeks. The six-month wait is understandable, but it is important that we support young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench know that they have two minutes, not two minutes and 50 seconds or three minutes and 10 seconds.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Let me be clear that we are consulting on a number of the measures in the road safety strategy so that the public and stakeholders have an opportunity to share their views. The intent is not to delay. The consultations will be open for 12 weeks, and then we intend to take concrete action as a result of the feedback we receive. Some of the measures in this strategy will take very little time and do not require legislation. Others will require secondary or, indeed, primary legislation, but we intend to take action in order to meet the ambitious targets we have set for just nine years’ time.
I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman says about older people. We do not want to restrict older people’s independence, and we know how important driving can be, but the truth is that we need to keep people safe. We do not want anyone on our roads whose medical condition means that they are not safe to drive. Some people may be unaware that their eyesight has deteriorated and poses a danger to others. I know that many families find it difficult to have those conversations with an older relative about when is the right time to stop driving. We hope that the measures we are proposing on eyesight testing will help in those circumstances.
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about rural areas and the need to ensure that these measures are rural-proofed. When it comes to potholes, he is right: they are not only very annoying for all our constituents but a real danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. That is why this Government are investing £7.3 billion over the spending review period in local roads maintenance, on top of the additional £500 million this year. We are giving local authorities that long-term funding settlement so that they can improve the shocking quality of the roads we were left with by the previous Conservative Government.
When it comes to young drivers, we have considered carefully the right balance between protecting young people, who we know are at particular risk, and not curtailing their opportunities for work, education and social activities.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all her hard work on this strategy—I have no doubt that it will save lives. I have spent the last year campaigning against ghost number plates, which make drivers invisible to speed and police cameras. These plates are great for car racers and criminals and terrible for the rest of us. They have spent years going under the radar, but today they have been rumbled, and I am delighted the Minister has announced a massive crackdown on these plates. How soon will these dodgy ghost-plate drivers start to get penalty points on their licence and their vehicles seized for using these plates, and when will we start to see these MOT number plate checks?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and, as I said earlier, for the outstanding work that she has done to bring this issue to national attention. As she knows, alongside the road safety strategy, yesterday we launched five consultation documents, one of which is about motoring offences. It includes our intention to have tougher penalties for those who use illegal plates, and to strengthen the role of the DVLA in looking at number plate suppliers and taking action. I do not intend to delay, but we must obviously await the end of the consultation, and some of those measures will require legislation.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her time in discussing these issues. As a former police and crime commissioner who funded a dedicated roads policing unit, this issue is close to my heart. I wish to make two points about drink and drug-driving. First, I fear that reducing the alcohol limit for England and Wales is potentially a red herring policy that will distract from focusing on where the real harm and damage comes: from those who ignore the drink-drive limit no matter what it is. Secondly, I thank the Minister for the focus on drug-driving. This year, after their Christmas operations, police forces will be reporting more drug than drink detections for the first time. It is good that that is being detected, but it is scratching the surface of the problem and we must focus in on those who take drugs and drive cars. I would welcome any further details from the Minister on the specifics so that we can start doing that as soon as possible and get those people off our roads.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued interest in these areas. As I said earlier in response to the shadow Secretary of State, when it comes to drink-driving, we are drawing on evidence. The UK is an outlier when it comes to our drink-drive limit, which has been the same for almost 60 years. This measure will simply bring us into line with Scotland and most of the rest of Europe. In Scotland, drink-drive fatal collisions halved in the decade after the drink-drive limit was reduced, and as I have said, evidence from Sir Peter North’s 2010 review estimated that the measure would save dozens of lives. That is what the road safety strategy is about. It is not about curtailing people’s freedom to drive; it is about saving lives, as are the measures that we are looking at on drug-driving, which we know is a growing problem. We are determined to crack down on it.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her great personal commitment to this vital issue. It is clear that the Government have listened to families and the road safety community and followed the evidence. She rightly recognises the importance of local partnerships in delivering on the ambitions of the strategy. Unfortunately, in Lancashire the Reform-led county council insists on waiting for fatalities and serious injuries to occur before acting, seemingly regardless of concerns raised by residents. Does the Minister agree that to deliver on this strategy and save lives, local authorities such as Lancashire must have a more proactive approach by listening to communities, identifying risk areas and acting before people are killed or injured?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the incredible work that he has been doing through the all-party group for transport safety. He raises concerns about Lancashire’s Reform council, and true to form, no Reform Members are here today to debate this issue. I have been concerned that some local authorities hide behind national guidance on setting speed limits and the deployment of speed cameras, and say that they have to wait for a fatality to occur before they can take action. That is not the case. We are intending to strengthen the guidance that we provide to local authorities, to enable them to listen to community concerns and act to save lives.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I welcome all efforts by the Government to make roads safer for pedestrians and motorists, but I heard nothing about roadkill of wildlife, horses, pets, and other animals that can also cause collisions involving the deaths of human beings. In my constituency, Havering-atte-Bower is a rural Essex village with a lot of horse riders. I am told that up to 700 horses have been killed on the roads in recent years, and up to 50 riders. We also have a lot of roaming deer in areas such as Harold Hill and Noak Hill. Apparently, up to 75,000 deer are killed on the roads, along with hedgehogs and other animals, so there is a lot going on with wildlife which needs to be considered. We know that some creatures do not have to be registered if they are run over by a motor vehicle, so will the Minister consider amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 to include cats and other wild animals?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that on rural roads in particular dangers are posed by drivers who hit animals, and right to raise concerns about horse riders. He will know that the highway code was strengthened to ensure that those who are driving are mindful of horse riders and the need to pass them safely, slowly and with sufficient room. We will look at what more we can do to strengthen the advice and guidance, and ensure that people are aware of those issues in the highway code. I have listened carefully to many people who have raised with me their concerns about cats, and work is under way in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at further research on that issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call David Williams, who is permitted to leave early so that he can deal with his cough.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
That is really kind of you, after a full morning in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I warmly welcome the road safety strategy, which will save the lives of thousands of people across the next decade. As the Minister knows, because we have had countless meetings, I have been campaigning alongside Claire, the incredibly brave mother of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who was so tragically killed by a motorist in my constituency. Under the current law, police are unable to test the blood of unconscious suspects until they are in a position to give consent, and in their deepest moments of grief, Sharlotte’s family could not get the answers they needed. Does the Minister agree that through consultation we now have an opportunity to change that, and to bring justice and a lasting legacy for Sharlotte and her family, so that no other families have to face such pain and anguish?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for the work that he has done to ensure that that case was brought to my attention. Claire’s voice, and those of many bereaved families, have been in my mind as we have been devising this road safety strategy. My hon. Friend will have seen that in the consultation on offences we are looking to introduce Sharlotte’s law, to ensure that no other family suffers what they suffered.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
In light of what was essentially a very sensible statement, may I ask the Minister a point of clarification? She talks about data technology and innovation, but have the Government considered an experiment in mandatory black box technology for very young drivers? The AA and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association say that that could save money and reduce the number of accidents by 35%.
Lilian Greenwood
The right hon. Member is right that many young drivers will seek lower insurance as a result of having a black box in their car. That issue was considered as part of Driver2020 and research carried out by the previous Government. The results from that were not conclusive in suggesting that such a measure would make a difference, but I remain open to being evidence-led, and if further information comes forward, we would be happy to consider those issues.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I recognise the Minister’s dedication to this issue over many years, and I am glad that today she is in a position to introduce this strategy, which rightly focuses on reducing death and injury on our roads. We all know of places in our communities that are accident or speeding hotspots, where it is only a matter of time before something happens, yet too often safety improvements follow only when there has been a serious injury or a fatality. That mentality has to change. How will this strategy give communities the power to take action before it is too late?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Clearly, local authorities can and should draw on historical collision data when assessing road safety measures, but proactive measures to reduce risks should not be contingent on a fatal or serious incident occurring. Local authorities have the power and the funding to carry out interventions, so it is vital that they listen to the concerns of local people and act to prevent serious incidents before they occur, rather than just responding to them afterwards.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Ryan Saltern was hit and left for dead by a drunk driver in 2019. The perpetrator received a four-month suspended sentence. In 2021, Ryan’s family launched their Ryan’s law campaign to increase sentences for hit-and-run offences, and in October I introduced a Ryan’s law amendment to the Sentencing Bill. We all know that there can be lots of talk in this place, but not always much action. Last year, I met the road safety Minister with the family; she clearly listened and has now acted, and I thank her. I pay tribute to my incredible North Cornwall constituents Mark and Helen, Ryan’s parents, and Leanne, his sister, for never giving up—they are a true inspiration. Once the consultation closes, how long will it take the Minister to bring draft legislation to the House?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Member for the work that he has done to support the Saltern family. It was humbling to meet Mark, Helen and Leanne, and to hear about their work supporting other victims of road traffic collisions. As he knows, we are consulting on strengthening the law around those who fail to stop and report a collision. What happened to Ryan is tragic and I am keen that we act as quickly as possible. Where legislation is required, we will have to wait until parliamentary time is available, but I am determined to act.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and I welcome the strategy, particularly its focus on speed management. While icy and ungritted roads currently make speeding less of an issue, thanks to the Reform-led county council’s failure to grit roads across large parts of my constituency, excessive speed in our rural villages, such as Chebsey, has long put residents in danger. How will the Minister ensure that rural road segmentation works effectively with local speed limits to reduce dangerous driving in those areas, so that safety is delivered by this Government’s policy and we can get past local or county council failure?
Lilian Greenwood
I am sorry to hear about the failure of my hon. Friend’s council to take action that would prevent further collisions. We know that rural roads are more dangerous, and that is why we are determined to take action to support local authorities to introduce measures to make them safer.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Another way to improve road safety is to reduce driver frustration caused by roadworks, particularly those that overrun. That is why in 2022 I launched a campaign to “Can the Cones” and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to tighten up on roadworks regulations. I lobbied the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and after the election I lobbied the road safety Minister, who kindly gave me a hearing. I welcome the fact that the Government have just announced that they are tightening the regulation of roadworks, particularly by increasing the fines for those that overrun, which was integral to my Bill. I give credit where it is due and I thank the Minister personally for listening. The measures will not solve the whole problem of roadworks, but they should certainly help, and my constituents and I will be grateful.
Lilian Greenwood
I am not entirely sure I heard a question, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. I am proud to be part of a Government who listen and act.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I welcome the strategy published yesterday. It will save lives and, as a secondary impact, reduce insurance premiums, which is a non-trivial challenge for many people. I want to talk about the notion of a cognitive test that is set out in the strategy. In 2020, Xander Irvine, who was just three years old, was looking through a shop window in Edinburgh with his mother, when a car mounted the pavement, killing him and injuring his mother. The driver was aged 91 and she died around a year later of natural causes. Despite having dementia, she was able to renew her driving licence just a few months before the accident. The fatal accident inquiry was clear in its recommendation that cognitive tests should be introduced. I believe that all deaths on our roads are preventable; this death was absolutely preventable. The strategy talks about “developing options”, but will the Minister go further today and guarantee that we will deliver in this area? Will she go even further and talk about a timeline for delivering that change?
Lilian Greenwood
I dealt with the prevention of future deaths report relating to the utterly heartbreaking case that my hon. Friend refers to. While there is not currently a suitable test of cognitive ability to drive safely, I recognise the need for us to do further work on the issue. We plan to reconvene the older drivers taskforce and expert groups on this subject to consider suitable options. I do not intend to delay—I intend to take evidence and to take action.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising optometrist. I thank the Minister for this wonderful statement. I wholeheartedly agree with it, especially the ambition to reduce road deaths by 65%. The Minister mentioned various figures, including 1,600 fatalities, but according to the RAC, 280 crashes every year are caused by glare from headlights, so can she shed some light on that matter?
The UK is one of the only countries in Europe that does not have mandatory sight tests until people have to renew their licence at the age of 70, so somebody could pass a driving test at 17 or 18, then not have an eye test until they are 70 years old. Does the Minister agree that people should have a sight test every time their driving licence is renewed, which is every 10 years, to ensure that they are safe on the road?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. No one should be driving on our roads whose eyesight does not meet the required standard. We have chosen to consult on eye tests for those over 70, but it would be good advice for everyone to have their eyes tested on a regular basis. We have undertaken research on headlamp glare. I know that this is a growing problem, and I certainly recognise it as a driver myself. We are going to consider the outputs of the research that we already have and do further work, in addition to looking internationally at work on vehicle standards, but I absolutely want to take further action on headlamp glare.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We definitely need to speed things up or colleagues will not be able to get in.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her written statement about enforcement on pavement parking, which is a huge issue in Luton South and South Bedfordshire. I welcome the launch of today’s road safety strategy, particularly the emphasis on tackling drug-driving. There was a trebling of fatal collisions between 2014 and 2023 related to drug-driving, so will the Minister elaborate further on how that will be enforced under the new strategy?
Lilian Greenwood
We know that drug-driving is a growing problem. We have already done further publicity on the dangers of drug-driving, because not everyone appreciates how dangerous it is, but we also want to crack down on those who do drive with drugs in their system. We are looking to improve testing and processing so that we can bring more convictions, and more importantly to deter people from ever getting behind the wheel of a car when they have taken drugs.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Dangerous driving and speeding are among the biggest road safety issues in my constituency. Despite that, the local Cheshire councils frequently say that they cannot introduce further safety measures because the police are unable to enforce them. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office to ensure that police forces have the funding and resources necessary to enforce existing, as well as new, driving laws as part of the road safety strategy?
Lilian Greenwood
I know that the hon. Lady has been a real campaigner on road safety during her time in the House. The ambitious targets that we have set can be delivered only by working in partnership with the police. I have had a number of meetings with the Minister for Policing and Crime. We both agree that this is an important issue and we will be working with police forces to ensure that it is enforced.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for taking pity on my throat. I recently held a public meeting about road safety in Polesworth, where there have been reports of illegal street racing. Constituents shared with me their concerns about the illegal number plates used by criminals to get away with dangerous driving. That is why I strongly support the Government’s strategy, which will introduce tougher checks to ensure that number plates can be read by cameras and to crack down on the use of ghost plates. Will the Minister outline what support my local police force in Warwickshire will receive to crack down on criminal street racing and the use of illegal number plates?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done at a local level. We are consulting on new powers to give the police precisely the tools that they need to crack down on the criminals who feel that they can get away with illegal activity by using ghost plates.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Road safety in Woking is regularly raised with me by my constituents, so I am pleased that the Government have announced ways to toughen up our drink-driving laws. However, police forces, including mine in Surrey, cannot adequately police the drink-driving laws as they are, and these changes will be less impactful if they are not able to do proper enforcement. With police forces increasingly deprioritising policing on our roads due to budgetary pressures, has the Minister conducted a review of current enforcement? If not, will she do so?
Lilian Greenwood
The Government have done a great deal of work in collaboration with the Home Office on road policing. We know that this strategy will be effective only if there is enforcement. I cannot instruct chief constables on how they deploy their resources, but we are determined to work in partnership to ensure that this road safety strategy is effective, including the measures around enforcement.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all her hard work over many years to bring this excellent statement to the House. Some 500 people are killed or seriously injured on Birmingham’s roads every year, including in my constituency. Sadly, due to the historical layout of many of our estates, schools, shops and other amenities are in some of the areas at the most acute risk. Can she assure the House that her Department is working with other public agencies to ensure that efforts are targeted at those most at-risk areas? Once the consultation has closed at the end of March, will every effort be made to respond to them as soon as possible?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are working very closely with those who have expressed a similar desire to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, including the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has shown real leadership on this issue. I can give my hon. Friend the commitment that we intend to act to ensure that the measures we have set out lead to the changes needed.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome and commend this Government’s road safety strategy. Late last year, there were three incidents outside Lydgate junior and infant school, Headfield school and Westmoor primary school in my constituency—thankfully, there were no fatalities. I joined West Yorkshire police, local councillors and the affected schools to conduct a road safety campaign outside those schools. In some parts of the country, roads outside schools are temporarily closed for 30 minutes at the beginning and end of the day, and other schools have no-parking zones that extend to ensure that there are no safety risks. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to increase road safety outside schools?
Lilian Greenwood
Local authorities already have the powers to introduce school streets, as the hon. Gentleman described, or to reduce speed limits outside schools. They have our full backing to use those powers to improve safety outside schools, including those in his constituency.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I very much welcome the proposals in the strategy, which I have no doubt will save lives. May I thank the Minister for her statement on pavement parking earlier today? Many of us have raised that issue over many years.
I am particularly pleased to see moves to crack down on unlicensed and uninsured drivers. The Minister will remember that she kindly met my constituents John and Karen Rowlands last year to talk about the death of their son Andrew. As the Minister knows, they want to see better oversight of insurance and licensing, especially in relation to car sales on social media. Would she welcome further representations on this issue as part of the consultation?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her words and for the incredible work she has done to advocate on behalf of those who want safer streets and pavements and to raise the particular case of John and Karen Rowlands. I would be very happy to see their response to the motoring offences consultation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the statement; there is much positivity in it. Anyone who has to declare a health issue on their driving licence will know that it becomes much more complex—I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. They need a full MOT and an eyesight test before they get their driving licence renewed, but that does not mean that they cannot drive; the point I am trying to make is that it has to be regulated. The current waiting time for medical tests and feedback for driving licence renewals to be processed is 16 weeks. I know two lorry drivers who had to wait six months before they got their licence due to their health changes, so they were not able to work. What plans are in place to address this issue and to speed up the process?
Lilian Greenwood
The Roads and Buses Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), who has responsibility for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, is sitting next to me. I recognise that there have been delays in dealing with some medical licensing. The DVLA is introducing a new IT system, which will certainly help to speed up the licensing investigations that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
More needs to be done to clamp down on dangerous driving. Oldham has seen far too many lives lost as a result of drivers treating the roads as racetracks. There is much to be welcomed in this strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on the work. However, I am not convinced that the proposal to introduce a practical test waiting period holds. Drivers are already waiting an unacceptable 24 weeks, and surely tests should be taken at the point when drivers are ready to meet the required standard. In many areas, driving is not a “nice to have”; it is essential to get to work or college and to go about daily life. May I ask that this work is not rushed into and that more is done to end the 24-week wait experienced by drivers in Greater Manchester?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend will know that the Government are already taking action to address driving test wait times, which I know are incredibly frustrating. However, we need to ensure that young drivers are set up for a lifetime of safe driving. We know from evidence that a minimum learning period will save lives and improve safety. That is why we are consulting on it, but we will listen as part of that consultation.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Every 17 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on our roads. That is a national scandal, which this Labour Government are tackling through this road safety strategy. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Rochdale trading standards, which, together with local police, led the country in exposing how ghost number plates are used by criminals, groomers, drug dealers and others to avoid detection? Will she thank all those bereaved families who campaigned with me and fellow MPs to ensure that we have mandatory eye tests for over-70s and much tighter drug-driving laws?
Lilian Greenwood
I am very happy to commend those from my hon. Friend’s constituency who do such fantastic work to campaign, as well as the police and trading standards on the work that they do. We are determined to act on the things that they have led on.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
This year marks 13 years since the most incredible bestie that anybody could wish for—the ray of sunshine that I was lucky enough to have in my life—was killed on our road, leaving her two young boys. Ashya Vanner, I think about you every day. I also pay tribute to Amie Pearson and Chelsea Carlisle, who were killed in Pleasley in November, with a nine-year-old boy being left with life-changing injuries. I thank the Minister for this work, but can we please get the legislation passed as soon as possible so that we can work on preventing unnecessary deaths?
Lilian Greenwood
I hope my hon. Friend will send my condolences to those in her constituency who have been affected by such a terrible loss. There is no question but that too many people are killed and seriously injured on our roads, and we intend to act to reduce the number as soon as possible.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank her very much for presenting the strategy. Road safety is a frequent and serious concern across Erewash. Following the tragic murder of Samuel Wilson by a driver under the influence of alcohol and drugs in Ilkeston marketplace in December 2023, I have been supporting a local campaign for safer road rules and stronger pedestrianisation in our marketplace to prevent such events from ever happening again. Will the Minister comment on how her road safety strategy will make our town centres safer for pedestrians?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and am very sorry to hear about that road traffic collision in his constituency. One of the things we are doing as part of this strategy is reissuing the manual for streets. That manual supports local authorities to introduce road safety measures, particularly in urban areas, extending things like pedestrianisation. We will ensure that pedestrians are put at the heart of our road safety strategy.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
In my constituency, 19 people died on the roads between 2018 and 2024. It is usually assumed that that is because we have some motorway in the constituency, but in fact people are six times more likely to die on a rural road. I thank the Minister very much for the measures within the strategy. I know there will be those who push back against changes to drink-driving limits, so does she agree that when people talk about personal responsibility in respect of driving, they fail to understand the depth of damage that is caused—both to families and to the wider community—when there are so many deaths of young people in my constituency?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Deaths and serious injuries resulting from road traffic collisions tear apart families and communities, and they come at great cost to our national health service and our country. Those are just some of the reasons why we are acting to reduce them.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement and join her in paying tribute to the bereaved families who, in the face of unimaginable loss, have campaigned for these road safety improvements. At the end of 2025 there were a number of serious accidents at Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency, leading to hospitalisations and serious delays on the network. The Minister is well aware of my campaign for improvements at Moor Farm—improvements that were long neglected by the previous Government, and which I will continue to push for as part of the road investment strategy. Can she say a little about how these two strategies will interact and, hopefully, unlock those vital improvements?
Lilian Greenwood
Safer roads are an essential pillar of the safe system approach that underpins our road safety strategy. We have had a number of conversations about investments in infrastructure, and road safety remains the top priority for National Highways as it devises its road investment strategy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Can we have super-short questions and super-sharp answers? I call Sarah Edwards.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and happy new year.
Although I welcome the road safety strategy, it sadly ignores school minibus safety, despite my raising this issue with the Department last year. I have been campaigning with my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald since 2023, following the tragic loss of their daughter Claire in a minibus accident. Private schools follow strict O licence rules, yet state schools can use weak section 19 permits. Will the Minister remedy this failing in the law through mandatory national safety standards for all school minibuses?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Minister for Roads and Buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), was listening carefully and will be happy to write to my hon. Friend or meet her to discuss it further.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described the Government’s plans to reduce the blood alcohol limit as “absolutely ridiculous” and “wholly unacceptable”, and said that the current system worked “pretty effectively”. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the families of the 260 people who tragically died last year as a result of intoxicated drivers’ behaviour would strongly disagree, and that we should reject those claims?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Let me just give colleagues a bit of guidance: if you are going to mention another Member in the Chamber, the protocol is to let them know in advance.
Lilian Greenwood
It is noticeable that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here, but I would invite him to sit down with any of the families I have sat down with and claim that there is no need for action— 260 lives were lost last year, and every single one of those deaths was preventable.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for taking the time before Christmas to talk to me about my constituent Jamie Nolan, who sadly lost his life last October, aged 17, when his vehicle left a rural road in the dark. His parents, Sam and Paul, are obviously devastated, but they are really keen to make sure things improve for other families so that they do not experience this kind of tragedy. Can the Minister advise them on how they could get involved once they get through the worst of their grief, to ensure that the excellent measures in the strategy to focus on young people, rural roads, signage, road markings and local speed limits can be implemented across Lincolnshire’s roads?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and my heart goes out to her constituents. I would be very happy to meet them and her to discuss what further action can be taken at whatever time they think is appropriate.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
One of the first people I met when I became an MP was my constituent Janine, whose son Leon was tragically killed on a road in my constituency in 2020. I am proud that, working with her, we were able to get the speed limit changed on that road, but much more needs to happen nationally to ensure that this never happens again. As such, I welcome the road safety strategy. The strategy acknowledges that there is a relationship between deprivation and casualties, so when it is being implemented, will resources be targeted at the communities that need them most across the country?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have called for action to tackle, in particular, the death and serious injury of children on our roads, and we know that they are at far greater risk in more deprived communities. I will consider further his point about funding.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, my constituents Mary Cunningham and Grace Foulds were killed by a driver who had been told several times that his eyesight fell far below the legal standard to drive. Eyecare professionals are not currently required to inform the DVLA if someone’s vision is so poor that they cannot safely get behind the wheel. Will the Minister consider mandating eyecare professionals to report directly to the DVLA all drivers with insufficient visual acuity and an inadequate field of vision, no matter their age?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I pay tribute to the campaigning work of Terry Cunningham and his sister, Sue Rimaitis, who have acted following the sad loss of their mother Mary and her friend Grace. He is absolutely right that medical professionals have an important role to play, and we want to make sure that we work with their professional bodies to ensure that they report to the DVLA in those circumstances.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for publishing this strategy. I recently met with the community in Tintwistle in my constituency, who are concerned about speeding and unsafe driving on the A628. I have also had similar conversations with communities in Peak Forest and in Padfield. They desperately want road safety measures, but every time we ask, the answer that comes back is, “I’m afraid somebody has to die first.” That is the very thing that we are trying to avoid, so could the Minister reassure me and my constituents that this road safety strategy will put the power back into those communities so that they can protect local people?
Lilian Greenwood
It is local authorities that have the power to act in relation to road safety. We are determined to give them the guidance they need to take action in a proactive way to save lives in communities such as my hon. Friend’s.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In Blackpool we have seen year-on-year increases in the number of uninsured drivers, skyrocketing our premiums and the cost of insurance. Can the Minister outline to my constituents what her Department is doing to clamp down on this problem, and has it done any assessment of what this will mean for the pockets of my constituents?
Lilian Greenwood
Arm’s length bodies of the Department for Transport and the police work together closely on Operation Tutelage, to take people who are driving uninsured off the road. We are proposing tougher measures to deal with uninsured drivers. Frankly, if there were fewer road traffic collisions, that would reduce insurance costs for everyone.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I very much welcome this strategy, and the Minister’s commitment to making the changes necessary to bring down the tragic and avoidable loss of life on our roads. I have launched a survey for Road Safety Week, and I have already heard from many constituents across Cannock Chase who do not feel safe on our roads, with speeding and dangerous junctions causing particular concern. Will the Minister join me in encouraging people in my towns and villages to fill out my survey so that I can take up their specific concerns, and does she agree that the knowledge of local people will be vital to achieving the Government’s mission of sharply reducing deaths on our roads?
Lilian Greenwood
I am happy to encourage my hon. Friend’s constituents to complete that survey. It is vitally important that the views of local people are heard by those local authorities who have the power to act to save lives.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Over the past 17 months, I have supported my constituents Nevgül and Bora Bicakci. In August 2024, a bus mounted the pavement in Bexleyheath and killed their nine-year-old daughter, Ada. The driver of that bus was subsequently found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drugs. I pay tribute to the family’s campaign work on issues relating to drug-driving. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy includes a review of the penalties for drug-driving offences and the exploration of alternative methods for collecting and processing drug-driving evidence?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done to support his constituents, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the Livia awards last year. I can confirm that we are taking the action he sets out to curb drug-driving and to ensure that those who act in such a reckless manner feel the full consequences of the law.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for bringing forward the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, alongside specific and measurable targets for cutting the number of deaths on our roads. Evidently, one of the experiences we share across the House is the first time we meet the family of a child who has been killed on our roads. In my case, it was a child from Middlewich who was just cycling to school when he was hit by a young driver racing another car. What will stay with me—as it will stay with his friends, the school and our community for ever—is not just the sense of utter devastation, but the sense of determination from the parents that it cannot be allowed to happen to another family. The strategy sets out a broad range of measures that the Government want to bring in. Will the Minister commit to publishing a timetable for when each consultation and each measure is likely to come in, so that we can give reassurance to families that we are going to do this?
Lilian Greenwood
I can provide my hon. Friend with the assurance that we are going to do this. We will establish a new road safety board, which I will chair, to ensure that we make progress on the measures we have set out in the strategy and that we look at how soon we can act to ensure that those people see change happening.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
As I have previously discussed with the Minister, the A505 is one of the deadliest roads in the country, and the stretch between Baldock and Royston in particular has seen tragedy after tragedy in my constituency. Will the Minister set out how the road safety strategy will empower local highways authorities to take the necessary actions to finally make the A505 safer?
Lilian Greenwood
This strategy will be delivered in partnership with local authorities. We are strengthening the guidance that we provide to them so that they can put in place those measures that are needed to save lives.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I commend the Minister on this strategy; I know how much tireless work she has put into it. I represent residents on Stonebridge Lane in Farnley, Dixon Lane in Wortley, Green Lane in Lofthouse and Westerton Road in Tingley. They all tell me that the speeds on their roads are far too high, but they are repeatedly told by the highways department that the mean average speed is too low to do anything about it, despite the fact that the mean average speed is often slightly higher than the speed limits on those roads. As a former maths teacher, I know the value of data, but I also know the limitations of the mean. What will the road safety strategy do to alleviate my residents’ genuine concerns?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He raises very familiar concerns on behalf of his constituents. We know that the guidance on setting speed limits and on taking action needs updating. That is why we have committed to do that as part of this road safety strategy.
Subsea Telecommunications Cables: Resilience and Crisis Preparedness
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Matt Western will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to present the first report of this Parliament of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this statement on the United Kingdom’s resilience and crisis preparedness in relation to subsea telecommunication cables.
Subsea cables are critical to the UK’s economic prosperity and global influence. They provide crucial, irreplaceable connectivity between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. Like the trade routes of old, they are the arteries and veins of global commerce and communication. They carry a staggering 99% of the United Kingdom’s international data, and $1.5 trillion-worth in global cross-border trading. That is across 64 cables, including 45 international connections, but capacity is concentrated in newer equipment. For example, two newer cables carry 75% of transatlantic capacity.
For centuries, the United Kingdom has felt secure as an island, but that geostrategic strength is now a vulnerability, as the subsea cables on which the world depends have become a new front in a hybrid war. Revisionist powers and their proxies are targeting liberal democracies’ critical underwater infrastructure. Their aim is to disrupt connectivity, inflict economic damage and cause panic. By attacking us in this way, below the threshold of war, our adversaries are demonstrating their ability to do more at a much bigger scale and a much faster rate, should hostilities escalate. Subsea cables can be cut by something as unsophisticated as a rogue anchor dragged along the seabed by a commercial vessel.
As we have seen over recent months in the Baltic sea, such activity can easily be made to look accidental and readily denied, but Russia and China are also developing more targeted capabilities and operating at greater depths in our oceans, where the cables are harder to access and repair. Governance of subsea cables has been fragmented across at least eight Departments, seven agencies and numerous private sector actors. Contingency planning has been inadequate and largely ignored the possibility of a co-ordinated attack. We rely on legislation from 1885, with the threat of a paltry £100 fine to deter acts of cable damage.
The United Kingdom’s approach to subsea cables is no longer good enough. Concerned by the apparent lack of action in this area, my Committee launched an inquiry to assess the resilience of the United Kingdom’s subsea telecommunications cable network and the effectiveness of the Government’s work to protect it. We spoke in public and in private to security experts, lawyers, cable owners and operators, cable repair firms, former and serving naval leaders, policymakers from NATO allies, telecoms firms and those working in sectors reliant on data carried by subsea cables.
We were encouraged to find that, in the business-as-usual scenario, the UK subsea cable network enjoys a good level of resilience. Nevertheless, there are points of vulnerability in the network and gaps in the Government’s work, such as onshore infrastructure. Cables come ashore via landing stations, which remain vulnerable to sabotage. Many onward terrestrial links converge towards data centres. This all presents risks for low-level deniable attacks, which would be costly, provocative and hard to prevent.
Another example is the lack of genuinely sovereign repair capabilities. The United Kingdom is currently reliant on cable maintenance and repair consortiums, but repairs can take many days or weeks, and there is no guarantee that these consortium ships will be available when we need them. Commissioning a cable repair ship does not happen overnight. There is little to no redundant repair capacity that could be purchased at short notice on the open market. The Government must look ahead and acquire a genuinely sovereign cable repair ship by 2030.
Our report covered many other issues, and we were encouraged by the Government response. They had clearly engaged with the issues in depth, and there was a clear explanation of their rationale on each of our points. In particular, we are glad that the Government have committed to, first, establishing an oversight board, chaired by the Cabinet Office, to co-ordinate cross-Government work on protecting undersea infrastructure; secondly, updating impact assessments and strengthening contingency planning across critical public and private sectors; and thirdly, writing to landing station operators to emphasise the importance of robust security standards, and to ask them to produce emergency repair plans within 12 months.
None the less, the Government response does not address the Committee’s concerns about developing a more robust military deterrent. The recent announcement of further details of the Atlantic Bastion programme is welcome, but the capabilities outlined must be deployed at sufficient scale and pace to effectively deter threats to subsea cables. Furthermore, our Navy may be world-renowned, but our hands are tied by international law when it comes to intercepting suspect civilian ships outside our territorial waters.
The Government have said that they are launching a comprehensive review of legislation relating to subsea cable infrastructure, but they have not elaborated in detail. They have committed to exploring options for a sovereign cable repair ship, and we will keep a close eye on the progress made on this key recommendation. We will also keep a close eye on the commitments to upgrade security at cable landing stations, on which the Government have agreed to make progress.
Of course, the damage that our adversaries can cause us is not without limitation. Cable-monitoring schemes are increasing, and NATO can track sub-surface activity closely in a crisis. Would-be saboteurs may be identified by the security services in advance of carrying out an attack, but the damage that our adversaries can cause is nevertheless extensive. Unless we adopt much better mitigations, a tipping-point scenario seems possible. From the evidence submitted to our inquiry, we estimate that severe disruption would include financial payment and supply chain failures, degraded communications, overstretched emergency responses and unexpected cascading issues, all at a time of crisis.
We hope that this report has given the Government the wake-up call that they need to take this matter seriously. We will keep a keen eye on the Government’s progress in these areas, and we will conduct further scrutiny as required.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the Committee on its report, and I know that it took evidence from authoritative experts, such as the excellent Elisabeth Braw. Can the Chair explain to the House whether his findings were compatible with the alarming headline in today’s Daily Mail about another report from the Council on Geostrategy think-tank, which claims that cutting just 60 cables going in and out of the UK could affect 99% of our data? Is there more resilience in the system than that would seem to suggest?
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service on the Committee over so many years, which was hugely valued, and his point is absolutely fair. I have not seen the specific report that was published today, but it echoes the points that we have made in this report. We do not want to be alarmist, but we cannot accept any complacency about what the threats are, because there is a genuine risk.
The truth is that there is the potential to reroute cables. There is a significant amount of traffic across the Atlantic—some of it comes into Ireland, some of it into mainland Europe, and some of it into the UK—so it is always possible for data communications to come through to us in different ways and, in an extreme crisis, for us to turn to satellites, although that capacity is significantly lower. I am sure there are some very valid points in that report, and I will look at it more closely.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement, and commend the hard work of other members of our Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in helping to compile the subsea telecommunications cables report. The number of recommendations agreed to by the Government demonstrates that our detailed analysis in the report ensures the very best for our nation’s security. Does the Chair agree that in this fast-evolving security environment, the UK must ensure that our military deterrent is robust to protect subsea cables from the deliberate damage that we have seen in, for example, the Baltic?
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for serving on the Committee and for the work he is doing in chairing the Defence Committee, and he is absolutely right. There are several elements to this. One is, as we have seen in the Baltic and around our shores, the nature of the threats. The attacks on cables are proving provocative, and we have to demonstrate a more muscular approach to how we view them. It is interesting to see that some of our peers in NATO have taken this a bit further, and we should look closely at that, but we are constrained by international law.
I have mentioned the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885, which is not fit for purpose. There needs to be some thinking along the lines of what we can do within our territorial waters to address any threat that is presented, such as we saw last year with the Yantar and other ships. Work needs to be done on the legal side, but also on the hardware that we can deploy. As an island nation, this should be something on which we can develop a huge sovereign capability, which would also boost our exports.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the quality of this report? I have a family interest in undersea cables: it was my great-great-grandfather, Professor Fleeming Jenkin, who laid the first transatlantic telephone cable in 1858. On the question of deterrence, can we realistically deter this kind of behaviour by our adversaries if we continue to allow our hands to be tied by an overstrict interpretation of international law? The vandalism committed on undersea cables has very serious economic consequences, and maybe even national security consequences. It is being committed by ships that are themselves in breach of international law. Should we not just deal with them, particularly if they open fire on our military aircraft, as happened recently with lasers from a Russian ship?
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I will keep my comments brief. I absolutely agree that the legal side of this urgently needs to be addressed, and I understand from the Government that they will look very closely at it in their defence resilience Bill.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Committee for its work. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the restrictions of international law, but could he explain what evidence the Committee took about the need for international co-operation? It seems evident to me that the nature of subsea cables means that international co-operation is required to protect them sufficiently. Are there any mechanisms with which the UK should be engaging better?
Matt Western
Various organisations that have been established have interests in this area. Of course, much of this is in the private sector. The Committee is concerned about how much of it is in the private domain and how much influence the Government can have. Collectively, there is a need for Governments to work much more closely on this issue, so we need to have closer ties with friendly nations that are facing similar challenges in order to build a greater deterrent. Atlantic Bastion is a good example of the work that can be done.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I commend the Committee’s report and the hon. Member for summarising it so excellently. There are several questions I would like to ask him, but for brevity I will confine myself to one. A few minutes ago, he suggested that the Government should consider including a cable repair ship in its new defence equipment programme, and I think we would have sympathy with that, but for that we need a defence investment plan. The House was faithfully promised such a plan in August and then very faithfully promised it by Christmas, but the rumour is that we will not get it till March. Would he agree with me that we need that equipment plan sooner rather than later, and ideally this month rather than having to wait till March?
Matt Western
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not know about the timings—I am not close enough to the Government for that—but the United States did something interesting, which was to have a scheme to lease two ships, costing them $10 million a year. There are ways around this, but having a sovereign capability is going to be important or, to go back to the question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), we could combine with other nations to develop such a capacity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Select Committee’s report. The very nature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in being a member of NATO, means that it has protection, and therefore the connection from the mainland across the Irish sea to Northern Ireland is protected. However, what is not protected is the Republic of Ireland, which is not a member of NATO, although it is a member of the EU. What consideration did the Committee give to the fact that the Republic of Ireland could be the vulnerable back door when it comes to subsea telecommunication cables, and what has been done to address that?
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is absolutely true. We did not specifically look at the situation in Ireland. We will be doing further work on this in the coming months, because I think that is required and will be welcomed by Departments, but, yes, we need to meet the EU and Ireland to talk about those threats and how we can collaborate. He is absolutely right to identify Ireland as an important part of this.
Points of Order
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The provision of social housing by the London borough of Hillingdon is important to the two thirds of my constituents who are served by that authority. They are therefore concerned that the House may have been inadvertently misled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who said on 5 November, and I quote from Hansard, that one of the crucial sites the council is progressing had been
“left derelict for years, with the council not determining the application”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 401WH.]
It is clear that the decision about this key provision of great concern to my constituents sits with the Mayor of London. A stage 2 decision by the mayor is required before any planning can progress on the site, and it is therefore important that the House is aware that the delay is attributable not to the London borough of Hillingdon, but to the failings of the Mayor of London. How can I ensure that the record stands corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for confirming that he has indeed informed the Member he mentioned. He seems to be raising a point of dispute, and the point at issue is not a matter for the Chair, but he has most definitely put his view on the record.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much regret that I did not have the opportunity to let you know I would be raising this, but it has been drawn to my attention that the Government are briefing a change of policy on business rates for pubs. Has a Minister indicated that they want to come to the House to make a statement, as I am sure the Speaker would prefer them to do that before they give any further briefing to the media?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have not been made aware of any such statement, but I have been in the Chair for a little while now. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench have heard that, and will accordingly be acting appropriately.
Bill Presented
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who will speak for about 15 minutes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that serious human rights abuses, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, together with widespread grand corruption, continue to escalate in an increasingly unstable global environment; notes that global human rights and anti-corruption sanctions, commonly known as Magnitsky sanctions, remain an essential mechanism for accountability and redress, yet their implementation by the United Kingdom is inconsistent and insufficient, and lacks oversight; regrets that numerous individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned, that enforcement and transparency around decision-making remains inadequate, and that sanctioned individuals continue to exploit evasion methods while victims receive limited support; further notes the absence of a long-term strategy for the management of frozen assets and a lack of clear criteria for delisting, alongside growing concerns that sanctions are becoming politicised internationally; urges the Government to strengthen the credibility of the Magnitsky sanctions regime through consistent and impartial application, enhanced enforcement, and by ensuring greater Parliamentary oversight and expanded measures to support victims, including developing pathways for compensation; and holds that, relevant to this, those involved in the arbitrary detention of British nationals should face Magnitsky sanctions, including those involved in the detention of Ryan Cornelius, Jagtar Singh Johal and Jimmy Lai.
I rise to speak to the motion in my name, which is supported by 17 hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, I welcome the advent of the growing use of Magnitsky sanctions as a major development in accountability for human rights abuse and corruption.
These sanctions are named after Sergei Magnitsky, a tax adviser killed in a Russian prison after exposing fraud by Russian Government officials. Magnitsky sanctions freeze perpetrators’ assets and stop them travelling internationally, and they are now used by the UK, the US, the EU and Canada, which together represent over one third of global GDP. In the UK, Magnitsky sanctions stop perpetrators accessing London, the world’s second largest financial centre and the world’s largest luxury property market. Sanctions are most effective when the various jurisdictions work together to close perpetrators off from, and drive them away from, financial markets.
Looking at the comparative picture, the US has sanctioned 608 individuals and entities under its Magnitsky-style regime, though 20 have been delisted. Of those designations, 17 relate to Russia, with one since delisted, and 34 are against China and six against the United Arab Emirates for corruption. By contrast—and this is the point I really want to make—since introducing Magnitsky sanctions in the legislation passed in 2020, the UK has imposed 164 designations under its global human rights regime and 65 under the global anti-corruption regime. That makes a total of 229 Magnitsky-style designations, of which 60 relate to Russia, eight to China and none to the UAE.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend so early on, but he has mentioned Russia several times. He will be aware that there has been much talk about ceasefires, but there is no sign of one yet, because Putin still thinks he is winning in Ukraine. Would he agree with me that, if we really want to compel Putin to stop killing Ukrainians, we need to increase sanctions on the Russian Government, particularly on their hydrocarbons, which means action not just by us and Europe, but further sanctions from the United States?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have a tool here that can be used to drive back those who act badly—in this particular case, against a country illegally invading a neighbouring democratic state—so we should use this ability to sanction those involved and to increase such sanctions dramatically. I know Labour Members will be raising this issue, but they will have noted what he has said.
The UK and the US have imposed extensive additional sanctions on Russian individuals and entities under the Russia-specific sanctions regimes. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may want to note, those regimes use broader designation grounds and, crucially, do not usually acknowledge an individual’s direct involvement in human rights abuses in Ukraine or elsewhere. That distinction matters, and this should be rectified by the UK Government. The symbolic and moral force of the Magnitsky sanctions is precisely to name perpetrators and link consequences directly to human rights abuses, and that is what sets them apart. In sheer volume, the contrast is stark. The US has imposed well over 5,000 such Russia-related non-Magnitsky designations, and the UK about 2,900. Yet despite this scale, the absence in most cases of any explicit human rights attribution in such regimes means an important opportunity for accountability is being missed.
As a mechanism in the Government’s foreign policy toolkit, Magnitsky sanctions have a huge potential. However, important gaps remain in their implementation, raising serious concerns about their overall effectiveness. There is no publicly available information on the number of Magnitsky sanctions evidence dossiers received by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. However, based on estimates since the inception of the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, the FCDO receives on average about two or three dossiers of evidence per month from civil society organisations, which often identify between three and 15 individuals or entities alleged to be implicated in human rights violations. This means that since July 2020, the FCDO has received evidence on anywhere between 360 and 3,000 alleged perpetrators of serious human rights violations. In stark contrast, only 229 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under the global human rights regime and global anti-corruption regime, to date.
The limited number of Magnitsky sanctions imposed undermines their effectiveness. Designations tend to overlook broader command structures, instead focusing on isolated actors, excluding key backers or enablers and failing to adopt when sanctioned entities rebrand. For example, Chen Zhi is one of the many leaders of scam networks with bases in south-east Asia trafficking and torturing vulnerable individuals to compel them to scam citizens here in the UK and abroad. The news that the UK and the US sanctioned some of those responsible is always welcome, but those sanctions fail to target Cambodian Government figures who are themselves implicated in the practice, or who turn a blind eye to those violations.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining the debate and on highlighting how the Magnitsky sanctions could be used more effectively. Could he explain to the House, and for my benefit, what effect, if one applies sanctions to some foreign leader, dictator or person who is in a completely different jurisdiction, does a sanction actually have and how can it be made to bite on the interests of that person so that the sanctions are actually felt by that person?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It has two effects. First, anything to do with any finance or movement or visitations to the United Kingdom are immediately ruled out and the seizure of financial entities can take place. Secondly, it influences other countries to do the same. America may work with us on that, too. Two of the greatest financial markets are then shut to an individual, who may be part of a Government, thus making it highly difficult for them to operate, or to come and enjoy themselves—a lot of that is done. They become pariahs internationally and that has a huge effect, because it influences what others near them will do when they realise they are about to lose their access to very important areas—cities and financial markets. It has already shown to have had a massive knock-on effect.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House who actually does the research that leads to people being identified for sanctioning, whether there is resistance in such places as the City of London, which no doubt could make enormous financial profits from having illicit money deposited there, and whether such places are incentivised to turn a blind eye when attempts are made to camouflage the real sources of the dirty money flowing in?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Many groups are doing that research at the moment, some of them private and voluntary organisations, but the Foreign Office itself is meant to be doing it. I am struck by the fact that it does not always check everybody’s backgrounds. The reality is that it must be much more intense and we must start going after these people. The City of London had a bad reputation for dirty money. A lot of that has stopped now as a result of the Russian sanctions. More importantly, individual sanctions also helped to end that. We need to be much more particular about where that money is coming from and how, and who are the individuals who are behind the use of that money. My right hon. Friend is quite right about that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
If I keep giving way, I will end up losing time. But I will give way.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right to bring this issue forward. Some 229 people have designated by the United Kingdom, and 3,000 Russians have been designated after the invasion of Ukraine. However, weak enforcement risks hollowing out the regime. To date, no fines have been imposed for breaches of the UK’s Magnitsky-style sanctions. If this House is serious about protecting life and dignity, we must ensure that these tools are used consistently and enforced credibly. I am often reminded of the example of Jesus Christ, the greatest leader and yet the greatest servant. He protected lives by giving his own. We, as leaders, should echo his example by diligently helping those who cannot help themselves.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. It is important to get justice and to make sure that others who would be tempted to go down that road realise there will be real penalties to pay.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate on Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses. There are numerous ways that sanctioned individuals have attempted to evade UK authorities, in particular when it comes to cryptocurrencies. Does he agree that co-ordination with our international allies, as well as being at the cutting edge of technology, is key to ensuring that increasingly evasive individuals are brought to heel?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is the whole point of today’s debate. My feeling is that this Government and even the previous Government have to a degree dragged their feet. I often say to the Minister, who I know very well—we have debated with each other endlessly—that it seems not to matter who is in government, because the Foreign Office retains its reluctance over many sanctions. He will deny that, of course, because it is his job to do so, but I see him as a very decent individual and he must know in his heart of hearts that there is more that we could do. I will leave that for the moment, until he has the chance to wind up the debate.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a perception in my constituency and across the country that the money laundering checks on individual consumers going for a mortgage or buying something expensive such as a car seem to be more stringent than those for the millionaire- billionaire foreign investors who are investing in the City of London?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The whole point of the debate is to ensure that we know where the money comes from, that we know how it has been gained, and that the individuals must pay a penalty if they are involved in what is illegal or inhuman. The key point is that all those matters can be picked out by the Magnitsky sanctions.
I mentioned Myanmar earlier. Despite historically leaning on sanctions against Myanmar’s military junta for its role in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its civilian population after the 2021 coup, the UK has failed to target the State Security and Peace Commission, the military’s successor to the UK-sanctioned State Administration Council. Without additional sanctions, the State Security and Peace Commission, which was established in an attempt by the military to rebrand itself and rebuild financial ties with international partners, has effectively succeeded in its mission. That is exactly what we should have been tackling through the sanctions available to us, but we have not done so.
Finally, last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. However, no action was taken against their key military and diplomatic backer, the United Arab Emirates, or their chief commander. That highlights a broader, troubling trend: to date, only a fraction of Magnitsky sanctions have ever been applied by the UK Government to perpetrators from countries considered strategic allies of the UK. That is a very important point to make; politics have an awful lot to do with this issue. As reported by REDRESS, several of the most notorious human rights abusers and corrupt actors, including in Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, China, Eritrea, the UAE and Egypt—we have mentioned Russia, too—have not been sanctioned by the UK.
I will now come to some examples of individuals and contexts that remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of involvement in corruption and serious human rights issues. Let me deal now with China. While the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in China’s violent repression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from human rights organisations. REDRESS— I know, because I have seen the evidence—previously submitted it to the FCDO, calling for targeted sanctions on the following individuals and entities for their involvement in serious human rights violations in Xinjiang.
All of the following are sanctioned by the US—our ally—but not by the UK. The persons recommended for designations are: Chen Quanguo, party secretary of the Xinjiang Chinese Communist party and the key driver of the policy of genocide; Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissar of the XPCC, who was sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; Peng Jiarui, deputy party secretary and commander of the XPCC, sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Public Security Bureau, sanctioned by the US on 9 July 2020. As somebody sanctioned by the Chinese Government myself—like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—for raising the issues of Xinjiang at the time, I think that that is a major omission. These are the key people—close almost to President Xi himself—who, when sanctioned, will really feel it. They are locked out of America, but have not been locked out by us. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps the FCDO will take to ensure that sanctions are consistently applied to all actors involved in human rights abuses and corruption?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Why is there no transatlantic co-operation on this? What does my right hon. Friend think is the cause of that lack of co-operation ?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I really do not know the answer to that question. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we act individually and are supposed to co-operate, but that does not always work. We have seen with the Chinese and others that America leads the way and we half follow, or do not follow at all. My concern is that we do not champion such action in the way that we could and should as an upholder of human rights and freedom. This country has a huge record in that area and we need to use it much more.
I am not the only Member of this House to have raised concerns about the relationship between the Government of the United Arab Emirates and the activities of the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan. What is going on in Sudan is brutal, bloody and huge, even in comparison to what is happening in somewhere like Gaza. It is an astonishing abuse of human rights and the value of life. The RSF is responsible for brutal murders, rapes, attacks on hospitals and significant numbers of killings, and yet this organisation has been supported heavily by the UAE. It is said that without the support of the UAE, there would not now be a major war going on in Sudan. There are really big questions to be asked here, because without those arms shipments and other support, there would not be the fighting and terrible consequences that we see in Sudan.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to reporting by The New York Times in June last year, which, citing US intelligence sources, references the involvement of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Deputy President of the UAE, in co-ordination with the RSF and in his role as chair of two charities funding hospitals in Chad that have allegedly been used in the distribution of weapons to the RSF. The investigation further reports that the US envoy to Sudan confronted Sheikh Mansour personally in 2024 about his support for General Hamdan of the RSF. As the ultimate owner of Manchester City football club, Sheikh Mansour is possibly the most high-profile UAE investor in the UK economy. What are we going to do about that? That is a signal and serious problem for us.
Will the Minister confirm that, given the appalling crimes of the RSF, which fall squarely in the purview of the global human rights sanctions scheme, the Department has carried out a full assessment of whether representatives of the UAE Government may meet the criteria for sanctions, given the significant role the UAE is alleged to play in support of the RSF and the substantial influence of the UAE on investments in the UK economy and public life? If such an assessment has not been carried out, will the Minister say whether it is the Government’s intention to do so?
Individuals arbitrarily detained abroad are particularly vulnerable to torture, ill treatment and other serious human rights violations, from the moment they are detained. The Government’s own figures show that in 2024 the FCDO received 186 new allegations of torture and mistreatment from British nationals overseas. Arbitrary detention and related human rights abuses have long-lasting effects on those who experience them; following release, survivors must bear the physical, psychological and socioeconomic toll of their captivity.
This makes it all the more concerning that the list of British nationals currently subject to arbitrary detention abroad is long. I am going to read out the names on it: Jagtar Singh Johal; Ryan Cornelius, whose family are with us today in the Gallery; Jimmy Lai; Nnamdi Kanu; Christian James Michel; Matthew Alexander Pascoe; Ramze Shihab Ahmed al-Rifa’i; Charles Ridley; Mehran Raoof; Craig and Lindsay Foreman; and Ahmed al-Doush. I want to focus on two particular cases that exemplify the FCDO’s reluctance to use Magnitsky sanctions to challenge arbitrary detention: first, Ryan Cornelius; secondly, Jimmy Lai.
A case that underscores the ongoing failure of the UK Government—and, I have to say, that of their predecessor—to effectively employ Magnitsky sanctions to deter and punish those responsible for arbitrarily detaining and mistreating UK nationals is, of course, that of Ryan Cornelius, who has been arbitrarily detained in Dubai for more than 17 years. I want to mention the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who has raised this issue on a number of occasions. I congratulate him on his support for the Cornelius family. This arbitrary detention also applies to Charles Ridley, Ryan Cornelius’s business partner, but I will focus today on Ryan.
Unlike the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Ryan’s plight has been met with deafening silence, despite well-documented evidence of an unfair trial and the inhumane treatment that has been meted out to him. His detention has been found arbitrary by the UN working group on arbitrary detention. Ryan’s original 10-year sentence was extended by 20 years at the behest of the Dubai Islamic Bank, which has used his imprisonment as leverage to seize his assets, rendering his family essentially homeless.
The FCDO has been reluctant to engage fully with the detail of Ryan’s case from the very beginning. Even now, Ryan’s family—who, as I said, are with us in the Public Gallery—are repeatedly forced to set out the basic facts of his case at every single meeting with the FCDO or Ministers, despite the fact that they are fully known to them. Despite repeated calls from Ryan’s family and from MPs for sanctions against Dubai officials, the UK Government have taken no action. Not a single individual has been sanctioned for their role in this case.
I urge the Minister to look at imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for Mr Cornelius’s arbitrary detention and asset seizure. I am going to list just eight people who are involved in the board of the Dubai bank: His Excellency Mohammed Al Shaibani; Yahya Saeed Ahmad Nasser Lootah, vice-chairman of the board of directors; Hamad Abdulla Rashed Obaid Al Shamsi, a board member; Ahmad Mohammad Saeed Bin Humaidan, also a board member; Abdul Aziz Ahmed Rahma Mohamed Al Muhairi; Dr Hamad Buamim; Javier Marin Romano; Bader Saeed Abdulla Hareb; and Dr Cigdem Kogar. I offer up the names of these people, all of whom are involved in this case, for the Government to think carefully about taking action. Unfortunately, Ryan’s case appears to be a clear example of economic interests taking precedence over human rights, largely because the UAE is such a major financial investor and trading partner.
I am afraid that that double standard is not limited to Ryan’s case. India—another country with a recent trade deal—continues to hold a British citizen in arbitrary detention without consequences. Jagtar Singh Johal, from Dumbarton, Scotland, was violently arrested in 2017 while in India to get married. He was tortured and has endured eight years of detention, which the UN working group on arbitrary detention has ruled
“lacks legal basis and is arbitrary”.
After lots of hearings—hundreds of them—prosecutors in India have failed to produce credible evidence against Jagtar, and the UK must now use every diplomatic lever to bring him home.
I want to return, finally, to the case of Jimmy Lai. The time has come, surely, for the UK to wield its sanctions authority against the officials responsible for repression in Hong Kong. Jimmy Lai’s guilty conviction for “foreign collusion” and “sedition” on 15 December, which paves the way for Hong Kong’s courts to sentence the 78-year-old British citizen to life in prison, is the final straw.
Beijing has trashed the Sino-British joint declaration, crushed the freedoms it promised Hongkongers and the world, and imprisoned nearly 2,000 political prisoners, including Jimmy Lai. I have long called for the Government to hold the Hong Kong authorities to account for their persecution of the pro-democracy campaigner, who is guilty only of performing his duties as publisher of Hong Kong’s Apple Daily newspaper by speaking to diplomats and other overseas officials.
Not a single Hong Kong individual is named on the UK sanctions list, which sets out all the people, entities and vessels sanctioned by Britain. In comparison, the US has sanctioned 11 officials from the top of Hong Kong’s Administration downwards. How is it that this country, which used to administer and run Hong Kong, has not sanctioned a single person in that process? The three judges responsible for Jimmy Lai’s outrageous guilty verdict—Esther Toh, Alex Lee and Susana D’Almada Remedios, two of whom were called to the bar in London—should be immediate targets, as should the prosecutors: Maggie Yang, Anthony Chau, Ivan Cheung, Crystan Chan and Karen Ng Ka-yue.
Despite the clear role that Magnitsky sanctions could play in these cases, the Government do not treat them as a core foreign policy tool for protecting British citizens abroad. They should not be reserved for politically convenient situations but applied consistently, particularly when we have economic leverage over the perpetrating state. The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally recommended the use of Magnitsky sanctions to deter state hostage taking, and survivors themselves have repeatedly called for their use.
I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say, as I think the House wants to get a sense of where the Government are moving on this and whether they intend to increase the level of sanctions or speed them up. If they do so, they will receive my support and, I believe, the support of the Opposition side of the House. These are important moments, and this debate is important.
When this House passed the Magnitsky Act, we did so in good faith. This singular tool would help us in the fight against the abuses of powerful people, particularly in the defence of British citizens who have been wrongly detained and are without the ability to defend themselves. It will help our fight against the powerful people who have control over others who have no redress and no hope for their future.
With the rise of totalitarian states and their satellites, who threaten our very belief in freedom and due process, and who are tearing apart what we call the international rules-based order—such as China, Russia, North Korea and Iran—this facility is needed more than ever. Its use is to deter others as much as to punish those who have acted without the law, and such action should be co-ordinated among our allies.
This House has to hold the Government to account—that is our task—and that is what today’s debate is all about. If we do not speak for those languishing under the control of others and the power of powerful states, then who will? I say to the Government simply: this is not parti pris, and nor is it personal; it is an idea that originated here in this place. It is the idea of freedom—freedom of the individual and their protections under the law. For those who carry out the most heinous crimes, there has to be some kind of sanction. The Magnitsky sanction is the best tool that we have. We should surely use it, and use it well, and we must make sure that those out there realise that if they get up to these most disgusting and debilitating acts, they will face a consequence and that consequence will last as long as they do.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to him for the persistence that he has shown in campaigning on this issue over many years, and for his work in this place helping to make and win the argument for deploying Magnitsky-style sanctions.
I would like to start by welcoming three successes of the Government regarding our sanctions regime: namely, decisive action against Putin’s regime, action against people-smuggling gangsters, and action against kleptocrats the world over. The Government have shown that they are prepared to make bold and decisive use of sanctions to crack down on serious human rights abuses, corruption and breaches of international law.
First, I welcome the Government’s sustained tough action against the Kremlin, introducing the largest package of sanctions since the early days of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I firmly believe that this county must never again act as a safe haven for Russian dirty money, and the City of London must never again be seen to be a secure, out-of-the-way piggy bank for Putin’s cronies to stash their wealth. It is only right that we continue to expose and disrupt every enabler of Russia’s war machine, which has been terrorising the Ukrainian people for close to four years now. That must include ramping up the pressure on Putin’s energy revenues.
The Government’s sanctions measures have also gone a long way toward sinking Russia’s shadow fleet, which we all know is a vital source of funding for Putin’s war in Ukraine. Since the start of the invasion, Russian oil companies have established a shadow fleet of cargo ships charged with transporting sanctioned crude oil to third countries. Those vessels are usually owned by anonymous shell companies to shield the ships from scrutiny and sanctions. The fleet is then used to perform illegal ship-to-ship oil transfers at sea, making it much more difficult to monitor the final destination of Russian crude oil. This decaying and dangerous shadow fleet risks oil spills, which could then cause damage on the UK’s shores—spills that, I remind the House, the British taxpayer would be liable to clean up.
The sanctions designations brought forward by the Government mean that a total of 545 ships have been sanctioned by the UK. Almost half the Russian shadow fleet’s overall capacity has been forced off the seas by sanctions from the UK and our partners, with many ships now dead in the water.
Sir Julian Lewis
In support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, does he agree that it is significant how important even a single ship of this fleet is to the Russian authorities that in desperation yesterday, in a final attempt to stop it being seized, they allowed the Russian flag to be put on one of the vessels, in the hope that that would deter the Americans from gaining control of it? Fortunately, it did not.
Lloyd Hatton
I agree with the right hon. Member’s remarks. I think that the actions of the previous Government and this Government to tackle the shadow fleet are starting to bite. The measures are hitting the Kremlin war machine and will slash the revenues that Putin desperately relies upon to continue to wage war in Ukraine.
Secondly, I welcome sanctions against organised criminal gangs that are currently perpetrating the vile trade of people-smuggling. This action by the Government is a world first, and it targets ringleaders, key intermediaries and the suppliers of people-smuggling equipment. The sanctions help to disrupt the flow of money and materials, including by freezing property, bank accounts and other assets. It will help to disrupt a range of different activities—from supplying small boats for smuggling to sourcing fake passports, middlemen facilitating illicit payments, and people-smuggling via lorries and small boats. It also sanctions the very gang leaders themselves. The people-smuggling gangs operating on the English channel are attempting to make a small fortune. It is essential that this Government continue to use sanctions and every lever at our disposal to disrupt and destroy the gangs.
Thirdly, the Government have made innovative use of sanctions against kleptocrats and their enablers. Notably, the Magnitsky-style sanctions deployed against Isabel dos Santos, the daughter of Angola’s former president, for corruption and stealing public funds marked a pivotal moment in the fight against kleptocracy in Angola and helped to address long-standing corruption that had hindered development and worsened inequalities in the country. I welcome that action, as I am sure do Members on both sides of the House, but we must now look to deploy similar sanctions against other kleptocrats and those who enable their corrupt dealings.
While all those measures are achievements worth celebrating today, I fear that we are not going quite far or fast enough. Our use of Magnitsky-style sanctions to target human rights abuses has, to date, been a little too timid. Only 229 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under that style of sanction, which contrasts with the nearly 3,000 individuals and entities sanctioned under a single scheme specific to one country: namely, Russia.
As REDRESS and other civil society organisations have shown, too many individuals remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of their involvement in corruption and serious human rights abuses the world over. Despite high-profile designations, such as the targeting of Isabel dos Santos, the frankly limited number of Magnitsky-style sanctions imposed undermines their effectiveness. By focusing only on isolated bad actors, such narrow designations overlook key backers or enablers and they fail to adapt when entities rebrand, or disappear and then reappear, simply to sidestep sanctions.
To illustrate the problem, here are just three brief examples that highlight the gap in our use of Magnitsky sanctions, allowing those responsible for egregious human rights violations to act with impunity. For instance, just last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces—the RSF—suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. The civil war in Sudan, as has already been mentioned, is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, displacing some 13 million people. There is overwhelming evidence of heinous crimes, mass executions, starvation and the systemic and calculated use of rape as a weapon of war. Evidence compiled by the UN, experts and journalists has shown, as has already been cited, that the UAE and its officials have been secretly supplying weapons to the RSF via neighbouring Chad—a position that the Gulf state denies, but the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Sadly, no action was taken against the RSF’s key military and diplomatic backer, the UAE, or against the chief commander of the RSF.
Similarly, the narrow scope of sanctions designations in Georgia also undermines our response to the human rights crisis currently under way. Georgia is increasingly finding itself subject to authoritarian rule. Since the highly disputed election in 2024, during which the Georgian Dream party claimed victory, there has been an escalation in the crackdown on protests and on independent media, including widespread violence and human rights abuses. The Georgian Dream party has now captured almost all Government branches and institutions. It has used its new-found power to aggressively suppress protests and all scrutiny of its actions, including hundreds of reports of arbitrary detention and even torture.
Although the UK has rightly sanctioned some of those responsible for violent attacks against journalists and protesters, key members of the pro-Russia elite were sadly absent from those designations. They include Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder and chairman of the Georgian Dream party, who was sanctioned by the Biden Administration in the United States for undermining democratic processes simply for the benefit of the Kremlin. The UK has yet to take the same steps in relation to Georgia, so will the Minister make decisive use of sanctions to crack down on the abuses, which only benefit the Russian Government and are entirely at the expense of the Georgian people?
Finally, although the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in the deadly repression of Uyghur Muslims in China in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from REDRESS and other human rights organisations, which identified the broader command structure behind the violent atrocities committed against the Uyghur people in China. We cannot continue to ignore the calls, already put forward today, for sanctions on senior Chinese officials, who must include the Chinese Communist party secretary in Xinjiang, who is considered the architect behind the human rights abuses committed.
Those three cases all show how limiting our use of Magnitsky-style sanctions undermines their effectiveness. Sanctions are a key tool in our armoury to crack down on the most egregious human rights abuses, but narrow designation overlooks the key backers or enablers of the worst atrocities.
Underpinning our sanctions with strong enforcement is also critical to their impact. We know that sanctions are only as strong as the enforcement behind them. In last year’s cross-Government review of sanctions, the Government rightly recognised that there are gaps in the UK’s sanctions implementation and enforcement, which they are seeking to address through new measures to increase the deterrent effect of sanctions and enhance our ability to take robust action against those who choose to break the rules.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Member is making an excellent contribution to the debate. The Treasury Committee heard evidence last year about the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. It appeared to me that it is far too small for the job that it has to do, especially compared with equivalents overseas in the US and Europe. Does he think that part of the solution is also funding OFSI properly, so it can be proactive in its monitoring of sanctions, and not only reactive?
Lloyd Hatton
I believe that proper resourcing of OFSI is essential. Similarly, other bodies and authorities that fight economic crime must be properly resourced so that they can do their job properly.
Three further changes are needed to ensure that there are effective instruments for challenging human rights abuses. First, to free sanctioned assets, we need to be able to identify their ownership. If we cannot follow ownership of assets through corporate and trust structures, which are often complex and involve secretive offshore havens, many of our designations will inevitably seep through the cracks and our enforcement will turn into nothing more than a game of whack-a-mole.
Ensuring that we can follow the money is therefore a priority and that must include the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation found that since February 2022, over a quarter of all suspected sanctions breaches were made using intermediary jurisdictions, including the British Virgin Islands and Guernsey. That is deeply concerning, as the very jurisdictions that are enabling sanctions evasion are dragging their feet on important corporate transparency measures that would help us to follow the money in their backyards. Transparency at home and abroad is essential if sanctions are to be enforced effectively. That means ending all tolerance of secrecy in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which we all know have provided shelter for dirty money for far too long.
Secondly, we must strengthen the policing of sanctions evasion with a clear focus on networks and professional enablers. Reports from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation have found that it is almost certain that lawyers, estate agents and associated property service firms based right here in the UK have helped clients to evade and avoid asset freezes, seemingly undermining our efforts from within. Some companies and enablers with a high risk appetite are willing to provide services to sanctioned high net worth individuals, allowing them to maintain their property empire and sidestep sanctions altogether. Infamously, the oligarch and former owner of Chelsea FC, one Roman Abramovich, was reportedly able to transfer his extensive property empire and a fleet of super-yachts, helicopters and jets to his children just weeks before being sanctioned here in the UK.
Despite the vast scale of sanctions evasion, enforcement by authorities in the UK in response to violations has been too weak in recent years. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has imposed just three fines for violations of the UK’s Russia sanctions regime in the past year, totalling a measly £622,750. That is an utterly damning figure and shows that we are bringing a water pistol to a knife fight when it comes to enforcing our sanctions measures. Worse still, OFSI has not imposed any fines at all for breaches of Magnitsky-style sanctions.
I know that the Government are planning to scale up our capability to target the professional enabler network. In the recently published anti-corruption strategy, which I wholeheartedly welcome, Ministers were right to commit to expanding the use of sanctions against professional enablers. Given the UK’s world-leading role as a professional services provider, such a measure is essential if we are to begin to impose serious constraints on sanctioned individuals. A professional services ban, for example, would be an effective way to start to tackle kleptocrats and human rights abusers. Many of those individuals might not own an asset in the UK or even plan to travel here, but they rely on UK-based professional services, such as a legal firm and a bank. That simple measure would block wrongdoers from enjoying access to our large professional services sector in the UK.
Finally, I remain concerned that there is a real lack of publicly available data about enforcement capacity, actions and impact, which will undermine Parliament’s ability to scrutinise sanctions enforcement and better understand whether they are working. Without a credible public picture of what is actually frozen, how can Parliament judge the effectiveness of sanctions and whether enablers may simply be assuming that enforcement in the UK is patchy at best? I ask Ministers to look closely and carefully at these proposals to improve data transparency, strengthen our ability to identify ownership and boost the policing of the enablers of sanctions evasion.
Magnitsky-style sanctions remain one of the most useful tools at the Government’s disposal to hold perpetrators of serious human rights abuses and corruption to account. The effective use of these sanctions sends a clear message that the UK will not act as a safe haven for dirty money belonging to kleptocrats or human rights abusers. However, the effectiveness of sanctions depends not on their existence alone, but on the political will to use them fully, consistently and credibly. At a time when, unfortunately, the United States sometimes appears reluctant to deploy these tools with the necessary resolve, the United Kingdom has a clear responsibility to step forward and work with a broad coalition of allies and partners to effectively deploy Magnitsky-style sanctions.
I know that the Government, and almost all Members of the House, are serious about defending human rights, tackling corruption and upholding the rules-based international order, but to achieve that we must ensure that Magnitsky-style sanctions are not only a symbolic gesture, but sharp, effective instruments used to hold bad actors to account and speak truth to power. As has already been said, in an age of global uncertainty, with rogue states and corrupt individuals wishing to operate with impunity, that is exactly the type of leadership that this moment demands.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing forward this important debate on the effectiveness of Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses. They are tools that reflect our values as a country that is meant to defend human rights and the rule of law.
Under the UK’s autonomous sanctions framework, which is built on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and reinforced by subsequent legislation, the global human rights sanction regime allows us to target individuals and entities responsible for gross violations of human rights, including with asset freezes and travel bans. Magnitsky sanctions have been used against perpetrators of egregious abuses in multiple contexts, from Russian officials linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky to those implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and military leaders in Myanmar. However, today’s debate also requires us to consider the broader effectiveness and consistency of these tools in the face of major crises.
Multiple authoritative assessments, particularly from REDRESS and UK parliamentary evidence submissions, highlight several areas where the UK Magnitsky sanctions regime has failed to act effectively. Evidence shows that the UK has not replicated the majority of Magnitsky sanctions imposed by partner jurisdictions across the US, Canada and the EU. Only 14% of global Magnitsky designations are listed under the UK Magnitsky regime and another 17% appear under other UK regimes, meaning that 69% of perpetrators sanctioned abroad are not sanctioned by the UK at all. Of the unsanctioned cases, 71% were designated by the US, 27% by Canada and 2% by the EU, yet the UK has not followed suit.
The gap means that the UK is failing to act against individuals already identified as human rights abusers or corrupt actors by close allies. The UK has received at least 15 detailed evidence packages from NGOs such as REDRESS documenting alleged human rights abuses or corruption in many of the countries that were referenced by previous speakers, including China, Sudan, Uganda, Bangladesh, Venezuela and others. In many of those cases, the US has already sanctioned the perpetrators, but the UK has failed to act in almost all of them.
On the use of the legal powers available, according to parliamentary evidence, since September 2021 the UK has sanctioned only three individuals under its Magnitsky human rights regime, compared with 105 designations in the preceding period under the previous Foreign Secretary. That reflects a significant slowdown and a lack of strategic direction. There is also poor co-ordination with our allies in the US, the EU and other sanctioning partners. The recommendations from the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation stressed that the UK’s unilateral approach weakens the effectiveness of sanctions. The UK has failed to systematically sanction individuals already targeted by partners, co-ordinate multilateral actions to target corrupt networks instead of isolated individuals, or match the scale and frequency of designation by allies.
Magnitsky sanctions have been used against the egregious abuses that I have mentioned. However, today’s debate requires us to reflect on the broader effectiveness and consistency of these tools. In recent months, the United Kingdom has taken steps to sanction two Israeli Government Ministers over their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those designations, made alongside partners including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, include travel bans and asset freezes and were justified by the Foreign Office as necessary responses to genocide and serious abuses of human rights. Moreover, the UK has suspended trade negotiations with Israel in response to its ongoing military offensive in Gaza and related violence in the west bank and has applied sanctions against settlers and settler organisations linked to violence against the Palestinian communities.
The scale and scope of action by the UK Government has not been sufficient, and we have failed to reflect our obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law to ensure that civilians do not suffer, particularly in the light of provisional measures from the International Court of Justice ordering the protection of civilians in Gaza and actions directed at ending grave human rights violations in Gaza and the west bank. The sheer scale of suffering in Gaza, including from the blockade’s effect on civilians and the risk of mass starvation, must prompt far stronger measures, ranging from broader sanctions and trade restrictions to the enforcement of legal obligations to prevent atrocities.
Instead, we see 37 NGOs, including Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Rescue Committee, ousted and banned from providing aid across the west bank and Gaza with impunity. That is despite nearly 1.9 million displaced Gazans being vulnerable to shortages of tents, shelter materials, medical assistance, clean water and sanitation support during winter, and we still refuse to go further on sanctions and punishment for Israel’s actions. At the same time, the UK Government have stressed their continued support for Israel’s security while the Israeli Government expand illegal settlements deeper and deeper into Palestinian territory. We have recognised the state of Palestine, which is a welcome step, but we must follow that up by fulfilling our obligations under that recognition to the Palestinian people.
All that illustrates an essential point: Magnitsky-style sanctions are neither symbolic nor irrelevant, but their effectiveness depends on consistent, principled application, rigorous enforcement and alignment with broader obligations and foreign policy goals. Targeted sanctions are most effective when they clearly align with international law, with evidence and with credible human rights concerns, when they are co-ordinated with international partners to avoid loopholes and politicisation, and when they are part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy, humanitarian advocacy and engagement with multilateral justice mechanisms. Used in isolation, sanctions risk being dismissed as gestures rather than being seen as instruments of accountability. Used in co-ordination with wider action, they can contribute meaningfully to deterrence, pressure for change and justice for victims.
The United Kingdom should make principal use of Magnitsky sanctions wherever there is credible evidence of human rights abuses—be it in Russia, the middle east, Sudan, Myanmar or elsewhere—but they must also be prepared to act boldly and consistently, in line with international law when confronted with mass civilian suffering anywhere on the globe. Our inconsistent approach to human rights, and the protection of so-called allies, condemns us all to an unsafe world in which might is right and wrongdoing is never corrected. In the same stroke of a pen, we shame our enemies and sign away the human rights that we like to proclaim are sacrosanct. We must ensure that our sanctions regime is not just a statement of values but a tool that genuinely contributes to accountability, justice and the prevention of atrocities. I commend the motion to the House.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I join colleagues in congratulating the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. As he rightly said, an effective sanctions regime is an increasingly important foreign policy and defence tool. Having worked on international anti-corruption and open government efforts for over a decade before I came to this place, I know that they can make a real impact. I agree with him that such a regime includes the threat of sanctions, as well as their execution.
Like others, I am pleased that the Government have introduced over 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russia sanctions regime, and over 60 designations under human rights and anti-corruption specifically. I know how seriously the Minister takes this tool, and I sincerely thank him and his officials for their complex work. I believe that the UK’s ambition on sanctions is at the edge of global leadership. That means that we must continually look for ways to make the system more effective, and I will suggest a couple of areas in which we might do so.
One obvious area, in which I know the Government are working hard, is the transparency of asset ownership across jurisdictions. If we want sanctions to work, we need to know where the assets are, and transparency is an important prerequisite for effective targeting. To give one example, approximately 40% of the foreign-owned properties in Kensington and Chelsea are controlled by trusts. Through sanctions, our borough has one of the highest numbers of frozen properties. Trusts are not automatically included in the foreign-owned property register, and although information can now be made available on request, the lack of open data makes it harder to track real ownership. I know that the Government are considering that matter.
Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) mentioned, the long-standing effort to bring in transparent beneficial ownership registers to the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies would enable better tracking of assets under the control of sanctioned individuals. I support the Government review of asset and beneficial ownership in the UK, which is being carried out by anti-corruption champion Baroness Hodge, as part of the anti-corruption strategy, to identify vulnerabilities in that area. I hope that her recommendations can support our sanctions regime to be more effective.
International data sharing on this issue is important. The illicit finance summit is coming up in May. Will the Minister outline whether sanctions policy, and international co-operation around it, will be on the agenda?
On scope, we may benefit from looking more closely at how the two Magnitsky-style regimes interact, particularly in terms of corruption related to abuse of function, trading in influence and illicit enrichment, which bridge human rights and corruption. I hope that the Minister will keep under close review the potential effectiveness of sanctions relating to Georgia. I have met representatives of Georgian civil society, which has been calling for the UK to expand our sanctions further, including to Mr Ivanishvili and his top officials.
For sanctions to be effective, they have to bite, and enforcement is critical. I welcome the Government’s approach of working multilaterally with allies to maximise effectiveness. However, it is also important that we look closer to home. Roman Abramovich is a former resident of Kensington and Chelsea, and still owns frozen property in my constituency. As the House will no doubt be aware, he was sanctioned in March 2022, and his UK assets were frozen. In May 2022, he sold Chelsea football club under an agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need in Ukraine. It is shameful that, almost four years later, that money has still not been released. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence last month to release the money within 90 days, and in making a commitment to taking legal action if necessary.
This is a case of profound national and international importance—and a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they need. Although I welcome the cross-party spirit with which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green approached the debate, I find it astonishing that such a serious conflict of interest has now emerged at the top of the Conservative party. Sir Bill Browder—the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions—has asked how it is possible that the shadow Attorney General can
“moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK Government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’”.
I agree with Sir Bill, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has sympathy with that point, too.
The detail matters here. Yesterday, Lord Wolfson published a letter saying that the Prime Minister got his facts wrong, and that he was not advising Mr Abramovich on UK sanctions or the proceeds of Chelsea FC. First, the Prime Minister did not in fact say that Lord Wolfson is advising Roman Abramovich on UK sanctions and the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. The Prime Minister did say, however, that Lord Wolfson is advising Mr Abramovich. That is true, as both Lord Wolfson and the Opposition spokesperson have now confirmed. The record should, in my view, be corrected.
Secondly, Lord Wolfson’s letter omitted the most crucial piece of new information released by the Opposition spokesperson yesterday, which is that the shadow Attorney General has now recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers on Ukraine and Russia. Quite apart from whether someone can be an effective shadow Attorney General when they are unable to provide legal advice on the most important issues facing this country—Ukraine’s security guarantees to name but one—this recusal raises serious questions. Does it include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the military action yesterday? Does it include sanctions policy and enforcement? Does it include tax policy? The BBC reports that Abramovich could owe the UK up to £1 billion in tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in the British Virgin Islands.
Thirdly, it is naive in the extreme to think it possible to separate the various legal cases that Mr Abramovich is engaged in and which affect UK national interests. According to The Times, Abramovich’s own representatives say that £1.4 billion of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea cannot be released to a charitable foundation until legal proceedings brought by the Jersey Government are concluded. I would welcome clarification from the shadow Minister and the Minister on whether they consider that the ongoing litigation, and Mr Abramovich’s position on its connection to the transfer of the Chelsea FC proceeds, conflicts with the ability to transfer that money speedily?
Fourthly, there has been a concerted effort to conflate the vital principle of the right to legal representation and the prevention of conflicts of interest. I absolutely support the right to legal counsel of people I may find disreputable or worse, including sanctioned individuals—that is the basis of a strong legal system—but it is a choice to serve as shadow Attorney General, and it is a choice to represent a sanctioned Russian oligarch in the Jersey case. My view is that those two roles are incompatible. By recusing himself from giving the Conservative party legal advice on Ukraine and Russia, Lord Wolfson has himself confirmed that, in his view, it is not possible give that advice while being paid to represent Roman Abramovich, and that, given the choice, being paid to represent Roman Abramovich is more important to him than fulfilling his duties as shadow Attorney General. He could have made the opposite choice, but he did not.
I want our sanctions regime to be as effective as possible. I know that the Government are committed to continuing to learn and adapt as that regime evolves. I hope—I really mean this—that the Leader of the Opposition will clear up the mess that has been created and restore the cross-party consensus that is in our national interest.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate and for being a doughty champion for British citizens unfairly imprisoned abroad. Colleagues have already made clear that Magnitsky sanctions are not an abstract policy instrument but a really powerful tool, so for me the debate is really about whether we are prepared to use that tool fully and consistently on behalf of our citizens.
It is worth reminding ourselves of how this all began. We call these measures Magnitsky sanctions for a reason: a young man, Sergei Magnitsky, paid with his life for exposing corruption. He left behind an irrefutable paper trail that shows us exactly how authoritarian injustice works.
Sergei was a Russian tax lawyer—not an activist or a dissident—but he uncovered fraud of extraordinary scale involving the theft of millions of dollars carried out by state officials in Russia using the very institutions meant to uphold the law. He did what the law demanded of him: he documented it, testified and trusted that evidence would matter. Instead, the state turned on him. He was arrested by the very officials he had implicated and placed in pre-trial detention, where punishment begins long before guilt is even alleged.
What sets Sergei apart, and why we still speak his name, is what he did next. Even as his world narrowed to concrete walls and iron doors, he documented everything, with over 450 complaints, petitions and diary entries written by hand, often without a table, sometimes in freezing cells, under conditions designed to break the human spirit. In a letter to his lawyer in August 2009, he said:
“Justice, under such conditions turns into the process of grinding human meat for prisons and camps.”
That phrase was not rhetoric; it is a description of a system where detention itself becomes the punishment and where exhaustion, humiliation and neglect replace the rule of law.
Sergei was moved repeatedly between cells—often at night—and deprived of sleep, but he still refused to withdraw his testimony or plead guilty, so his conditions worsened. He was placed in cells flooded with raw sewage. He slept in his coat because the windows had no glass. Rats ran freely at night across the prison.
Fatally, Sergei was denied medical treatment. Despite a diagnosis of pancreatitis and escalating pain, and despite written pleas, verbal pleas and petitions to judges, prosecutors and officials, his requests were ignored. One official told him plainly that he would get help only after release and that nobody was obliged to provide it to him in detention.
Sergei’s last note asked when the ultrasound prescribed months earlier would finally be done. It never was. On 16 November 2009 he died on a prison floor after being restrained, isolated and denied emergency care: clearly a gross breach of human rights. Even then in death, the system denied responsibility. That is why Magnitsky sanctions exist: because Sergei and the incredible campaign of Sir Bill Browder showed us that truth outlives prison walls and that accountability has to cross borders.
Why does this matter today? We are seeing the same injustice applied to the case of Ryan Cornelius, not in Moscow but in Dubai. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked a little about Ryan’s case. He was arrested in 2008 and convicted of fraud in 2010, but the sentence that he received—harsh as it was—had an end date, and he had served it. But just weeks before his scheduled release it was extended by a further 20 years using a law introduced after his original conviction, with no proper hearing and no meaningful right of appeal. That is not justice; that detention is leverage. The parallels with Sergei are stark.
Like Sergei, Ryan was arbitrarily detained, according to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. Like Sergei, he has been denied due process. Like Sergei, he has been punished for refusing to concede or comply. Like Sergei, he has endured degrading prison conditions and inadequate medical care during a serious bout of tuberculosis.
But unlike Sergei—this should trouble the House deeply—Ryan Cornelius is a British citizen. The UN has ruled his detention arbitrary, and experts have raised the alarm. His family, some of whom are in the Gallery, have campaigned for years; some of them have lost everything. Members from parties across the House have spoken up, yet Ryan remains in prison. If Magnitsky sanctions are not relevant in this case, we must really ask ourselves: what are they for? I am grateful that we have heard some of the names relating to Dubai Islamic bank. I hope that the Government will take them away and think carefully about use of the powers that we have, which seem wholly appropriate in this instance.
What does the House want from the Magnitsky sanctions regime? I am grateful that several hon. Members have made these points. We want them to be more than just symbolic; we want them to be consistent, ambitious and principled. We have been honest about where our use of these sanctions has fallen short. On that, I am grateful in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton). Since we introduced the regime, we have designated 229 individuals and entities under it. While these measures have had a meaningful impact in some cases, overall we have applied them in a limited and inconsistent way. We know that the FCDO has received dossiers and evidence from civil society organisations in their hundreds—potentially thousands—implicating perpetrators, but only a small number have been sanctioned.
The contrast has already been made with the UK’s response to Russia’s invasion. I do not want to denigrate that response, because the Minister in particular and his colleagues have worked incredibly hard on that, and I give credit where credit is due. However, it demonstrates that where there is a political will, we do act at scale. That is what we want to see in other cases as well.
The inconsistency is particularly evident in cases involving UK strategic partners or trade allies, and in relation to conflict-related sexual violence, despite the UK's preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. There is also a clear failure to use the regime robustly in response to British nationals arbitrarily detained abroad, such as Ryan Conelius.
Beyond designation decisions, weak enforcement is further undermining the regime. To date, no fines have been imposed for breaches of Magnitsky sanctions. Reports indicate widespread evasion involving professional enablers, opaque corporate structures and overseas territories, as has been capably pointed out. In addition, there is no obligation for the Government to report to Parliament on the use of these sanctions. I believe that should change.
The UK lacks a strategy for managing frozen assets and ensuring that sanctions contribute to justice for victims and survivors. Funds can remain untouched for years, losing value while survivors receive no reparations. I think here particularly of the family of Ryan Cornelius; his wife Heather is effectively homeless as a result of the circumstances she faces. At present, all the proceeds flow back to the Treasury rather than to those harmed by the underlying violations. Let us use these sanctions ambitiously, consistently and appropriately in combination with other mechanisms if they are effective in upholding human rights, tackling illicit finance and preventing this country from becoming a haven for war criminals and kleptocrats.
Sergei Magnitsky showed us what courage looks like when the law collapses. Ryan Cornelius reminds us what happens when we hesitate to act. Sanctions are not about vengeance; they are about drawing a line and saying that no official, no banker and no judge is beyond accountability when they participate in grave injustice. If we honour Sergei’s legacy, we must be prepared to act with the same clarity he showed even when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, especially when one of our own is still paying the price.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate and I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He has already heard plenty from colleagues in the Chamber on sanctions, and I hope that today’s debate will provide further food for thought.
Effective sanctions regimes for human rights violations and corruption speak to who we are as a nation—a nation that stands up for the rule of law, that respects international law and that says, “Wherever and whoever you are, if you persecute individuals, plunder your country’s resources or embezzle from your own people, there will be consequences.” The reason we are having this debate today to my mind is not to call for some shiny new instrument to hold the world’s criminals and the corrupt to account; rather it is to call for better use of the world-leading tools that we already have to deny the human rights abusers and kleptocrats access to our financial system, professional services and property market.
I want to focus on two particular threats: first, what I see as the inconsistent and inadequate use of Magnitsky sanctions against serious human rights abusers, particularly in Georgia and Hong Kong; and secondly, the failure to enforce sanctions properly, allowing evasion, secrecy and professional enablers to undermine the entire regime.
Let me begin with Georgia, because Georgia is a country that should be moving closer to Europe, not sliding backwards into authoritarianism for the benefit of Moscow. Yet since the highly disputed parliamentary election of 26 October 2024, that is exactly what we have seen: all branches of government and state institutions now captured by Bidzina Ivanishvili and the Georgian Dream party; civic space crushed; independent media and civil society organisations targeted under a new foreign agent law—legislation that comes straight out of the Kremlin playbook; and peaceful protests met time and again with violence.
The UK has rightly sanctioned some individuals responsible for violent attacks on journalists and protesters, and that is very much welcome, but as the Minister knows, I do not feel it is enough. The omissions are glaring. Most notably, the UK has failed to sanction Bidzina Ivanishvili, the individual widely regarded as exercising decisive influence over Georgia’s political direction.
Lloyd Hatton
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the current situation in Georgia is not dissimilar to what we have seen in other central and eastern European countries and beyond, where Russia seeks to have greater political influence and control and has mission creep? Unless countries such as the United Kingdom push back against that early, Russia will continue to infringe and extend its tentacles into political life in countries such as Georgia?
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend is quite right about the spheres of influence that Russia seeks to exert across central and eastern Europe.
Ivanishvili could be sanctioned under any number of our regimes—Magnitsky, global anti-corruption or even the Russian sanctions regime given his reported links to the Kremlin and his blatant kowtowing to Moscow. Just this morning, I was made aware that Georgian Dream has increased state financing for the Kulevi oil refinery, which Reuters has reported received its first shipment of Russian oil last October. The refinery itself is linked to Vladimir Alekseev, first deputy chief of Russia’s GRU. That seems to be an obvious route for sanctions violations, and I hope it will be added to Ivanishvili’s rap sheet. I know the Minister will be unable to comment on individual cases, but can he at least confirm that Ivanishvili’s supposed status as too big to fail due to his alleged personal importance to the Georgian economy does not preclude him from being sanctioned by this country?
I will come to the United States later, but our allies across the Atlantic sanctioned Ivanishvili on 27 December 2024 for undermining democratic processes on behalf of, or for the benefit of, Russia. I certainly do not suggest that we follow the US in every aspect of foreign policy, but it is correct in applying that designation. Sanctioning cronies and underlings can make an impact, but let us be clear that the fish rots from the head. My fear is that our silence on Ivanishvili sends the wrong message to would-be kleptocrats around the world.
Let me turn to Hong Kong and the ongoing repression there, which is of keen interest to me and the valued community of Hongkongers across my Bolton West constituency. The dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms is unacceptable. Since the imposition of the national security law, we have seen the systematic criminalisation of dissent: independent media shut down, civil society organisations dissolved, elected opposition figures jailed, and fundamental freedoms erased in all but name. This is textbook human rights abuse.
The case of Jimmy Lai, who has already been mentioned, symbolises that injustice—a point I was reminded of by constituents of mine who used to work with him back in Hong Kong. As a British national, a publisher and a peaceful advocate of democracy, Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned for years for exercising rights that we regard in this place as fundamental. He now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars under a law designed to silence free speech, not to deliver justice. Of course, I welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s strong condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s sham trial last month, but words alone do not protect political prisoners. If Magnitsky sanctions are to retain any credibility, they must be used against those responsible for the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and for the persecution of individuals such as Jimmy Lai. That includes officials who designed, implemented and enforced the national security law and those who have overseen its use to crush free expression and political participation.
That brings me to a wider point. We are entering a period in which the United States cannot always be relied on to apply evidence-based sanctions. In that context, the UK cannot simply wait for Washington to lead. We must be prepared to act where the United States will not. We should also not be afraid, as critical friends, to point out where the US gets it wrong. I asked the Minister earlier this week at the Foreign Affairs Committee for his response to Trump’s sanctioning of two British citizens for seeking to, as Secretary Rubio sees it, “coerce” American tech platforms into suppressing free speech. Does the Minister agree that that is dangerous nonsense?
That brings me to my second theme: enforcement. Increasing designations alone is not enough. Sanctions without enforcement are no sanction at all; they are just suggestions. We now have a vast and complex sanctions architecture—Magnitsky sanctions, Russia sanctions and anti-corruption sanctions. Since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, we have had a massive boost in our own sanctions capacity and seen a huge undertaking in the private sector to keep up, yet enforcement in the UK remains worryingly weak.
We know that sanctions are being evaded. We heard earlier about Roman Abramovich reportedly transferring his UK property empire to his children just weeks before being sanctioned—the very same individual who is now being represented by the Conservative shadow Attorney General over a dispute with the Jersey Government on the source of his wealth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) outlined forensically, if the Opposition are serious about standing by Ukraine, they cannot have him as their top Law Officer, serving in the other place and attending shadow Cabinet meetings. It is simply incredible. Does the Minister agree that Lord Wolfson’s position in the shadow Cabinet and attendance of those meetings is now completely untenable?
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has concluded that it is “almost certain” that UK lawyers, estate agents and property service firms have helped clients evade asset freezes. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) outlined, in the past year OFSI has imposed just three fines for breaches of the UK’s sanctions regime, totalling just over £622,000. That is a rounding error compared with the scale of wealth at stake, and it is simply not a credible deterrent. All the while, there have been no breaches of Magnitsky sanctions in the past year.
This issue is acute in the British overseas territories, where low policing capacity and high financial secrecy create ideal conditions for sanctions evasion. There have been some laudable efforts in the OTs to enforce sanctions. However, I have too often been made aware of civil society organisations submitting detailed evidence of Magnitsky sanctions breaches in the overseas territories but receiving no meaningful response at all from those jurisdictions. Will the Minister assure me today that he will ensure that British overseas territories that receive such detailed allegations will act on them?
We must tackle head-on the scourge of corporate secrecy in offshore financial centres linked to the UK. If we are to ensure that our sanctions bite as much as possible, there is an urgent need for those overseas territories that continue to drag their feet—including the British Virgin Islands—to finally adopt fully public registers of beneficial ownership, as they have promised time and again but failed to deliver. As an interim step, the Minister will agree that individuals with a legitimate interest, including journalists and civil society, must have meaningful access to beneficial ownership information. Without that transparency, asset freezes cannot be enforced effectively. I look forward to the update on this issue promised earlier this year in the Government’s new anti-corruption strategy, but can the Minister provide any further information on timelines—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a conclusion, because we have another debate to follow, and we still have the Front-Bench spokespeople to come.
Phil Brickell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Transparency is the name of the game here, so will the Minister confirm whether his Department has looked at publishing comprehensive data on assets frozen within UK jurisdictions, broken down by asset class, including assets held by individuals, state- owned enterprises and states themselves? The reason I ask is simple: Parliament cannot assess the effectiveness of our regimes if it cannot see the full picture.
Let me end with this. Magnitsky sanctions are one of the most powerful tools we have to defend human rights, but they work only if they are used consistently, enforced rigorously and connected clearly to accountability and reparations. If the UK wants to be a global champion of human rights, it must stop being a safe haven for those who abuse them and start ensuring that sanctions mean something on paper and in practice.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. I seem to remember that he once referred to himself as a “quiet man”, but he has had a loud voice on this issue. I also congratulate the other excellent speakers we have heard today. The hon. Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) took us on a journey through different territories, spaces and countries, and reminded us of the history of the important name that we associate with the kind of sanctions we are talking about.
We are living through a period marked by rising authoritarianism, escalating human rights abuses, and the increasing use of corruption and repression as tools of state power. In that context, Magnitsky-style sanctions are among the most powerful instruments in our armoury to uphold human rights, defend international law and promote democracy. Their strength lies in the fact that they target perpetrators, not populations, and individuals, not states, holding those responsible to account without inflicting further humanitarian harm on civilians—at least they do when they are working at their best. Magnitsky sanctions were designed to establish both legitimacy and intent. As Members have noted, they include asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on financial transactions, aimed directly at individuals who violate international law or commit serious human rights abuses. Their purpose is to reduce the humanitarian costs associated with blanket sanctions, to draw a clear line between civilians and abusers, and to provide a mechanism for accountability where domestic justice systems very often fail.
When used consistently and in co-ordination with our democratic allies, these sanctions carry real power. They deter future abuses, impose reputational and financial consequences, and challenge the assumption among perpetrators that they can act with impunity. Yet despite their importance, the United Kingdom’s current approach is, I contend, still falling short, and in so doing it is undermining the very purpose of the sanctions. Application remains inconsistent, enforcement is insufficient, as we have heard, and transparency and oversight are often inadequate. Sanctions retain their power only when they are applied coherently, consistently and with the political will to enforce them.
The Liberal Democrats believe that Magnitsky sanctions remain essential, yet too many individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned. Even where sanctions are imposed, those targeted continue to exploit evasion methods. Delays, gaps and selective application fundamentally weaken deterrence and erode confidence in that regime. We have consistently argued that the UK must be prepared to act decisively, rather than hesitating or allowing political convenience to override principle. On human rights and the rule of law, the United Kingdom must be a leader, not a follower.
A key weakness lies in how Magnitsky sanctions are operationalised. There is no clear, strategic approach to when and how the powers are used, leading to narrow and often selective application that ultimately undermines deterrence. Structural complexity has discouraged bold action, and weakened the overall effectiveness of the Magnitsky regime in the UK. That problem is compounded by a lack of alignment with our allies. A significant number of individuals sanctioned by partners such as the United States, the European Union and Canada are not mirrored by the UK, reducing the collective impact of co-ordinated action. In fact, in 2022 the UK failed to replicate 69% of global Magnitsky designations. Let me be clear: these sanctions will not serve their intended purpose without close international co-ordination.
Moreover, unlike the United States, the UK does not operate under a single, clearly defined Magnitsky Act. Instead, our framework risks producing narrower and less transparent criteria for designation, particularly in cases involving serious human rights abuses and grand corruption. If we are serious about accountability, we must be bolder, clearer and more decisive in how we use these powers. That is why the Liberal Democrats would prioritise the defence of democracy and the promotion of human rights globally, deepen co-ordination of sanctions policy with our democratic allies—particularly in relation to Russia—and strengthen economic crime legislation to close loopholes that allow sanctioned individuals to evade accountability. Sanctions must be backed by rigorous enforcement and tougher vetting of major investments, or they simply will not work.
That principle applies just as strongly to the protection of British nationals overseas. Arbitrary detention is not diplomacy; it is coercion. That is why, as well as appointing a dedicated envoy for arbitrary detention, Magnitsky sanctions must be a tool for enforcement, ensuring that hostage-taking carries a personal cost to those who seek to perpetrate it. Looking ahead, the future development of the UK’s sanctions policy must be genuinely joined up across Government. Only a whole-of-Government approach can ensure effective enforcement, close loopholes and maintain both the credibility and the moral authority of our sanctions regime.
The Liberal Democrats are clear about what that means in practice. Sanctions must target the individuals responsible for human rights abuses, not just states. Economic crime legislation must be strengthened to prevent evasion. Magnitsky sanctions must be used proactively, not reluctantly, as they so often appear to be used now. Arms export controls must reflect our human rights obligations, and asset freezing and seizure must be used to stop the flow of dirty money through our financial system.
That clarity must be reflected in our response to events around the world. In Hong Kong, a territory that has been mentioned several times during the debate, the Liberal Democrats want to see Magnitsky sanctions imposed on those responsible for the erosion of freedoms and the unacceptable targeting of pro-democracy activists, including those here in the United Kingdom. The arrest warrants recently issued by Beijing are disgraceful attempts to interfere in our democracy, and they must be met with actions that befit the words that are so often spoken in this place and elsewhere.
The same boldness is required in response to Russia. We must work with our European partners to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, up to £30 billion of which are held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine. Sanctions that are not enforced do not constrain aggression, but enable it.
That consistency must be extended to Israel too. The Liberal Democrats were the first major UK-wide party to call for a full ban on military exports to Israel, and we continue to demand sanctions against Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet Ministers for their conduct in Gaza. International law must apply to everyone, without exception, and that includes senior figures in the UAE for their personal and institutional support for the still unfolding atrocities in Sudan.
In conclusion, Magnitsky sanctions are undoubtedly a powerful tool, but they cannot be deployed only when politically convenient. If the United Kingdom is to retain credibility on the world stage, our sanctions regime must be principled, consistent and enforced with resolve. Only then can it serve its true purpose: accountability for abusers, justice for victims and the defence of the values we claim to uphold.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. He has long been a determined and principled advocate for human rights, and it is entirely fitting that he brought this important issue before the House for debate. I thank Members from across House for their many contributions.
The debate is not about whether Magnitsky-style sanctions are justified—they are—but about whether they are being used as effectively as they should be, and whether the Government are doing enough to ensure that they deliver real consequences for those responsible for the gravest human rights violations.
The UK has one of the most developed autonomous sanctions regimes in the world. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, introduced by the last Conservative Government, gives Ministers the power to impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses and corruption. That framework was designed to give the UK the ability to act decisively, in co-ordination with allies and without delay. Ministers spoke of a regime capable of reaching from Xinjiang to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and to the persecution of the Rohingya. Those ambitions were right, but the test is how the regime is applied in practice, because sanctions that are slow, inconsistently applied or weakly enforced do not deter abusers; they signal hesitation.
Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on Russia, and rightly so. Since launching its illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been responsible for widespread and systematic abuses, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UK’s response has been significant. It was under the last Conservative Government that the framework for these measures was put in place; as a result, around £28.7 billion in Russian-linked assets have been frozen, but freezing assets is only part of the picture. How is this sanctions regime being enforced? How many investigations has the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation opened in the last year? How many enforcement actions have been taken, and how many penalties have been imposed? Without visible and credible enforcement, there is a real risk that sanctions become something that can be managed, worked around or even absorbed as a cost of doing business.
Several Members have raised the issue of Russia’s so-called shadow fleet—the vessels and networks used to evade sanctions and to continue exporting oil. The Government have sanctioned a number of ships, which is welcome, but, as others have said, the shadow fleet is consistently adapting. It relies on complex ownership structures, opaque insurance arrangements and ship-to-ship transfers designed to obscure origin and destination. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has made clear from this Dispatch Box, enforcement needs to be relentless, not only identifying vessels but targeting the wider networks that enable this activity.
That brings me to a recent example that raises important questions about enforcement. Recent reporting has suggested that sanctioned Russian crude oil was delivered to a refinery part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal, a UK-resident businessman, using vessels that had already been blacklisted by western authorities. Those shipments reportedly involved ship-to-ship transfers and other practices commonly associated with sanctions evasion. Those reports may ultimately lead to enforcement action, and I have written to the director of OFSI to seek clarification, but they underline a wider point: if sanctions are to be effective, they must follow all those involved in enabling sanction busting, not just the ships themselves. That includes those who benefit from, facilitate, finance, or fail to exercise proper oversight over, the continued flow of Russian oil revenues.
When credible concerns are raised about potential sanctions circumvention involving UK-linked individuals or businesses, there must be confidence that those concerns are examined rigorously and without hesitation. Does the Minister know whether OFSI is actively assessing the activity reported in connection with Mr Mittal’s refinery? How does OFSI approach cases where supply chains are deliberately complex, span multiple jurisdictions and are designed to obscure accountability? How are the Government ensuring that enforcement action keeps pace with increasingly sophisticated attempts to evade sanctions in the energy sector?
It is also reasonable to ask whether the Government are prepared to apply the same level of scrutiny where individuals with UK links hold influential positions, such as directorships in major international institutions, banks and multinational companies, while also being connected to sectors implicating Russian energy flows. Can the Minister confirm that no individual, however prominent, and no corporate structure, however complex, is treated as being beyond scrutiny? Sanctions must be applied consistently and without exception, because their credibility depends on it.
Magnitsky-style sanctions were never intended to apply to Russia alone; they were designed to target serious human rights abuses wherever they occur, so let me turn to a number of other areas. First, there is Sudan, which has been mentioned today. We welcome the sanctions already imposed on individuals associated with the RSF, but the situation on the ground remains dire. Civilians continue to suffer, particularly in Darfur, so what more is being done? Are further designations under active consideration? How are sanctions being used alongside diplomatic efforts at the UN and with regional partners to press for a ceasefire and accountability?
Secondly, let me turn to people smuggling and human trafficking. These crimes, which have been mentioned today, involve exploitation, violence and abuse on a large scale, often facilitated by corruption and financial secrecy. In 2025 alone, more than 41,000 illegal migrants crossed the channel in small boats—nearly 5,000 more than in the previous year. Have the Government considered whether Magnitsky-style sanctions could be used more systematically against the leaders of those criminal networks, particularly where there is evidence of corruption or serious human rights abuse? What assessment has been made of that option?
There are a number of long-standing and deeply concerning situations in which Magnitsky sanctions remain highly relevant. In Hong Kong and China, the UK has sanctioned some officials for abuses in Xinjiang and for undermining rights and freedoms. That was the right decision, but serious concerns remain; for instance, not a single Chinese or Hong Kong official has been sanctioned in connection with the dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms, despite more than 200,000 Hongkongers relocating to the UK. The recent guilty verdict against Jimmy Lai is a stark reminder of the continued assault on the rule of law, press freedom and judicial independence in Hong Kong. Are the Government actively considering Magnitsky-style sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that case, including those responsible for political interference in the judicial system?
I also ask the Minister what action is being taken against those responsible for placing bounties on the heads of activists—including individuals now living here in the UK—in acts of clear transnational repression. The US has already sanctioned officials linked to those bounties; why has the UK not followed suit? More broadly, these issues sit alongside growing concerns about foreign influence and intimidation here in the UK, including through the proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, and the need for the effective implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme. How confident is the Minister that the UK’s sanctions policy, its approach to foreign influence, and its response to transnational repression are properly aligned?
Turning briefly to Iran, as we have seen, the regime’s response to peaceful protest has been brutal. Arbitrary detention, torture and executions continue, so what further steps are being taken to sanction those responsible for repression, and how is the UK working with partners to ensure that Iranian officials involved in those abuses cannot move or hide assets abroad? In Myanmar, nearly four years after the coup, the military junta continues to carry out widespread abuses against civilians, so are additional designations being prepared, and how is the UK ensuring that sanctions remain targeted, relevant and effective over time?
Finally, I turn briefly to Venezuela, where decisive action taken by the US against the Maduro regime has once again underlined the seriousness of the human rights and democratic crisis facing that country. Against that backdrop, can the Minister set out clearly the Government’s current approach to Venezuela sanctions, how human rights considerations are being reflected in policy, and whether Magnitsky-style sanctions remain firmly on the table?
Joe Powell
Would the shadow Minister consider briefly responding to my question about whether she thinks it is appropriate for the shadow Attorney General to be simultaneously advising shadow Ministers and a sanctioned Russian oligarch?
Wendy Morton
I am happy to respond. I refer the hon. Gentleman and his colleague who also raised that question, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), to a letter that Lord Wolfson, the shadow Attorney General, has published. That letter sets out the position very clearly.
Returning to the subject of the debate, when we step back, a clear pattern emerges: sanctions only work if they are enforced rigorously, applied consistently and backed by the political will to follow the evidence wherever it leads. As such, I will close with a few final questions for the Minister. How are the Government strengthening enforcement against sanctions evasion, particularly in complex sectors such as energy and shipping, and where do they see as the next priority for designations? What steps are being taken to improve transparency and accountability to Parliament? If sanctions are to serve their purpose, they must be more than symbolic; they must be enforced, credible and consistent. That is what victims of human rights abuses deserve, and that is what the UK’s reputation as a serious and principled actor on the world stage requires.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Let me start by thanking the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. He always speaks with conviction and passion; he has been absolutely consistent on these issues for a very long time, and I recognise his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation. We fully support him and every colleague in this House who stands up for our values and has been sanctioned as a result—including your colleague the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for all the contributions today, which have been constructively critical. I assure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and all Members that our teams will take the individual cases raised seriously, and I will try my best in the time available to respond to all the key points.
I emphasise from the start that I share the ambition of Members across this House. I take on board the challenge—indeed, I made many similar points in opposition on these issues in similar debates. I emphasise to colleagues the extraordinary work of the officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and of other teams across Government who work on these issues. I have to be honest: resource is finite, but we have invested substantially and we will continue to do so. We have set ambitious targets, including on enforcement, which I will come to, but I pay tribute to those people and recognise that they have been awarded for that work within the Department, and rightly so. That work is having a genuine impact, because sanctions are one of the most powerful tools we have to protect our security and advance our foreign policy, including in the areas described today.
We impose sanctions to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour, as well as to send deterrent and other messages beyond those we target. However, sanctions must be focused, enforceable, legally sound and backed by the right resources and credible evidence. We maintain the integrity of our regime through the strictest interpretation and the solidity of the evidence underpinning sanctions. I want colleagues to understand that, because it is important for the functioning of the regime as a whole.
Since this Government came in, we have set ambitious targets on sanctions, and we have introduced more than 1,000 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. We have laid 15 new statutory instruments before Parliament, including to create a new regime on irregular migration, to which the shadow Minister referred. We have already designated 32 individuals and entities under that. We have played a leading role in the snapback of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Those are just some of the examples showing that sanctions are not just symbolic gestures, but practical tools that are tightly focused and have a meaningful impact.
The UK covers Magnitsky-style sanctions under two regimes: the global human rights regime and the global anti-corruption regime. Under this Government, we have delivered more than 60 designations under those regimes. In 2025, we sanctioned 29 individuals and entities under the global human rights regime, going after scam centres in Cambodia and targets in Sri Lanka, Georgia and the west bank. Many colleagues have raised those areas and issues.
We have also delivered 164 sanctions taking action on human rights violations, war atrocities and gender-based violence. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, entities and organisations responsible for supporting or inciting violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank. In June 2025, we sanctioned the Israeli Government Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in their personal capacities, in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities. I mentioned the Cambodian scam centre package, which froze 20 UK properties worth more than £125 million, directly disrupting criminal activity in the heart of London. That activity impacted on British citizens on our streets, but was also linked to global corruption networks.
In November 2024, under the global anti-corruption regime, we sanctioned three notorious kleptocrats who had siphoned wealth from their countries, along with their enablers, including family and financial fixers. We froze more than £150 million in UK assets and sent a strong signal of support to Angola and other countries. We targeted an illicit gold network centred on a Kenyan-British smuggler who was using corruption to move gold out of southern Africa. In April 2025, we sanctioned corrupt officials and judges in Georgia and Guatemala and a pro-Russian network in Moldova, exposing their activities and supporting democracy and the rule of law.
Magnitsky sanctions are not our only tool. We also have the wider geographic regimes. Just in December, we sanctioned nine individuals and entities under the Syria regulations for abuses committed under the Assad regime and during last year’s coastal violence. We have to ensure that sanctions are robust, legally sound and evidence-based and that they stand up to the most robust scrutiny, and I am sure that colleagues understand why.
Russia has been highlighted by many Members today. We have taken concerted action on that front, and it is making a significant difference. Last year, we sanctioned more than 700 individuals, entities and ships under the Russian regime. We were the first G7 country to sanction all four Russian oil majors. The US followed suit, and that has had a direct impact: Russia’s oil revenues have dropped to their lowest level since the invasion began. I know that there is strong support across at least the majority of the House on those issues, and I have listed off the many other Magnitsky sanctions designation packages.
I am conscious of the time, and I will try to respond to some of the points that have been raised. It is worth making the point that often there are similarities between the different regimes. We co-ordinate very closely with partners, particularly the European Union, the United States, Canada and others. We try to bring the weight of the world to bear on these issues at crucial times, but I emphasise to colleagues that the legal bases for our sanctions regimes are different. There are different legal and judicial processes, and that is why there are often differences. Because of where nexuses of individuals and entities are, there are also often differences in where our sanctions can have the biggest impact. Sometimes that is what underpins what otherwise appears to be incongruity between regimes, but we always try to bring them together.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green specifically mentioned the Cambodian scam centres and Chen Zhi. I emphasise that Cambodia arrested Chen Zhi and extradited him to China this week, and that the National Bank of Cambodia liquidated Prince Bank on 8 January, so there has been a significant impact as a result of that package. Obviously, the sanctions are only one part of the response to these networks; there are other measures that countries can choose to take in response to very serious allegations.
A lot of questions have rightly been raised about Sudan and the work that the Government are doing on that issue. The Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Africa and I place a great deal of importance on that, and building a consensus on ending that horrific war is a core part of the Government’s diplomatic efforts, including with other regional partners and the UAE. The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Emirati Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister has also spoken to his counterpart. We will continue to use all necessary means to bring an end to the war in Sudan, which is having a devastating impact on its citizens.
A number of colleagues have asked questions about Hong Kong. Of course, we call on Beijing to repeal Hong Kong’s national security law. We are closely monitoring the situation there, and we keep sanctions under close review. I am not going to speculate on future designations, for obvious reasons, but particular cases have been raised. The case of Jimmy Lai remains an utmost priority. Diplomats continue to press for consular access, and they attended his trial. The Prime Minister has raised Mr Lai’s case directly with President Xi, and we are in close contact with his family and representatives. Of course, we want to make sure that he receives proper treatment, and we are deeply concerned about some of the allegations made about his treatment in prison.
On the case of Ryan Cornelius, I want to acknowledge that his family have been in Parliament today. We continue to support them and, indeed, the family of Charles Ridley as well. The former Foreign Secretary raised their cases with the UAE Foreign Minister last year, and I understand that he and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the families in September. We support their clemency applications, and of course we raise those and other cases with appropriate authorities at the right time.
Jagtar Singh Johal’s case has also been mentioned. We continue to raise serious concerns about that with the Government of India at every possible opportunity.
We have not stopped our Myanmar sanctions. Since the coup, we have sanctioned 25 individuals and 39 entities.
Very important concerns have been raised about Roman Abramovich and Chelsea football club’s assets. I draw colleagues’ attention to what we have said on that, and to the Prime Minister’s action on the licence.
Colleagues have also expressed strong concerns about the shadow Attorney General. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, the Conservatives have some very serious questions to answer on this issue, which is completely unfathomable to me and deeply disappointing.
On the question of enforcement—
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of reporting to Parliament, and I can assure him that I have been scrutinised in this place many times. I have sent a letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to Lord Ricketts in the other place, to set out the full detail of all the work we have done. I am committed to reporting regularly to Parliament on these issues; indeed, I have held private meetings with many Members from across the House to discuss their concerns, and I am absolutely committed to continuing to do that.
On the issue of enforcement, I think some of the criticism was somewhat unwarranted. This is an issue that I have regularly championed. I agree with the principles of what colleagues have said, but I point out that in November the National Crime Agency announced that, based on the intelligence it gained in Operation Destabilise, it supported international law enforcement partners in seizing $24 million and over €2.6 million from Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs and organised crime. There have been over 128 arrests as a result of that operation alone, with over £25 million seized in cash and cryptocurrency—another issue that has been mentioned. In 2025 alone, OFSI issued four major civil monetary penalties, totalling over £900,000—I think some of the figures Members have used are not quite accurate—and for its part, HMRC concluded a £1.1 million compound settlement for trade sanctions breaches in May.
The shadow Minister asked for figures. I am happy to write to her with further details, but to give one example, OTSI has received reports or referrals about 146 potential breaches of sanctions and it has a number of investigations under way. I do not want to comment on them, but I do want to assure hon. Members that we take all the considerations they have raised very seriously. Sanctions, including Magnitsky-related sanctions, are an important tool, and we will continue to look at all such possibilities. I welcome the challenge, and we will continue to rigorously pursue not only the designation of such regimes, but, crucially, the enforcement that makes the difference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up very quickly.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will indeed be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who all made speeches, for their support in this debate.
In winding up, I have some points on which I want to press the Government. First, why not have an annual report? I simply raise that as a question, because it would stop us having to bid for a Backbench Business debate, and—who knows—we may even mean we get more Members to attend.
I would raise questions about Sudan and the UAE, because the fact is that they are now complicit in the most brutal of murders, rapes and everything else. I would couple that with the holding of Ryan Cornelius as a hostage—and I call him a hostage—whose family have been without him for 17 years and are in penury as a result. Surely this gives us the opportunity to say that, unless he is released, we will put sanctions on individuals at the bank and elsewhere, which would certainly be very helpful.
It is the same with Jimmy Lai. It is now time for us to say that the country that used to administer Hong Kong can no longer put up with the trashing of the Sino-British agreement, the terrible behaviour over legal systems and, basically, the ending of English common law in the territory.
Those are some of the issues, but many others were raised. I must say that I have the highest regard for the Minister, as he knows. We have spoken endlessly about different aspects of this, and I take him as a very honest individual. I hope he will take these points back to the Foreign Office and say that we have done well, but we could do an awful lot more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is concerned that serious human rights abuses, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, together with widespread grand corruption, continue to escalate in an increasingly unstable global environment; notes that global human rights and anti-corruption sanctions, commonly known as Magnitsky sanctions, remain an essential mechanism for accountability and redress, yet their implementation by the United Kingdom is inconsistent and insufficient, and lacks oversight; regrets that numerous individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned, that enforcement and transparency around decision-making remains inadequate, and that sanctioned individuals continue to exploit evasion methods while victims receive limited support; further notes the absence of a long-term strategy for the management of frozen assets and a lack of clear criteria for delisting, alongside growing concerns that sanctions are becoming politicised internationally; urges the Government to strengthen the credibility of the Magnitsky sanctions regime through consistent and impartial application, enhanced enforcement, and by ensuring greater Parliamentary oversight and expanded measures to support victims, including developing pathways for compensation; and holds that, relevant to this, those involved in the arbitrary detention of British nationals should face Magnitsky sanctions, including those involved in the detention of Ryan Cornelius, Jagtar Singh Johal and Jimmy Lai.
High Street Gambling Reform
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dawn Butler, who will speak for about 15 minutes.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the aim to permit principle in planning policy erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods; further believes that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, not skewed towards automatic approval; and therefore calls on the Government to remove the aim to permit provision so local councils can regulate the spread of gambling premises.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I will talk about three things: first, why I am campaigning for safer streets and why gambling-related harm is a key component of my work; secondly, some of the people and their testimonies; and, thirdly, the good work the Government have done, but also the further work that needs to be done next.
I am tired of seeing the number of betting shops on the high street in Brent, and how every time there is an empty shop, another betting shop opens in its place. This is specifically the case in areas such as Harlesden, Willesden, Neasden, Wembley and Kilburn. In Harlesden, we have 10 betting shops within a 10-minute walk, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I apologise that I will not be able to stay for this debate because I have to follow up with the family of Ryan Cornelius—they were in the Gallery earlier —whom I referenced during the previous debate.
As the hon. Member knows, we on the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform have taken very seriously the lessons from Brent, which have been cited in letters to the Government. We have to stop this ridiculous proliferation of betting shops and adult gaming centres, over which councils have no control. Councils do not think it is right to have them, yet they have no say in the matter. The No. 1 thing for the Government to do is to end this nonsense, and give councils the power to say no.
Dawn Butler
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the APPG on gambling reform, of which I am a member, for his intervention. Brent is a solid example of why change is needed. Another shop—a double-fronted shop—is due to open. On it has been written what I call conscious graffiti: “Stop opening gambling shops in deprived areas.” I endorse that message! In Kilburn, there have been 300 written objections to a proposed new adult gaming centre. When I campaigned on this issue, Brent council said that its hands were tied and that I needed to provide more evidence, so I collated more evidence—thousands of responses from my constituents —but that still was not enough because of the “aim to permit” legislation. That has led Brent council—through my campaigning and, probably, nagging—to run an incredible campaign. It now has other councils on board and the deputy leader from Brent council is here today for this debate.
In 2025, for my summer campaign, I decided to travel around the country, but mainly London, to investigate high streets and what they look like. And—would you believe it?—in economically deprived areas, every second or third shop was a brightly lit gambling shop. I could look down the road and see all the bright lights glittering and trying to encourage people to come in and spend their money. There was, however, one particular high street where I could not find a gambling shop. I walked up and down it on both sides. It is one of the wealthiest high streets in London, in Hampstead. Isn’t that shocking? One resident happily told me, “We even campaigned to stop McDonald’s opening on the high street. We didn’t want them.”
On Monday, I published an open letter to the Prime Minister. It had 280 signatures—mainly from London, but from all around the country—from councillors, leaders and mayors all saying that the aim to permit needs to change. In Brent, gambling premises outnumber supermarkets in 17 out of 22 wards. The gambling industry says that gambling shops help high streets, but they do not. When a gambling shop is set up, other shops do not want to be there. Gambling establishments entice people to come in and then ply them with food and drink, and teas and coffees. There is no point in opening a coffee shop next door when there are free coffees in the gambling shop.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her visit to Kensington and Bayswater, where she herself enticed me into an adult gaming centre to show me how it is set up to keep people in there. Machines could even be reserved, so people could go away and come back. That is preying on the addictive mentality. And these are not the 20p slot machines or arcades in seaside towns; this is serious money.
Dawn Butler
Absolutely. I hope I was not a bad influence on my hon. Friend. It was the first time that I had gone into one, but you have to go into one to really understand what it is like. Like he says, we went in and a machine had been reserved for a person who had gone somewhere for when they came back. The business model is extreme and rather cruel.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is delivering an excellent speech, and I support her campaign to end the aim to permit. Another issue I have heard lots of people concerned about is the 80:20 rule, which requires gambling shops to have only 20% of their machines to be the higher stake, more dangerous and addictive machines. There is a rumour or a consultation out that the rule might be liberalised. Does she agree that the liberalisation of that rule, at a time when gambling regulation is not fit for purpose, would be completely unacceptable?
Dawn Butler
That rule must not be changed, and I will tell my hon. Friend for why. Gambling shops get around that rule by having iPads, which are classified as lower stake machines, that do not work. That is how they get away with having more B3 machines, which are the most addictive machines where you can put in £20 and lose it in a minute. That is why the rule should not be liberalised. As I say, the business model is quite shocking.
Across the nation, an average of 13.4% of people are categorised as low-risk gamblers, with 2.9% categorised as high-risk. In Brent, 17.1% of residents are categorised as low-risk and 6.2% as high-risk. This shows the link between the proliferation of gambling shops and harm. One kind of business that is found on high streets when there are lots of gambling shops is pawn shops, because people lose their money and then pawn what they can to gamble more to try to win it back.
I am not saying that we should ban gambling all together, but we have to be honest about the harm that is being caused at the moment. The Gambling Act 2005 is completely out of date.
The latest iteration of this campaign has been a personal journey for me and has increased my understanding of the harms of gambling. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), with whom I went into some gambling shops, and who is running an excellent campaign to stop a huge gambling shop opening in his constituency, I have met some amazing people, and I want to talk about their testimonies. I interviewed two of them, and those interviews are on my Substack. Their testimonies opened my eyes, and I hope they do the same for anyone else who hears them. They also moved me to tears.
Jackie Olden is a phenomenal campaigner. Her mum, Wendy Hughes, worked at a bookmaker. After Wendy was given free plays on the machine so that she could entice the punters with the bright lights, the sounds and the music when the customer wins, she became addicted and started gambling with her own money. Towards the end of her life, Wendy gambled on a slot machine for 16 hours straight; the staff knew how she liked her tea and coffee, and bought her food so that she did not leave. Wendy had maxed out her credit card, so they kept her in the shop over 12 hours so that her credit card limit would be renewed and she could take out money and start gambling again. They knew her favourite chair and her favourite machine, and they let her gamble for 16 hours. Wendy lost almost £2,000 in that session. Merkur was fined £95,000 as a result of social responsibility failings—none of that money, I might add, went to the family.
Wendy later died of cancer. [Interruption.] I am getting quite emotional, sorry—Jackie is an amazing campaigner. Wendy had told her daughter that she was gambling to win enough money to pay for her funeral. The people in that gambling shop knew she was dying of cancer; they saw her emaciated body as she kept going in to gamble.
Charles and Liz Ritchie lost their son, Jack, at the tender age of 24. Jack had a gambling addiction. In his suicide note, he said that he would never be free from gambling, and that is why he took his life. Charles told me that Jack got addicted at school; he and his friends would go into gambling shops and he would place bets with his dinner money. Okay, things have been strengthened, and there are now checks on young people who look under 18, but there were not then. Using his dinner money to gamble, Jack had two big wins, winning £1,000, and became addicted, chasing that win time and again. His parents did not find this out until after he died.
In their grief, Charles and Liz decided to mobilise others, and they have since set up an amazing charity called Gambling with Lives. There are so many people who have been fighting this addiction on their own. The Labour Government have done some good work; there was just one NHS gambling clinic when Jack died, and now there are 15. However, there is so much more that we must do.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. We had representatives from the gambling industry in front of the Treasury Committee recently, and that revealed to me that such stories are not tragic by-products of an industry that is actually okay, but actually part of the business strategy of that industry. The gambling industry receives 60% of its profits from 5% of its customers. It needs people like the ones the hon. Member refers to, in the circumstances that they are in, in order to make the profits that it survives on. Does the hon. Member agree that it was a disgrace that the representatives in front of the Treasury Committee said that there is no evidence of social harm related to gambling?
Dawn Butler
Not only do I agree but I find it shocking that they can blatantly ignore the evidence and lie like that. You wonder sometimes how people sleep at night knowing the harm that is being caused.
We are not saying, “Scrap all gambling”, but we have to recognise and understand the harms and do what we can to stop and prevent them. Gambling with Lives has helped influence NHS centres and the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which I will come to later. That is really important in how we identify and link gambling harms to the increase in mental health and suicides. At the moment we have an average of one suicide a day due to gambling harms.
I met Rob Davies, a reporter from The Guardian, who was the first person to take me into an adult gaming centre and show me the ropes, which are basically, “Stick your money in the machine and press the button”. There is no skill to it at all, and there is even an autoplay option so that the user does not have to keep pressing the button. It also spins at 0.25 seconds, which is why a user can lose £20 very quickly.
Veterans came to give evidence as part of the work of the APPG on gambling reform, and their evidence shocked me, because I had not realised just how prolific gambling was among our veterans and those in the armed forces. If we think about it, because of the gambling industry’s business model, they are the ideal clientele. They have experienced occupational stress and trauma, and face long deployments and separation from their support networks. There is also a cultural acceptance of gambling as a social activity and easy access to gambling opportunities. There are even addictive B3 machines in Army barracks. We do not know how many there are; we are still trying to get those numbers.
It is shocking that the gambling is so prolific, because despite the obvious risks of gambling, there is an additional risk for those in the armed forces at an organisational level. It can reduce operational readiness and leave personnel distracted, vulnerable to bribery or criminal influence and less able to focus on their duty, which increases the risk of errors that may endanger them, their colleagues and operational outcomes. We have to tackle gambling in the armed forces if we want them to be able to do their job properly. We must also protect veterans.
I have also spoken to Tom Fleming, Lord Foster of Bath, Harj Gahley, and Tom Goudsmit and Adam Brichto, who are making an important documentary on gambling harms.
To end, I want to address what gambling harms are and what the Government can do about them. Gambling harms include domestic abuse, rent arrears, mental health decline, relationship breakdown, and suicides, especially in young men, as we have spoken about. There is also a link to violence against women and girls. The Government want to tackle violence against women and girls, but to do so they must tackle gambling. When I asked the gambling industry why it needed some shops to be open 24/7, I was told that it is because taxi drivers who are working nights can come in after a hard night’s work and basically gamble away their wages. What used to happen is that people who lost their money—their wages—used to get really angry, pick the chairs up and smash the machines. The machines cost about £40,000, so the chairs were made so heavy that people could not pick them up and smash the machines. It is absolutely shocking.
There are links between gambling and homelessness. Rent money is being gambled away. I met a gambler who was thrown out of his house by his wife because he had just gambled away all their money; they could not even afford food. There is also suicide, particularly among young men. Gambling is not like drugs and alcohol, where we can see or smell it. It can be hidden for a while until someone has no money and is desperate. That is why sometimes it is found really late: because it gets to that desperate point.
The Social Market Foundation notes that residents consistently associate high concentrations of gambling venues with increased antisocial behaviour, reduced feelings of safety and a decline in pride in people’s high streets. If we want pride in place, we need to clear up our high streets.
GambleAware shone a light on the scary prospect of young children being systematically groomed by the industry. Young people who are being groomed become desensitised to gambling, specifically through gaming. The same addictive hooks are being used to get young people addicted to the games and gambling—and it is more potent than drugs and alcohol.
Some influencers are being paid to influence young people to gamble. Sixteen-year-old boys are more vulnerable to that than any other group, and that is because there are video games, such as EA Sports FC—I have never played it, so do not know it—with loot boxes and virtual currencies that people can use to pay. We have to get a grip on that and we need to work with creators. I have been working with Caspar Lee, Joe Sugg, Ambar Driscoll, Joshua Pieters and Giuseppe Federici on how we can involve, help, develop and nurture current and future creators. Will the Minister also meet that group of creators to see what we can do to help that industry?
Action must be taken. The Social Market Foundation says that the statutory duty to “aim to permit” gambling premises
“is no longer fit for purpose.”
As an activity, it prevents councils from responding to evidence of harm and local opposition, and it erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods. This is what needs to be done: the foundation has five steps and I will read them out, because I agree with them all.
“1) Greater licensing powers should be granted to local authorities, including cumulative impact assessments, with no further delay.
2) Public health directors should be included in the gambling licensing process, as they are for alcohol.
3) The current premises licence classifications should be reviewed, particularly in relation to AGCs operating under bingo licences.”
Bingo licences are another way that those adult gaming centres get away with saying that they are a bingo hall, when there is no live bingo played at all and it is mainly B3 machines, which, by the way, make an average of £30,000 a year. That is money that goes directly from the poor to the gambling industry.
Let me continue with the list of recommendations:
“4) The cap on annual licence fees payable by premises to local authorities should be increased”—
at the moment it is just £1,000—
“to at least £2,000, and the amount of the fee reviewed…
5) The balance of responsibilities between local authorities and the gambling commission on enforcement and inspection of regulations should be clarified.”
That is very opaque at the moment. The sixth recommendation is about the “aim to permit” rule. Basically, we need to get rid.
In addition to those recommendations, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and recommendations for healthcare professionals say that when people go to their GP for appointments and are asked if they have an alcohol or drug addiction, they should also be asked if they have a gambling addiction. That way, we can identify the link between gambling, mental health breakdown and suicide.
Gambling harm harms us all. For every person who is addicted to gambling, six or seven people—their family members, close friends and even work colleagues—are also affected. If we want safer streets, safer homes and safer minds, we must tackle the gambling industry and the harm of gambling and end “aim to permit”. That would make a dramatic improvement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We will start immediately with a seven-minute time limit.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for proposing the motion. I was pleased to support the application for the debate. We have just heard an excellent case for action and some really clear examples of the harm that gambling causes. I am also a member of the APPG on gambling reform; I thank its chair, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for his work. It is clear that Members across parties feel passionately that the Government are ignoring clear evidence and going far too easy on this industry.
This debate is very timely: by chance, tomorrow I will be visiting the excellent Breakeven charity in Brighton, which provides free support for Brightonians dealing with gambling-related harm, including people’s partners, family members and friends. I want to thank some of the brilliant campaigners on gambling reform and harm who I meet regularly for their work, including Matt Zarb-Cousin of Gamban, Gambling with Lives, which is incredible, and the many other local charities in Brighton that are working on addiction, including to gambling, and recovery.
The motion focuses on planning policy, and we have heard excellent further suggestions about licensing. I fully support the proposal in the motion to remove the “aim to permit” provision. Councils must be able to control the spread of gambling premises in every way possible. Currently, gambling debates often centre around online gambling, which is clearly a growing menace, and its excessive levels of advertising, but much of the harm still occurs in our neighbourhoods. GambleAware research has shown that shopfronts on the high street are the source of a high number of advertising views.
My recent work on that aspect has included proposing changes to Brighton and Hove city council’s gambling policy. My response to its review highlighted the proliferation of high street gambling establishments in my city. As evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last year stressed, gambling companies concentrate their efforts in areas of greater deprivation. However, coastal constituencies such as mine also have a very high density of gambling facilities due to our history as seaside resorts, which I believe has a harmful impact on my constituents.
According to the council, the total number of licensed gambling premises where residents and visitors can gamble in Brighton and Hove was 257 as of May 2024. In comparison, we have 25 GP surgeries, 13 libraries, 44 dentists, around 20 youth services and seven leisure centres. Soon, we could have more gambling establishments than the city’s 340 pubs. For that reason, my submission to the council called for the introduction at the very least of a one in, one out principle for gambling establishments to represent and respect our licensing objectives of preventing harm to children and people with vulnerabilities, including problem gambling and addiction. To back up that policy, I also want to see the prohibition of advertising gambling on billboards, bus stops, buses and any other outdoor advertising sites in the city.
Advertising bothers me in many ways, but on this topic it makes me really angry. I think the Government could do a lot more about it. With the physical adverts in our neighbourhoods alongside all the gaudy shopfronts, coupled with the ever-present marketing on social media and television every time we tune into sport, it is no wonder that we are seeing increased gambling harms. The Gambling Commission has estimated the problem gambler rate to be close to 2.5%. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ latest population estimates, that puts well over 1 million people in Great Britain into the category of problem gamblers. The commission also estimated a further 3.1 million people to be classified as at risk, with many more harmed indirectly.
That is experimental data using new survey methodologies and it is regularly challenged by the industry, which does not surprise me, because it is so shocking. However, it is backed up by other evidence. We know that the national gambling helpline is receiving more calls and online chats than ever before. The NHS has also reported significant growth in referrals to its gambling harm services.
Young people are increasingly at risk from this harm. In 2018, the GambleAware charity commissioned two reports to consider the extent and nature of the impact of gambling marketing and advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK. It reported that, although children are not directly targeted by advertisers, almost all children and young people see gambling adverts. Only 4% of 11 to 20-year-olds who participated in the survey reported that they had not been exposed in the previous month. High street premises clearly contribute to that, alongside the advertising that bothers me so much.
It is clear that the Government have worked to advance the 2023 White Paper proposals. I welcome the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators in place of the voluntary scheme, which will generate money for research, prevention and treatment. I also welcome next steps on financial vulnerability checks and enhanced risk assessments for the online services, and the withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of premier league players’ shirts by the end of this season—although that will not address the significant volume of gambling adverts that are visible during top-flight matches. We are also ambling towards a gambling ombudsman, but it should have been up and running by the summer of 2024.
As the hon. Member for Brent East said, we need bolder action, and it must focus on the high street, as the motion rightly sets out. We must give local councils the powers to properly regulate the spread of gambling premises, among other things. I have encouraged my local council to get together with other councils and to use the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to produce proposals—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has reached the seven-minute limit. I call Feryal Clark.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this incredibly important debate on the removal of the so-called “aim to permit” rule, and on giving local authorities stronger powers to protect their communities from gambling harm.
The harms of gambling are evident and were well set out by my hon. Friend. Gambling addiction means missed birthdays, unpaid bills, broken relationships, families torn apart and lives quietly falling to piece behind closed doors, while communities deal with the consequences. At the heart of this debate lies a simple but fundamental question: who should decide what happens on our high streets—local communities and their elected representatives, or gambling companies pursuing huge commercial gain? Right now, the answer is not local communities.
Under the Gambling Act, councils are legally required to err on the side of approval when considering applications for betting shops and 24-hour slot machine venues, even when there is clear local opposition, an area is already saturated or harm is obvious. That is not localism, it is not prevention and it is certainly not protection. If councils do not follow that instruction to err on the side of approval, they face legal challenge, costly appeals and the threat of court costs—that money should be spent on local services, not on defending the indefensible.
Residents of my Enfield North constituency have watched their high streets change not because of community demand, but because the law makes it almost impossible for councils to say no to new gambling premises. There are now 30 gambling premises across my constituency. Such venues are designed to drain more deprived communities, and the law still forces councils to approve them. That is indefensible, and the Government must act to end it now.
Even if an area already has multiple betting shops or adult gaming centres, and even if constituents object and harm is well documented, councils are still legally pushed towards approval. The “aim to permit” rule is an outdated rule that stacks the deck in favour of gambling companies, as it tells councils to say yes to new gambling premises even when they have serious concerns. The result is predictable.
In Enfield North, as in many London boroughs, gambling venues cluster in our most deprived areas, not our most affluent ones. Reports tell us that a third of adult gaming centres are in the poorest 10% of neighbourhoods, but Enfield residents do not need a report to tell them that; they see it every day on their high streets. They are often located close to bus hubs, shopping parades and areas of high footfall from people already under financial pressure. Many operate long hours, and many more are operating around the clock 24/7, relentlessly feeding addiction.
My constituents tell me the same thing again and again. They say, “We object, but it makes no difference—the council says its hands are tied. We object, we organise, we lose.” They are right and the situation is wrong. Councillors across Enfield North want to protect their communities, but the law does not give them the tools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, change is needed not to ban gambling, close existing premises or stop people from placing a bet, but to restore balance and local control.
We need to remove the automatic legal bias in favour of gambling operators and allow councils such as Enfield to make decisions based on evidence, community impact and local need, rather than a law that loads the dice against local communities. The money leaves the community, but the harm does not; it shows up as debt, it shows up as mental ill health and it shows up as pressure on our NHS—and tragically, as we have heard, in lives lost.
The Government have acknowledged the problem, which is of course incredibly welcome, but with the “aim to permit” rule remaining in place, councils are being told to say yes by default. We must trust local democracy and empower councils such as Enfield to act before harm escalates and put people and communities before profit. Our high streets should serve the people who live around them, not exploit them. The law is broken, the balance is wrong, and the time for change is now.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
High street gambling is hollowing out our high streets and causing untold harm to hard-working families. For too long, gambling harms have been tolerated, minimised or treated as an unfortunate side effect of what is in reality an exploitative, predatory industry. That approach has failed. The consequences are visible across the country, and acutely so in my constituency.
Gambling-related harm extends far beyond financial loss. Every year in the United Kingdom, between 250 and 650 people take their own life as a result of the relentless, isolating grip of gambling addiction. Gambling fuels cycles of debt, secrecy and shame, driving anxiety and depression, and placing unbearable strain on relationships. Children grow up in households marked by stress and instability, partners face emotional and financial ruin, and communities are left to deal with the long-term fallout.
Nationwide figures show that a staggering 1.4 million Britons have a gambling problem. What makes this harm particularly troubling is its predictability. Gambling harm is not randomly distributed; it disproportionately affects those in deprived areas already facing economic insecurity, poor mental health and social isolation. These noxious effects are not unavoidable collateral damage but the predictable human cost of an industry that pursues profit above all else and a regulatory system governed by weak safeguards. We must therefore be honest about how gambling companies operate. These are not passive providers of leisure but sophisticated corporations that systematically use behavioural data, targeted marketing and psychological design to maximise profit from often vulnerable users who are routinely incentivised to continue gambling despite clear warning signs.
Some 86% of gross online betting profits come from just 5% of customers. Major gambling operators feed on misery while dodging their wider social responsibilities. There are 440 offshore companies with UK gambling licences, with over 1,500 active sites from offshore locations. Profits taken from local high streets are routed through opaque corporate structures and offshore jurisdictions, minimising tax contributions to the very communities that bear the costs of this harm. An ITV investigation in November 2025 found that Sky Bet had relocated its headquarters to Malta to avoid paying our Government £55 million a year. That is a profoundly unjust settlement. Families are pushed into debt and despair; public services absorb the social and mental fallout of gambling harm; and the wealth generated is quietly siphoned away. Gambling giants have perfected a cynical extractive business model. This is not enterprise, but an egregious abuse of capitalism dressed up as entertainment. Yet the political establishment has failed to meaningfully wrestle with the harm that the gambling industry has caused.
For years lobbyists have successfully watered down efforts to rein in reckless gambling operators. Just a few months ago, the head of the UK’s Betting and Gaming Council made the ludicrous claim to MPs that gambling does not cause any social ills. Previously hiding behind so-called voluntary contributions to harm prevention amounted to a fig leaf that allowed profits to soar while safety mechanisms remain pitiful. The introduction of a statutory levy last year is not a success story, but an admission of failure and a clear verdict on the bankruptcy of self-regulation.
When an industry repeatedly places profit over protection, Parliament has not merely a right to act, but a moral obligation to do so. Despite that obligation, treatment and support services remain overstretched and unevenly distributed. Access remains inconsistent, with too many falling through the cracks. According to data from the annual Great Britain treatment and support survey, almost 40% of those experiencing problem gambling in Great Britain have not accessed treatment or support in the last year. Tools such as self-exclusion schemes, affordability checks and voluntary limits are too often poorly enforced, inconsistently applied and easily circumvented. The burden is frequently placed on individuals to recognise their own harm and seek assistance. Gambling regulations —as for alcohol and tobacco—must be preventive, mandatory and robust.
In particular, our communities remain constrained by the outdated “aim to permit” principle, which places a legal presumption on local authorities to approve new gambling premises even when harm is evident. Our existing regulatory framework strips local authorities of the ability to prioritise public health and community wellbeing, instead forcing them to wave through applications and turn local democracy into a rubber stamp for gambling profits. I am proud to support the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and other colleagues in calling for its abolition.
In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, these national failures to effectively regulate the gambling industry have very real consequences. According to the gambling commissioner’s own register, Kirklees council has granted 34 gambling licences, with 10 gambling premises located in my constituency alone. That level of concentration is not accidental; it reflects a system that allows gambling operators to cluster in areas of economic vulnerability.
Gambling reform is ultimately about choices—not the choices of individuals under pressure, but the choices we make as lawmakers. Do we continue to allow an industry to extract wealth from the most vulnerable with insufficient safeguards, or do we act to rebalance the system in favour of public health, fairness and community wellbeing? We need protection from gambling education in schools, and we need support. For constituencies such as mine, this is not a theoretical problem; it is urgent and it demands immediate action. We must strengthen regulation, hold corporations accountable and properly fund treatment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be able to see that four Members are left. I plan to call the Front Benchers at 4.35 pm. I shall leave Ruth Cadbury on seven minutes, but there will be a five-minute limit for the remaining Members.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for her powerful speech, which outlined the impact on gambling addicts and their loved ones. I fully support the reforms she is putting forward and congratulate her, Members across this House and Brent council on leading this important campaign to address the scourge of gambling premises on our high streets.
Hounslow council is one of a number of councils across London and beyond that have signed up to the campaign. It has done so because it is aware of the harmful impact of these premises and the need for new powers, and because Hounslow High Street was the high street with the second greatest number of gambling premises in the country a few years ago. Hounslow council seeks these new powers so that it can protect public health and safeguard our communities from the tide of new gambling shops opening, whether they are new bookies or 24-hour adult casinos. I have seen the changes that have hit our high streets over the past 30 years. The rise of online shopping, the outdated business rates regime and the decline of traditional British shops have sucked the life out of many of our high streets. Too often, the gap left has been filled by bookies and casinos, which naturally can afford to run premises on our high streets.
In my constituency, I have seen the problems that gambling addiction causes. Understandably, not many constituents are prepared to admit that they have been financially affected by gambling, whether due to their own habit or that of a family member, but those who have opened up to me have told me of the devastating consequences—family separation, subsequent debt and individuals losing £5,000 or even £10,000. The gambling often started with a vain hope that a particular debt could be paid off by a win at the local bookies or the fixed odds betting terminals.
An excellent 2023 report by Hounslow council on gambling patterns in the borough referenced the work of the Gambling Commission in identifying those most at risk from the adverse impacts of gambling. The council then linked that data to the prevalence of gambling establishments in our borough. The former finds that those most at risk of falling into gambling addiction are people who already have drug or alcohol dependencies and/or mental health problems; too often, the two issues go together. That in turn has a knock-on impact on our frontline services—the NHS, social care and the police.
The “aim to permit” policy, which allows the proliferation of these premises, clearly is not cost-free. Furthermore, these high street gambling premises are targeted at the communities with the highest levels of deprivation, unemployment and homelessness. I counted the number in my constituency this morning. We have over 10 bookies and gaming centres in Hounslow town centre, compared with around three in the neighbouring, much more affluent Richmond town centre. Back in 2016, we had 44 fixed odds betting machines on Hounslow High Street. Those with the least resources are being targeted most by the gambling industry. A Guardian article in 2021 found that 21% of Britain’s gambling outlets are in the poorest 10% of the country, with just 2% in the most affluent areas.
I support the proposed amendment, because I support giving councils the power to shape their communities. Residents often incorrectly think that local councils can block new developments or new shops simply because they want to, but under the current laws, they cannot. Too often, local councils are unfairly blamed for the rise in the number of gambling establishments. If the Government truly want to put power back into communities and let local people shape their areas, they must give local councils proper powers.
I am sure the gambling industry will have prepared its defence in response to today’s debate. That is its right, in a pluralistic society, but we should remember the ferocity with which the industry reacted when there were proposals to clamp down on fixed odds betting terminals, the “crack cocaine” of gambling. Whenever sensible reforms are proposed, we see the gambling industry fall back on the same old tired clichés.
The Labour Government’s Pride in Place powers aim to give local people more control over their high streets and areas, but let us go further, faster, and give local authorities and local people more powers to take back control by reviewing and ultimately removing the “aim to permit” rule from the Gambling Act.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate. Gambling is a subject that the Health and Social Care Committee has looked at in some detail, and it is clear from what I have heard from witnesses, from talking to the National Gambling Clinic—it is in my constituency—and from walking round our local high streets talking to people I know, that high streets remain at the heart of the gambling harm being caused in our country and localities, particularly in our most disadvantaged and poorest communities.
As we have heard, when the Gambling Act 2005 abolished the so-called “demand” test, and replaced it with the “aim to permit”, it removed the requirement to prove local need before opening a betting shop, and opened the door to a wild-west clustering of betting shops in poorer areas. That does devastating damage to individuals, families and communities, because residents in streets where every third or fourth shop can be a gambling den with cups of tea, face constant exposure to gambling during routine activities. They could be shopping for groceries, taking kids to school or commuting for work, and there is a gambling premises. Gambling becomes normalised. It is like a regular part of daily life, rather than activity that, as we know, requires caution. For those vulnerable to addiction, it makes avoidance nearly impossible and relapse inevitable, and the financial consequences can be catastrophic.
Lower-income families, and people who earn far less or live on benefits, have no buffers to absorb that sort of loss. What might be manageable for someone with savings becomes ruinous for someone living from pay cheque to pay cheque. We are talking about people who cannot pay their rent, or whose bills are going unpaid and whose children are going without. The toll on mental health is huge. Indeed, it is immense: depression, anxiety, shame, and isolation. As we have heard, we cannot necessarily see a problem gambler. We may be able to see a problem drunk, but a problem gambler hides their addiction from loved ones—that was one of the points made strongly to me when I visited the National Gambling Clinic in Earl’s Court. The stress that someone is already under is compounded by the gambling, and those mental health stresses may already be more prevalent in depressed or deprived areas, where housing is less adequate and people face other stresses and challenges on a daily basis.
We have heard about the redoubtable charity Gambling with Lives, to which I pay tribute. There is no doubt in my mind that the gambling industry and its lobbyists are often, in their behaviour, simply thugs. People such as the wonderful Ritchies—who set up Gambling with Lives after losing their son, and who brought a constituent to see me who talked about his own son losing his life to gambling—are still ploughing away and fighting their fight, and they have been inspirational for all Members of the House who have met them. They made me and the Health and Social Care Committee aware that there are between 117 and 496 gambling-related suicides every year. Having taken evidence, we thought that, although wide, that data was strong enough to place in our report so that it is on the public record. Gambling does not just tear families apart, it also takes lives away, and we must remember that.
We must also look at the community impact of allowing the clustering of betting shops since the law changed in 2005. That clustering drives out family businesses and community services, and it feeds neighbourhood decline. Hammersmith and Fulham council tried to do something about it. We have a high concentration of betting shops, especially in deprived neighbourhoods. North End Road in Fulham has been identified as a gambling vulnerability zone, and there are two council estates nearby, which are in the bottom decile for deprivation, employment and income.
That is not a coincidence, because higher levels of deprivation and the clustering of gambling premises go together. North End Road in the heart of Fulham is one of three hotspots in the borough. The council is doing its best to act responsibility within the national framework, and it is consulting on a local plan. Residents are keen for it to do that, and in the most vulnerable areas there will be a presumption to refuse, but in the end it cannot refuse premises because the law still constrains it, in a way that is out of kilter with alcohol and other licensing.
The Health and Social Care Committee welcome the fact that the Government have reframed this issue as a public health crisis. We have called for local authorities to have a key role in gambling licensing and for directors of public health to be made a responsible authority when it comes to gambling planning and licensing applications. We need reform of the legislation governing high street gambling, and we need it now.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and on her campaign.
Our high streets have struggled in recent years and, as others have said, that is harming our communities. My constituents tell me that one of the most pernicious trends has been the rise of adult gaming centres and other gambling establishments. In the past year alone, there have been applications for four new or expanded adult gaming centres in my constituency, and some of the applicants have come back with further applications. Each application has been met with widespread opposition from a large and diverse range of local people, bringing together community campaigners with resident associations, charities, businesses, local schools and the great national charities that have already been referenced this afternoon.
We know that the trend is towards an increase in gaming centres—between 2022 and 2024, the number has risen by 7% nationally—and that the most vulnerable people in society are at the greatest risk from the harms that they generate. Across Kensington and Bayswater, I have been campaigning with residents to halt the tide, but it is relentless and like playing whack-a-mole. In Earl’s Court, we successfully fought off an application by Silvertime to convert a former high street bank into a 24/7 gambling premises, but having withdrawn the application, the company will probably come back again.
Also in Earl’s Court, we managed to persuade the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to deny another operator, Admiral, an extended 24/7 licence. I had hoped that that would set a precedent that these planning and licensing applications would no longer be nodded through, but sadly we suffered a major defeat just before Christmas, with RBKC approving a new casino in Notting Hill, again taking over a high street banking premises, despite over 1,500 residents signing my petition to reject and a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The residents and I are not giving up, and we will continue to use every procedural step we can to fight this unwanted development and persuade RBKC to say no, or at least to scale it back, but our tools our limited. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign and for showing me at first hand the risks of the slot machine industry.
That example is symbolic of what has happened to our high streets in the past decade or two. There has been a decline in the services and businesses that our communities depend on, and they have been replaced by 24/7 gambling premises and dodgy shops pushing vapes, low-grade souvenirs and knock-off products. They are often not paying their fair share or employing people legally, so legitimate businesses cannot operate on a level playing field.
We need solutions. I am glad that the Government have committed to reform. I strongly welcome the proposals put forward as part of the Pride in Place programme to give local authorities more powers to assess the cumulative impact of these premises. I am glad that the Government have recognised that high streets cannot thrive with rows of adult gaming centres offering slot machines 24/7, and that data-driven decisions on gambling licences should help to restrict new premises opening. It is vital that the measures give real weight to community voices, like those of my constituents who have had enough, and that those measures come before the House soon, so that we can get discussions up and running.
I also welcome the measures on dodgy shops on our high streets. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to increasing enforcement, giving trading standards a boost and tackling fake company directors, along with dealing with lots of other elements of high street tax dodging and tax evasion that are linked to the decline that people see. Beyond those hugely welcome measures, I hope that we will see a continued ambition to go further, including by looking at whether the Gambling Act 2005 is still fit for purpose, and whether its provisions are helping local communities or hindering them from coming together for the benefit of their high streets, exactly in the spirit of the Pride in Place programme.
Our high streets can be so much better. There is no one simple solution, but a part of any solution must be to halt the gambling takeover.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate and on her campaigning on this issue over the years. That includes this week’s letter to the Prime Minister, which had nearly 300 signatories and which she co-ordinated. She was quite right to say that our high streets are being hollowed out by a surge of betting shops, with local people left seemingly powerless.
It seems to me that this issue should sit squarely with this Labour Government’s Pride in Place programme. I am not suggesting that we should have no betting shops—I recognise that the industry provides jobs and tax revenue—but local to where I am, there are three betting shops within walking distance of my office in Horwich, a town of fewer than 20,000 people, and there are two more nearby in Westhoughton town centre. The current situation is not conducive to fulfilling the Government’s manifesto pledge, which I proudly stood on in 2024, to tackle gambling harm, which is sadly a lived reality for far too many families in Bolton and Greater Manchester as a whole.
Iqbal Mohamed
Let me make a couple of points about the high street. The way that these shops are set up, with attractive front faces and lighting, is quite appealing, especially to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that that should be managed and that there should be regulation around that? Like cigarettes and alcohol, there should be a health warning on the outside of the shop that would ensure that people are aware of what it is and what harms it can cause.
Phil Brickell
The hon. Member makes a valid point. We see that on high streets in my constituency time and time again, all too often, in the context of vape shops.
As an aside, we all know that gambling today is no longer confined to a once-a-week trip to the bookies; it is on people’s phones, in their pockets and available 24 hours a day. Online slots are among the highest-risk products, as they are fast, repetitive and designed to encourage long sessions and binge play. I commend the Government on the introduction of stake limits for online slots. Those limits matter, because harm increasingly happens not just on the high street, but on our phones, anywhere and at any time.
Let me go back to the high street. As we have already heard many times in this debate, the clustering of betting shops remains a serious and unresolved problem, particularly in deprived communities. I received assurances from the gambling Minister last year that cumulative impact assessments on gambling licensing will be introduced to strengthen councils’ ability to influence the density of gambling outlets, but this measure is pending parliamentary time—that much-dreaded phrase. I urge the Minister not to let this important measure get crowded out. It is a new year, and with new years come new year’s resolutions. How about a resolution to prioritise addressing what is a far too liberal regime for managing gambling harms?
We know that where gambling outlets cluster, harm increases, from debt and mental ill health to family breakdown and homelessness. According to the Government’s gambling-related harms evidence review, the north-west has some of the highest rates of at-risk gambling in England, with around 4.4% of adults experiencing elevated risk. Even more worrying is the fact that the north-west has one of the highest proportions of people harmed by someone else’s gambling—partners, children, parents and friends all pay the price.
I welcome the steps already taken by the Government. Frankly, the introduction of the statutory gambling levy to raise around £100 million a year for research, prevention and treatment is the least that the industry could do. While acknowledging the issue is always the first step, I know that the Minister, as a former councillor himself, will recognise it is no good leaving councils powerless to tackle the physical concentration of gambling premises on our high streets.
If we are serious about reducing gambling harm, we must accelerate reform. Our high streets should offer opportunity, not addiction; our laws should protect people, not profits.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate and for all her hard work on this issue. What she has been doing is impressive.
Gambling can be a light-hearted pastime that many would describe as fun and harmless. As a Liberal Democrat, I support an individual’s right to choose, but, as we have heard, gambling comes at a very high cost for some people —some of the stories shared by the hon. Member for Brent East were very moving. That is true not just for those who are directly affected by gambling, but for their friends, their families, and all those who have that emotional burden and—in some cases—shared financial burden.
I will delve into a few of the statistics—some have already been mentioned, but they are worth emphasising. According to last July’s “Gambling Survey for Great Britain” an estimated 2.5% of adults have struggled with problem gambling, equating to over 1 million people. The proportion of people with severe problem gambling was nine times higher for those using in-person slot machines and six times higher for those using online slots. More than one in 40 people who gambled in the last year experienced severe harm to their life, such as turning to crime to finance gambling, experiencing a relationship breakdown or losing their home, and Public Health England estimates that, tragically, there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Gambling affects all ages and genders, but the rates are particularly high among men and young people. More than one in 20 of those aged 18 to 34 who had gambled in the last 12 months reported a severe impact on their life.
Liberal Democrats have long been calling for gambling reform, and we are pleased that the Government have listened to us in one key area. We campaigned for many years for the remote gaming duty to be doubled, and the Government have done exactly that. That was the right decision, but on the high street—the subject of this debate—much more action is needed. Liberal Democrats support removing the “aim to permit” principle, that statutory presumption under the Gambling Act 2005, giving local authorities the same power to refuse applications for gambling venues as they have for pubs and other licensed premises. That would enable local authorities to introduce cumulative impact policies to prevent clustering and saturation of gambling premises in areas deemed more vulnerable to harm. It is also important that local public health bodies can make statutory representations, and that public health evidence is given full weight in those licensing decisions.
Additionally, we believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by problem gambling. With that in mind, we have been calling for gambling advertising to be restricted, to tackle the gambling adverts that bombard people through their TVs and radios as well as marketing via social media; for a gaming ombudsman to be established, one with real power to protect consumers and resolve complaints; for affordability checks to be enforced and implemented by mandating financial checks and data sharing to stop gambling beyond means; and for tough action to be taken against black-market gambling.
Access to a range of support services is also vital. Anyone worried about their gambling or anyone close to them should be able to seek help easily in their local area, and gambling firms must pay their fair share towards those services. A related concern, and one which is shared by leading support charities, is that the introduction of the statutory levy on gambling firms must not mean gambling support services being disrupted during this year’s transition period. We call on the Government to ensure that interim funding is available, so that vulnerable people do not fall through the cracks during that transition.
Although most people who regularly gamble do so without a problem, it is evident that for some, it is a slippery slope that leads to a host of financial, personal and health problems. We have a duty to prevent that from happening in the first place, and to help those who are already struggling. As such, I urge the Government to act as a matter of urgency to tackle the very real and evident harm gambling can cause to families, children, young people and communities across the country.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing it forward. Before I turn to some of the specifics of the case she made, I remind the House that the vast majority of people who gamble do so responsibly, safely and without risk of harm. Indeed, some of our annual events in this country are associated with gambling and form part of our national identity. I am thinking in particular of the grand national. Indeed, the first time I ever placed a bet was on a horse called Party Politics. It probably led to an interest in something different from gambling, but that is another matter.
The Government’s own figures show that problem gambling affects around 0.4% of adults. That figure has remained broadly stable for many years. Meanwhile, 22 million people gamble every month without harm. Gambling harms exist, of course, and I sat through oral evidence on that issue in the Health and Social Care Committee in April last year. We have heard some of the most powerful testimony from the hon. Member about real lives that have been harmed because of gambling. Problem gambling can ruin relationships, destroy mental and physical health and, in the worst cases, end lives. The number of gambling-related deaths is far outnumbered by alcohol-specific deaths or alcohol-related deaths, but any life lost and any life destroyed is a tragedy.
We must do more to support people with gambling addictions and crack down on illegal gambling and lawbreaking. However, policy must be based on evidence. Betting shops are among the most heavily regulated retail premises. They have strict age verification requirements, limits on gaming machines, trained staff and formal self-exclusion schemes. Those protections only apply when people gamble in licensed premises. They do not exist in the same way at home and not at all on the black market. We should not assume that further reducing the number of high street betting shops will reduce problem gambling.
When it comes to high street betting shops, research by ESA Retail found that 89% of betting shop customers combine their visit with trips to other local businesses, thereby supporting the high street. Betting shops support around 46,000 jobs, contributing nearly £1 billion a year in direct tax to the Treasury and a further £60 million in business rates to local councils. We have heard how betting shops have spread uncontrollably in some areas, but nationally betting shops are closing. Since 2019, the number of licensed betting shops has fallen by 30%, from more than 8,000 to fewer than 6,000. Thousands of jobs have already been lost as a result, and many more are now at risk following the tax rises announced in the Budget.
Ben Coleman
The hon. Member talks about the amount of money raised in tax from gambling companies. Can he also give us the figures for the amount of money that the NHS has to spend each year on the mental health issues and other problems that arise from gambling addiction?
Joe Robertson
I think the hon. Member himself agrees that this is not about stopping people gambling. The point I am making is that high street premises represent some of the safer environments for gambling, and some of the riskier forms of gambling are far less visible than the high street shops we have heard about today. I am certainly not minimising in any way the effects of problem gambling and some of those involved in the industry, particularly on the black market.
While the Budget did not directly target betting shops, many operators run integrated online and retail businesses. With online gambling duty doubling and sports betting duty rising by nearly 70%, the UK will have one of the highest tax rates on gambling in the world.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent East for talking about local empowerment. I think her key point—the heart of her argument—was about empowering local communities and local councils to be able to exercise greater control over high street premises. I want to raise a specific issue that shows how confused the system has become, and which is related to her argument.
Recently, Chesterfield borough council allowed an adult gaming centre to introduce betting facilities without a formal change of planning use, on the basis that betting was considered ancillary. This shows that the council was effectively able to bypass planning laws, and to create confusion and inconsistency in how planning and gambling laws are applied, which is deeply worrying. Betting shops and adult gaming centres are fundamentally different types of premises; they are regulated differently and treated separately in planning law, for good reason. Allowing betting facilities to be introduced into adult gaming centres without proper scrutiny risks creating a back-door route for betting operations to open without local consent or oversight. We support the sentiment behind the argument made by the hon. Member for Brent East: local communities and local councils should be better empowered to make decisions for their high streets.
I want to finish by asking the Minister four questions. First, will the Government act to close the planning loophole that allows adult gaming centres to introduce betting facilities without a proper change of use? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of recent tax rises on high street betting shops, including closures, job losses and empty units, and will it be published? Thirdly, what concrete action is being taken to tackle illegal gambling, and particularly operators that target people who have self-excluded from licensed betting shops? Finally, the Government wrote to the Health and Social Care Committee on 12 June last year and said that they would look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to the licensing of gambling premises. Does the Minister have an update?
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to go forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing it. Many hon. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the harms of gambling. Although that is incredibly important in underpinning the debate, I will concentrate on what the motion says about licences and premises, and on what local authorities can do to deal with those kinds of issues.
I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East, because the way that she presented her speech and told real-life stories was really powerful. I join her in paying tribute to Jackie Olden for her campaign on behalf of her mother Wendy—my hon. Friend told a hugely powerful story about the impact of gambling on their family and the campaign that they have subsequently proceeded with—and to Charles and Liz Ritchie, who, after the death of their 24-year-old son Jack, started Gambling with Lives. The Minister for gambling, Baroness Twycross in the other place, met both Jackie and Liz in the autumn, and the Government will take forward some of those discussions. Next Thursday there is a gambling harms debate in Westminster Hall, and I encourage Members to bring some of the contributions that they have made today to that debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East mentioned a list of things that she would like to see going forward, and I hope to cover some of them, but I will start by mentioning a few of the other contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), in an intervention, talked about the 80:20 rule and the changes to the rule that were proposed in the gambling White Paper. The gambling Minister recognises the problems and wants to ensure that protections from harms are much more robust before any thoughts on changing the rule come forward. I hope that satisfies Members who are concerned about the 80:20 rule.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the Breakeven charity in her constituency, which I believe she is visiting tomorrow, and about the 2023 White Paper. We want to implement the recommendations in that White Paper. Obviously, it was the previous Government’s initiative, but the recommendations were pretty powerful. We want them to be implemented as quickly as possible, but we also want to see them bedded in before there is another review of gambling. She also talked about the gambling ombudsman, which will require primary legislation. We will bring forward those kinds of issues as and when we are able to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about the 30 gambling premises across her constituency and the cumulative impact of them. I hope to come on to some of those cumulative impacts in my speech.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly talked about gambling harms. He should attend the debate next Thursday, if he is able to do so, and bring some of those real-life examples with him.
One high street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has one of the highest concentrations of gambling establishments in the country. She demonstrated why more powers such as the cumulative impact assessments, which I will come on to talk about, will I hope help with such issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) rightly told us that problem gamblers are invisible, whereas those with other addictions are not. That highlights the problem that has to be dealt with, and the issues raised by the Health and Social Care Committee. I commend him and his Committee for what they have done to bring this issue into the public health domain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted some successes that communities have had in limiting the number of gambling premises in his constituency. However, he is frustrated both about their lack of ability to do so, and about the premises that have been approved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about our manifesto commitment to tackle gambling harms, as well as about stake limits and the statutory levy to fund research, protection and treatments. I hope that the cumulative impact assessments, which I will talk about shortly, are able to help with those issues.
Generally, the Government are fully committed to giving communities across the country stronger tools to shape their local areas, and that is what this debate has been about. We have passed the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will deliver growth and housing, and strengthen local planning through the implementation of spatial development strategies nationwide. That is backed up by the £5 billion Pride in Place funding for neighbourhoods.
We are also widening and deepening local devolution through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and delivering a suite of tools to support communities in improving their high streets. Those include high street rental auctions, which will give councils the power to auction the lease of long-term vacant premises, a community right to buy for communities to take ownership of local buildings that they value, and streamlining of the compulsory purchase process to help local authorities regenerate our high streets.
As many hon. Members will be aware, we intend to provide additional powers to local communities on the location and density of land-based gambling premises. Today, I will focus on the Government’s approach to land-based gambling, and on the powers that local authorities have and will be given in relation to gambling premises. All of us want to see a responsible gambling industry, which brings social and economic value to communities across the country. My own mum worked in a bookmakers. In particular, we are clear about the value of the land-based gambling sector; it was certainly valuable to her when she worked there.
The sector makes an important contribution to our national life, and we have heard about events such as the grand national. I know the importance of seaside arcades and bingo halls to communities across the country, and the joy that they bring to many millions of people. The reforms to gambling duties, including the abolition of bingo duty, announced in the autumn Budget—those duties were mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson)—reflect the contributions of such venues to our economy and our local communities.
In parallel, the Government recognise that harmful gambling can wreck the lives of individuals. We know that families and communities can be wrecked, which is why we are working with the land-based sector, the Gambling Commission and others to ensure that player-protection measures are effective and that people can gamble safely, while seeking effective help when that is needed.
Local authorities are essential to efforts to mitigate this risk, so let me run through what they can do; they play a crucial role in the regulation of gambling up and down the country. They have a wide range of powers—a suite of powers and tools—in relation to gambling premises. Licences are subject to guidance issued by the Gambling Commission and its licensing objectives. Licensing authorities are given broad powers to set conditions that require licensed gambling to be carried out in a way that is consistent with keeping gambling fair and open. During the licensing process, licensing authorities can attach conditions to premises licences to which operators must adhere.
All local authorities should publish a statement of principles on gambling licensing outlining local issues, priorities and risks. In those statements, licensing authorities can identify high-risk areas and specify local risks. Operators must take steps to mitigate those risks in their applications. I fully acknowledge and understand what hon. Members have said about the “aim to permit” principle, but we do not believe that the premises licence application process is a foregone conclusion. The “aim to permit” principle is subject to strict conditions, including that the licence application is consistent with the local authority’s gambling policy statement. It is worth saying that “aim to permit” is a licensing issue, not a planning issue. Once a licence is granted, licensing authorities have extensive powers of monitoring and enforcement, and I would encourage them to use them. Planning permission is always required to create gambling premises or for a change of use to gambling premises such as a bingo hall or a betting shop, and the planning system has to be used.
Given the limited time I have left, let me move on to the cumulative impact assessments, because I think they are at the heart of this issue.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that freedom of responsibility, when it comes to gambling, is exactly where we should be, rather than restricting people from taking part in activities such as greyhound racing at Romford greyhound stadium in my constituency? It is a part of our local culture and it is very important that we do not allow such places to close down because of severe restrictions from Government.
Ian Murray
I appreciate the intervention, but that is a completely different story to the subject of this debate. Nobody is denying that betting on the grand national or on greyhound racing, as tens of millions of people do every week, is safe and secure, but the Government have to regulate industries such as gambling and have always done so. The regulations are in place to keep people safe, but they also ensure that people who enjoy gambling can be assured that the system they are using is safe.
Let me talk very briefly about cumulative impact assessments, which the Prime Minister committed to directly at Prime Minister’s questions in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The Government want local authorities to feel empowered to make data-driven decisions that are in their communities’ best interests. We want them to feel able to curate healthy and vibrant spaces that reflect the needs of their local communities. As part of our Pride in Place strategy to strengthen local authority influence over the location and density of outlets, we have confirmed that we will introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows. Cumulative impact assessments will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling harms. We have heard a lot about where those gambling harms are.
It is really important that “aim to permit” applies also to licensing applications. Planning policies, including local plans, offer councils additional tools to influence the number of gambling premises in their areas. With local plans, the “aim to permit”, the cumulative impact assessments and the ability to enforce and set strict conditions, local authorities have a suite of powers to prevent if they so wish and make their high streets the way they want them to be.
In conclusion, the Government want to ensure that local authorities have the tools and resources they need to shape their local areas in line with their community’s best interests. That is a Government commitment and a prime ministerial commitment from the Dispatch Box. Our plans to introduce cumulative impact assessments are an important part of that commitment, and we will bring them forward as soon as a legislative vehicle is available.
Dawn Butler
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. To the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), I say spend just 10 minutes with Katherine Morgan who acts as the secretariat of the APPG. She will talk him through how formal exclusions do not work and how families have been affected by gambling. A lot of the information the shadow Minister talked about basically does not hold water.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about one in, one out. Exactly—we are not trying to stop gambling; we are just saying that the clustering needs to stop. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about how her constituents want a say. That is what we are talking about: having a say on the high street.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about offshore jurisdictions and tax avoidance. We did not even get into tax avoidance, but this Government have done more than any other Government in that area and they should be credited for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about protecting public health and how gambling shops are sucking the life out of our high streets. Residents think that local authorities have the power to stop gambling shops, but they really do not. My hon. Friend Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) talked about the wild west of clustering of betting shops and the normalisation of gambling. We are normalising things that cause harm and there are no buffers to manage loss, which are vital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) said, the trend is up on just a decade ago. Some 1,500 signatures to any petition from any MP is quite incredible, but we still cannot make the decision that the council wants to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about gambling on phones, online slots and clustering.
Ultimately, this is about how we protect people locally. The gambling industry will not lose any money if it does not open another couple of shops. We do not have to worry about that. We need to worry about individuals and keeping people safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the aim to permit principle in planning policy erodes the ability of local communities to shape their neighbourhoods; further believes that planning decisions should be made in the public interest, not skewed towards automatic approval; and therefore calls on the Government to remove the aim to permit provision so local councils can regulate the spread of gambling premises.
Post Offices: Cheshire
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Post Office is a critical part of our national infrastructure. I do not believe that to be an exaggeration. In the time available to me this afternoon, I hope to demonstrate to the House, and to the Minister, why I, many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches and, most importantly, my constituents, feel so strongly about the need to safeguard the future of the post office in Cheshire and across the country.
By way of introduction, it is worth briefly setting out where the post office network stands today. In November 2010, the Conservative-led Government introduced a mandate requiring the Post Office to maintain a national network of at least 11,500 branches, alongside access criteria ensuring that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office. That mandate has provided an essential degree of certainty and stability for post offices over the past decade. I will set out why each post office plays a vital role in our communities and ask the Minister to commit today to there still being at least 11,500 post office branches at the end of this Parliament.
At a time when other high street services are steadily reducing their physical footprint, including banks and, with them, access to cash—a point to which I will return—it is more important than ever that we protect the physical presence of post offices in our communities. For many people, particularly the elderly, those without reliable transport and those who are digitally excluded, the local post office is not just a convenience but a necessity.
The economic case for the post office is also compelling. Independent research estimates that for every £1 spent through the Post Office, a further £1.51 is generated across the wider economy. In total, the Post Office contributes more than £4.7 billion in economic benefit to the UK each year, underlining the vital role it plays in supporting business and trade, particularly small and microbusinesses that rely on local services to operate efficiently. The Government often speak of their ambition to deliver a high-growth economy—even if their actions and policy decisions too often act as a hindrance to that goal. I urge the Minister not to underestimate the contribution of the Post Office to economic growth and local prosperity.
As an organisation, the Post Office has also demonstrated a clear commitment to rural communities, something that is particularly relevant to me as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, and for our county of Cheshire more broadly, where, alongside our towns and cities, we have many rural villages. Some 43% of the post office network is located in rural areas, which reflects not only the opportunities presented by rural economies but the unique challenges those communities face. It reinforces the importance of maintaining reliable, accessible, face-to-face services where alternatives are often limited.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the Post Office Horizon scandal and to pay tribute to the sub-postmasters in Cheshire who were so wronged. When the future of the post office is under threat, it is vital that we do not deter people from entering the sector; if we want to see a robust post office network in the future, we must ensure that staff have confidence in the systems that they operate.
Before turning specifically to Cheshire and my constituency, I want to briefly acknowledge some of the challenges facing post offices today. More and more of us are going online for shopping and to access services and, as a result, customer visits to post offices have fallen by nearly a third since 2008. Alongside that, the range of Government services delivered through post offices has declined since 2010. While there is a responsibility on Government to operate efficiently and deliver value for money, we cannot ignore the cumulative impact that this shift has had on the post office network and on the digitally excluded.
Perhaps the most pressing challenge, however, is the broader economic context. Rising operating costs, including rent, utilities, energy costs, increases in employer national insurance contributions and the increases in business rates introduced by this Government, have all placed further pressure on already stretched post office operators.
Back in March last year, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Post Office’s plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030 and includes a commitment to boost annual postmaster incomes by £250 million by the end of the decade. However, local postmasters have raised concerns with me that, of the £120 million expected in this financial year, the Post Office has confirmed that only £89 million would be delivered by the end of March. What discussions has the Minister had with the Post Office about this reduction, and what steps will the Government take to address the resulting uncertainty for the postmaster network?
The financial challenges that post offices face are real. They are acute, and they must be properly understood by the Government. With that context established, I want to turn to Cheshire, in particular my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury. There are 21 post office branches across my constituency. I want to highlight a small number of examples that demonstrate both the immense value that those post offices provide and the very real consequences when services are lost or reduced.
I begin with the village of Kelsall, where a post office once operated at the heart of the community, serving residents and local businesses alike. Last year, that post office was forced to close after the Co-op, which hosted the branch, withdrew from operating it, citing challenging economic circumstances. That decision reflects the wider pressures facing retailers and is a direct consequence of rising costs.
Following the closure, I received a significant volume of correspondence from concerned constituents, anxious about the loss of their post office and the impact it would have on their daily lives. In response, I launched a petition to save Kelsall post office and demonstrate clearly the value that the community places on the service. I am grateful to the 337 residents who signed that petition.
For some, the closure affected business continuity—being able to deposit cash takings or send goods—while for others it was about access to cash itself. Many relied on the post office for help in navigating complex digital processes, particularly older residents. In every sense, Kelsall post office was a vital community asset. While we have not yet been able to secure a new site, I want to reassure my constituents that I will continue to work with local stakeholders and the Post Office to make the strongest possible case for a community post office in Kelsall.
Current access requirements state that everyone must live within 3 miles of a post office branch, and while Kelsall residents do have an alternative branch just within the distance under that criterion, some rural roads have no safe walking routes, offering little comfort to those who cannot drive, have limited mobility or lack decent public transport options. For many, the impact of the closure is therefore still keenly felt.
Each of the 21 post offices in my constituency is highly valued, and the closure of any additional branches would have a significant impact. In rural areas in particular, where public transport is limited or non-existent and digital connectivity has suffered from long-standing under-investment, the local post office plays a vital role in meeting the needs of the community.
The reality is that Kelsall is not the only rural village to have had a post office closure. There will be many, many more across the country. Audlem, another village in my constituency, has been without a post office for two years. Then last year, the Labour-led council significantly cut the bus frequency further, reducing residents’ access to vital services. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to help rural villages and areas not only save their post offices but regain the Post Office services that they have lost?
I turn now to the village of Malpas to highlight the issue of access to cash and banking services. In July 2024, the village lost its final bank branch. Thankfully, Malpas post office stepped in to provide some of the services previously offered by the bank. However, in recent months the post office closed without warning, and when it initially reopened there was no access to cash. This situation has caused significant anxiety for residents and local businesses. I am pleased that the service has become more reliable under new management, but this case clearly illustrates the fragile state of high street provision.
There is now not a single bank branch anywhere in my constituency. The services provided by the Post Office are vital. The risk that the situation experienced in Malpas could be replicated across many villages has serious consequences for residents, businesses and the local economy, so will the Minister commit to considering access to cash and vital banking services in any future sustainable model for rural post offices?
I pay tribute to all those working incredibly hard in post offices across Chester South and Eddisbury. I highlight in particular Sandra and Tony, who do a brilliant job running Tarporley post office, which is one of our four main post offices in Chester South and Eddisbury, alongside Sandiway, Westminster Park and Lime Avenue post office in Weaverham. Of those four, Tarporley is the most rural and, as a result, is absolutely critical to the community it serves.
Other branches in my constituency are classified as outreach post offices, which means that they might be part-time services hosted in village halls, for example, or where post office services are an add-on to a shop, providing a more limited service offering. As a main post office, Tarporley provides services that others do not. It is consistently open, reliably serving customers, offering local businesses a place to deposit takings, providing access to cash and acting as a vital hub for the wider village and surrounding area.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that individuals such as Sasi in Croxley Green and Usman in Maple Cross are not just sub-postmasters but community champions, and that, like the village pub, they remain a critical asset in our communities?
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend makes an important point and mentions the sub-postmasters in his constituency. I echo what he has said and pay tribute to those who work so hard in my constituency.
Although I sincerely hope there will be no future branch closures, if the Government intend to make changes to the network, will special consideration be given to branches classified as main post offices, particularly those serving large and predominantly rural geographical areas?
The final example I will highlight is Wybunbury Village post office, which demonstrates the wider community role that these facilities provide. Wybunbury is a very rural village with just two amenities: the local pub and the post office, which also operates as a convenience store. At a time when our hospitality sector is under immense pressure from rising costs and business rates, the loss of either would be deeply felt.
Currently, approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop on the high street. That is both a sad reality and a wake-up call to Government about the need to protect what we have left. Again, I say this with respect to the Minister, but the Government have demonstrated, in policy after policy, that they do not understand the countryside and do not see it as a priority. Will he assure me today that rural branches will not be seen as low-hanging fruit and closed, only to be replaced by urban branches? The social and economic impact would be significant, as I know would be the case in Wybunbury, as just one example.
The post office in Wybunbury is a true community hub, brilliantly run by Kirsty and Daniel. The affection in which it is held was demonstrated clearly when, as part of my recent small business competition, nearly 100 residents nominated it for an award. I was delighted to visit just before Christmas to present the team with a certificate, and I place on record my thanks to them for their continued service to the community.
I have used this Adjournment debate to highlight the vital importance of post offices to Cheshire, to my constituents and to our country as a whole. The campaign to protect the post office network has been championed by Conservatives, and I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for her leadership in securing 165,000 signatures for our petition, which was delivered to the Prime Minister. As the Minister considers the response to the Government’s consultation on the future of the Post Office, I urge him to listen carefully to the voices of my constituents, to recognise the unique role that post offices play in rural communities and to commit to maintaining the network at its current level.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing the debate. In my previous role, she and I travelled the world with the Foreign Affairs Committee, so it is good to be dealing with matters that are closer to home. As she so eloquently argued, no matter is closer to home than the importance of post offices to local communities.
I also thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity, for the first time as the Minister responsible for postal services, to put on record at the Dispatch Box my disgust at the way postmasters were treated in the Horizon scandal. The reputations, livelihoods and lives lost as a result of that scandal shame the country, and it is my responsibility to ensure that postmasters get the redress, justice and recognition that they deserve.
As the hon. Lady rightly argued, post offices are so valued by local communities, and not just because of their economic impact—they root local high streets, bring footfall to high streets and, as she said, in many places are the only shop in the village—but because they are essential community hubs.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Disley in my constituency saw its post office close in July last year in slightly dubious circumstances. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made the powerful case that post offices are really important in rural and semi-rural areas. Will the Minister join me in asking the Post Office to redouble its efforts to reopen the post office in Disley?
Blair McDougall
On this matter, as on all matters in Macclesfield, my hon. Friend is a constant campaigner on behalf of his local community. I will absolutely raise that branch with Post Office management.
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury mentioned Sandra and Tony, the local sub-postmasters in her area. In my community, I think of Nancy from Harvie Avenue post office in Newton Mearns. She plays a similar role—she not only serves people, but is the cornerstone of the local community. The network of 11,000 post office branches that the hon. Lady talked about makes it the largest retail network in the country, with an unrivalled reach into our cities, towns and villages, which is why it is so important to have this debate.
As the Minister responsible for postal affairs, I am always happy to, and always do, raise issues with Post Office management on behalf of Members of the House. However, I know that the hon. Lady understands that although the Post Office is publicly owned, it operates as a commercial organisation aside from Government. That means it has the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network, but within the access criteria set by the Government, as she rightly pointed out. Those criteria are so important because they set the minimum level of service that should be provided to everyone across the country—for example, the requirement that 99% of the population live within three miles, and 95% of the total urban population within one mile, of their nearest postal service.
The hon. Lady asked whether the Government will continue with those access criteria. It is some time since the Government have looked at those criteria, but we are doing so through the Green Paper and the responses to it. Our starting assumption was that we would maintain that number of post offices, with one eye on their importance to rural communities, which the hon. Lady rightly raised. However, as it has been so long since those access criteria were set, it is right that we take the time to ask whether they are still right for post offices, communities and postmasters.
On post office provision within the hon. Lady’s constituency, 21 branches are operating in her area, serving thousands of customers each month and helping to support the local economy. She raised my Department’s research on the economic value of that across the country—some £5.2 billion in social value and about £1.3 billion for local SMEs—which is particularly felt in her constituency and others with large rural areas.
Let me turn to Kelsall post office, which closed after the resignation of the operator, the Co-op. I completely understand the painful impact that a branch closure can have on a community. The fear that the service will never return can be disruptive. The hon. Lady comes from a small-business background herself, so she will know that, in a franchise model, there will be fluctuations, particularly in a network made up of so many small businesses and the commercial decisions behind them.
I hope that the Post Office’s advertising campaign to find suitable alternative operators for that branch offers some reassurance to the hon. Lady and her constituents. The time it takes to reopen a branch varies depending on the individual circumstances, but at the end of that process the Government’s access criteria will ensure that, whatever form the network takes, services remain within reach of citizens. I hope that we can find a suitable operator for the Kelsall branch.
The hon. Lady said that the Post Office, like any retailer, faces pressure from continually evolving consumer behaviour and all the other pressures that businesses face, and particularly small businesses. Although access to Government services in post offices is important to many customers, services are not utilised as much as they were in the past, and people are sending fewer letters through the post office network year on year. On the other hand, as she rightly said, cash and banking services have become so important to the Post Office. She asked for reassurance on that. I absolutely recognise how essential that part of the business is for the Post Office. I welcome the banking framework 4 agreement between the major banks and the Post Office, which has come into effect this year. It will mean that the Post Office will be able to increase the income that postmasters receive for delivering banking services, further recognising their important role on high streets.
It is clear that the Post Office must continue to evolve and adapt to shifting needs and trends in local and national economies. That is why our Green Paper, which I mentioned a moment ago, seeks to open a dialogue on the future of the Post Office, from the services that it provides and how we can modernise and strengthen the network, to how we change the culture—particularly with regard to the legacy of the Horizon scandal—and the way in which the Post Office is managed. Thousands of individuals, postmasters and stakeholders have contributed to the consultation, and I thank them for doing so. We will publish our response in the coming weeks.
The hon. Lady also mentioned Malpas post office. I congratulate her on her successful campaign. As she will know, cash services at that branch were reinstated in November.
More generally, we remain completely committed to the future of the Post Office. We are providing £83 million in subsidies for the network this year, and half a billion pounds of investment over the next few years to help the Post Office transform so that it has a sustainable future and to ensure that postmasters are better remunerated, in addition to the subsidy I mentioned, which aims to keep particularly uncommercial and rural parts of the network open. That ambition will, I know, be supported by Members across the House who recognise how important post offices are in anchoring our local communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Planning applications in Stourport-on-Severn
Proposed Development and Road Layout Changes in Crawley Down
Proposed Solar Development in Wisborough Green
Regulation of Houses in Multiple Occupation
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
Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility
(2 days, 19 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
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485.
It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this debate on the Government’s response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, known as the Thistle.
The Committee began this inquiry in January 2025, amid ongoing concern that Scotland faces the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. In 2024, 1,017 deaths were recorded, alongside harms including blood-borne viruses and injection wounds. Preliminary figures for 2025 suggest that those numbers are increasing. There is a suspected 8% increase in drug deaths in the first nine months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Those deaths and drug-related harms are very much concentrated in Glasgow, although not exclusively so. To address that, Glasgow City Council Health and Social Care Partnership and other partners launched the Thistle. The Thistle is located on Hunter Street in Glasgow’s east end, and it is the first sanctioned UK safer drug consumption room.
In its first 10 months, the Thistle has had 522 unique visitors and has supervised over 6,000 injecting episodes. During this time there were 78 medical emergencies on site. Now, that might sound like a bad thing, but this means that there have been 78 instances where people have received professional medical intervention, which they might not otherwise have received. This medical intervention treats overdoses and potentially saves lives. There have been no fatalities at the Thistle in the year since it opened.
Our Committee heard that, as a single service, the impact of the Thistle is expected to be highly localised. It is unlikely to shift the dial on national drug death figures, and it is not designed to do so.
The question of cost was an ongoing theme throughout the inquiry. The Thistle is being funded by the Scottish Government, and up to £2.3 million per year has been committed for the duration of the three-year pilot. The Thistle is undoubtedly expensive to run. However, evidence suggests that facilities such as the Thistle can provide value for money by generating savings elsewhere in the health service. Such facilities can reduce costs associated with public injecting, including the costs of hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses.
Preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could potentially generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. It is right that the Thistle’s costs were properly considered in the Committee’s inquiry because it is a gold-standard model. That means that the value-for-money and harm-reduction capability of a less sophisticated model remains untested. However, with over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone, the Committee is clear that the scale of Scotland’s emergency necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment.
The report also emphasises how vital a drug checking licence would be in combating drug-related harm. We explained how such a licence would allow support services to better understand drug trends across Glasgow, and to take action in relation to them. That could be key in ensuring that the Thistle achieves maximum effectiveness.
We recommended that the Home Office urgently complete its assessment of Glasgow’s application for a drug checking licence at the Thistle, and I was very pleased to see that the application was approved in October last year. With this licence, Glasgow will become the first city in Scotland where people can legally test drugs for dangerous contaminants. We know that applications for further drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen and Dundee have also been submitted to the Home Office, and we await the outcome of those applications.
I will now make some remarks about the impact of the Thistle on the local community, which has quite rightly been the subject of much media reporting. I highlight how our report emphasises the importance of supporting the community surrounding the Thistle. The concerns of the local community must be taken seriously, which is why our report recommended proactive engagement through the community forum and the development of a responsive communication strategy.
Amid the media commentary, we should also bear in mind that it may take time for the local effects of the Thistle to be fully understood. We are reassured that the ongoing independent evaluation is monitoring the levels of discarded paraphernalia, and the pilot’s wider impact on the community. That is vital, and it will ensure that debate about local impacts is informed by accurate, objective data.
In November last year we published the Government’s response to our report. There is some positive messaging in the response, which we welcome, and the Government have said that they are firmly committed to tackling drug-related harms and to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government. The response also noted
“the importance of evidence-based and high-quality treatment, which engages vulnerable people who use drugs.”
Both those points very much align with the spirit of our report.
When it comes to the Thistle itself, however, I must express some disappointment at the substance of the Government’s response. It states that the Government will “welcome any evidence” emerging from the evaluation of the Thistle. However, it also states that the Government have
“no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”
to permit the operation of such facilities anywhere in the UK. It is difficult to see how full and proper consideration can be given to the Thistle’s evaluation unless the Government are at least open-minded to considering legal changes. As our report says,
“Any intervention found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm should not be dismissed.”
Experts and evidence, rather than preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future.
I directly asked the Prime Minister about this issue during a public session of the Liaison Committee in December. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis, I asked whether he would reconsider the Government’s opposition to amending the law if the Thistle’s evaluation shows it to be effective. He said that the Government had looked at it but does not intend to do so. He also said that legal decisions pertaining to the Thistle are best taken by those in Scotland, and that this should not lead to a UK-wide changing of drugs law. Unfortunately, that response appears not to recognise that drugs law is reserved. In her response to this debate, I hope the Minister will help us to understand how the Government can welcome evidence while remaining closed as to what that evidence might say.
Since the publication of our report, the issues we raised have only become more prescient. Interest has developed in additional safer drug consumption facilities elsewhere in Scotland. In Edinburgh, a feasibility study for a similar facility was undertaken in late 2024. That work confirmed strong local need for a facility, and identified two potential sites in the city. Then, in September 2025, the Edinburgh integration joint board announced plans to launch a formal public consultation early this year as part of developing a business case for a facility.
The Lord Advocate’s current statement of prosecution policy, however, would not cover any other sites. It is specifically worded in such a way that it covers the Thistle facility and nowhere else. That prosecutorial statement indicates that it is not in the public interest to prosecute people at the Thistle.
Our report concludes that relying on separate prosecution policies for multiple facilities is undesirable. If there are to be other safer drug consumption facilities beyond Glasgow, it is even more important that the UK Government address the issues highlighted in our report by establishing a clear legal basis that applies across Scotland. That would require legislation by the UK Government and Parliament.
The issues covered in our report are more relevant now than ever, because drug consumption trends in Scotland are changing rapidly. Inhalation is becoming much more prevalent. We highlight the expert medical advice from Dr Saket Priyadarshi and others that shows that inhalation is a safer method of consumption than injection. Introducing an inhalation space could expand the reach of the Thistle by attracting those who smoke and inhale drugs rather than inject them. Dr Priyadarshi describes how it would reduce the appalling physical harm caused by injecting at wound sites.
The Thistle does not currently have inhalation facilities. Such facilities would be prohibited under both reserved and devolved legislation, most notably Scotland’s smoking ban. Our report makes it clear that, for the Thistle to be effective, it must be able to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation room could therefore be key to maximising the Thistle’s effectiveness, and a fair evaluation of the facility’s full potential efficacy could be inhibited without one.
Since the publication of our report, the Glasgow City integration joint board has announced plans potentially to provide an inhalation space within the Thistle. The board has approved plans to develop a full business case to explore it, and our report calls for any application to enable an inhalation space to be considered by the UK Government on its merits.
In response to our report, the Government said that it “does not support” enabling inhalation. The Government suggest that it would be for the Lord Advocate, rather than the UK Government, to grant an exemption to reserved legislation. I hope the Minister might reflect on the logic that granting exemptions to reserved legislation is best done by the Lord Advocate through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the UK Government, who retain responsibility for drugs law.
I have one further point. The Thistle is already operating, and it may evolve to provide more services in future. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly likely that similar facilities may be established elsewhere in Scotland. All of that is happening whether the UK Government approve or not. To a certain extent, that reflects the proper operation of devolution and Scotland’s separate legal system, which enables Scotland to take a different path from the rest of the UK.
However, as our report sets out, it would be undesirable for the Thistle or any other future facility to operate, potentially indefinitely, under the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial discretion. The UK Government should recognise these realities, and if the Thistle is deemed a success, they should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a full, sustainable legal framework for such facilities. If they do not do so, the Government would be permitting the current unstable legal position to persist. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Minister.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I genuinely mean that in this instance.
Every drug death in Scotland is a tragedy, and the painful reality is that the number of drug deaths remains far too high. The latest figures indicate that 898 people are suspected to have died in the first nine months of 2025. Those are preventable deaths, and the SNP Scottish Government will continue to do everything possible to reduce them. Full figures for 2024 show that there were 1,017 drug-related deaths in Scotland, a decrease of 13%, but I do not think we can take a huge amount of comfort from that, given the trajectory in 2025. It shows that a very stubborn mass of deaths are occurring, and addressing it needs a concerted effort from all stakeholders.
The last Scottish Budget included record funding for the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse, including £13 million for grassroots organisations supporting residential rehabilitation, but drugs law ultimately rests with Westminster. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971, and the decades since have shown that the focus solely on criminalisation and a war on drugs is simply not working.
The UK Government have said that they will not make changes to drugs law to pave the way for the creation of more legal drug consumption rooms following the launch of the Thistle’s pilot scheme in Glasgow. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended that the UK Government should change reserved legislation to create a new legal framework for similar facilities to open in different parts of Scotland, if that were deemed to be desirable, but UK Ministers have advised that they will not accept that recommendation.
In a letter responding to the Committee’s recommendations, the UK Government said they had
“no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.
I wonder if the Minister might address that the UK Government may not need to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, as they could instead pursue mechanisms within the Scotland Act 1998 to allow a section 30 derogation or to devolve elements of the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Scottish Government in a very narrow way. That would be an option for a workaround.
The UK Government’s response confirmed that Westminster does not intend to amend the Act to enable the framework for safer drug consumption facilities to be more widespread in Scotland. It is extremely disappointing that the response confirmed that that is the intention even if the independent evaluation of the Thistle deems the pilot to have been a public health success. The Home Office’s approach effectively places a ceiling on how the Thistle model can further evolve. Reaching a decision in this way, before the pilot concludes, flies in the face of claims that the UK Government are taking an evidence-based approach.
The Scottish Government continue to urge Westminster to work with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the policy development reflects public health evidence rather than creates legal barriers that risk further avoidable deaths. The Thistle pilot in Glasgow is being comprehensively and independently evaluated by a collaborative of academics and institutions, working with health and social care partners. UK Ministers must take evidence into consideration when they reach a position on safer drug consumption facilities, rather than letting emotional dogma or Home Office convention set the policy.
The aims to reduce drug-related deaths from overdoses and to minimise the impact of public injecting on local residents and businesses are central to the ambitions of the Thistle and the stakeholders behind its creation. The Thistle received international recognition following a visit by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and last month a report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland found that the facility had had a “small but significant” impact on reducing drug deaths.
Crucial is a public health rather than criminal justice approach. The Thistle is staffed by a multidisciplinary team including nurses, psychologists, harm reduction specialists, social workers and other medical staff. Records show that in its first 10 months, the Thistle recorded 9,333 visits from 522 people, 6,366 supervised injection episodes, and staff responding to 78 medical emergencies. There are people alive today who would likely not be with us were it not for the Thistle facility.
The Scottish Government are open to considering well-developed proposals for further facilities, and welcome proposals from other parts of Scotland to establish them. That would have to be done while meeting the criteria set by Scotland’s Lord Advocate and the constraints placed on her by the unyielding stance of the Home Office and its brittle application of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is older than I am. The further development of services to prioritise the further reduction of harms in our communities and premature deaths from drugs should be seen as a shared priority for all legislators in Scotland.
I pay tribute to the Scottish Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for the way they have approached this issue, which could easily have descended into a party political mud-slinging session, but in my view never once did.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this important debate, and all the members of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for producing an excellent, conscientious and very serious report.
Our starting point in these discussions must always be that people suffering from addiction must be treated with compassion. It is our moral obligation to help people who are suffering and to help to remove barriers to support for individuals and communities who are affected by addiction. I see the effect of addiction daily in my seat, including in the Calton, where the safe consumption room is located. I see the huge blight that addiction can cause for individuals, families and communities, especially in Glasgow, which sadly has the highest overdose rate in Scotland. We have a moral obligation to support our communities through the devastating impacts of addiction.
Amazing work is being done in my seat to support people with addiction. I see that in the brilliant work of charities such as Back on the Road in Bridgeton, which is close to the facility and recently had its 25th birthday. I see that, too, in the courageous constituents I meet regularly who have recovered from their addictions.
The Committee heard from Dr Shorter, from Queen’s University Belfast, that addiction can often be exacerbated and caused by poverty, deprivation and trauma. This is fundamentally unjust, and it is our duty to ensure that all individuals, families and communities in our constituencies are supported to prevent and recover from addiction. Fighting poverty is an essential task of all levels of government, and we must ensure that nobody, no matter where they are from, is caught in addiction and unable to escape. We must recognise that tackling addiction needs wraparound support and a holistic approach to tackling poverty, meaning that we need a serious focus on new housing, better transport, improved education and access to jobs. All these things help to create communities that are fruitful with opportunities, which will help people to recover from addiction and to build positive futures.
We must also support children and people who have suffered trauma and consequently suffered with addiction. The Committee heard evidence on this from Dr Shorter. There is a clear link between how we treated children in Scotland historically—which is the subject of the Scottish child abuse inquiry—and outcomes in terms of addiction. I regret to say it, but it is a disgrace that the SNP has cut essential psychiatric and psychological services in Glasgow. Those services are essential to support those with addictions who need treatment for psychiatric and psychological conditions, and to help them in their recovery. All the wider wraparound factors need to be considered alongside safe consumption, to ensure that support for recovery is wraparound and holistic and that individuals, their families and communities can recover and move towards brighter and more fruitful futures.
We owe it to people with drug addiction, and their families, whom we must treat with compassion and try our best to support, to explore new ways of helping with addiction and reducing harm, so I fully support the trial, which is taking place on a sound evidence base. It must of course be evaluated robustly—there is nothing controversial about that.
There is serious talk about expanding the trial to include an inhalation facility. This reflects changing patterns in drug misuse, specifically towards smoking. The timing, so soon after the facility has opened, has come as a surprise to the community, and I can see their point. I am uncomfortable about the proposal—it is a significant change—but I have an open mind. We have to examine every possible way of reducing harm to people who use drugs. Naturally, the proposal must be supported by strong evidence, and the decision-makers need to think about the decision very carefully.
It is essential to listen to and speak to people who have addictions. That is a point that Dr Shorter made to the Committee. Harm reduction will happen only if the people who need the facility trust the facility and the staff in it. It is fair to say that people with addiction are not always treated fairly and justly by the state, and that seriously damages their trust in it.
It is also essential that there is serious listening to the community in the Calton. My constituents are utterly despondent at the increase in used needles and other evidence of drug misuse in the community. I ask anyone: how would it feel to take your four-year-old granddaughter for a walk along a street where there were used needles? My constituents’ legitimate concerns are dismissed as being wrong, dismissed on the basis that issues are long standing, and dismissed as misinformation. None of that is any excuse.
I deplore the condescending approach by the SNP council and Government towards the people I am so privileged to represent. The position is simple: the issues need to be tackled. Part 4 of the Scottish Affairs Committee report addresses this fairly and correctly states that
“the concerns of the local community need to be taken seriously.”
I agree. There needs to be a significant improvement in cleaning up the Calton, in encouraging more people to use the facility, and in active listening to my community.
The SNP has now run Scotland for almost 19 years, yet the drugs crisis has got worse, with terrible rates of drug deaths, which are, shockingly, the highest in Europe. As we head into an election year in Scotland, I hope they will take some responsibility for this situation.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
Every single death linked to drugs is a human tragedy, as we have heard from Members who have spoken already. It destroys families, shatters communities and places immense pressure on our health services and the emergency services. In my constituency, we had seven drug-related deaths in the last year for which figures were available. That is 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In Glasgow, there are 41.1 deaths per 100,000 people. That shows the scale of the problem in Scotland, but particularly in Glasgow. It means we need a different approach that meets the scale of the problem and the human tragedies that lie behind those numbers.
I commend the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the way she introduced the debate, and everyone on the Scottish Affairs Committee for their work to understand drug use in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats welcome the work in Scotland to treat drug deaths as a public health issue, notably through the pilot of Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. We recognise the complexities of the devolved responsibility and emphasise that matters specific to Glasgow and Scotland are for the Scottish Government to address. However, what happens in Scotland can still offer lessons to all of us across the United Kingdom.
Nationally, we need to move towards treating drug misuse as a health matter. That means moving leadership on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and investing sustainably in more addiction services and rehabilitation support so that help is available before people take the misstep that costs a life. This approach is reflected in some excellent state and local private provision across the country. I commend the Priory in my Woking constituency, which I visited last year, for its outstanding work on mental health and rehabilitation related to substance misuse. We must bring drug recovery infrastructure into the 21st century. That means more trained professionals, better community support, more housing for people in recovery, and pathways into employment to rebuild hope and dignity.
Patricia Ferguson
One of the things that is advantageous about the Thistle is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It can refer people on to other services such as housing— many of the people being dealt with are homeless, unfortunately—and it can also address mental health issues and send people forward to the requisite services that they need to access. It can also do basic things such as allow people the opportunity to have a shower and get some clean clothes—the basic necessities that the rest of us take for granted. In that way, it does more than just address the relatively straightforward issue of injecting; it also tries to help people with the problems they experience day to day.
Mr Forster
I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we have found the Housing First programme—with which there are some parallels in this debate—very important and useful. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just about tackling drug use; we need to tackle homelessness for housing problems and we need to tackle drug use for drug problems, and we should do so as part of a package of support measures. I hope we can treat both those problems equally and in a comprehensive manner.
We need to lessen the taboos around drug consumption to allow us to tackle the issue in a far more humane way than we have previously as a country. The current system fails too many people. Far too many die when they are in contact with treatment services, and too many families are left grieving following an avoidable loss. Helping people to avoid that fate requires a fresh approach that prioritises health, harm reduction, social support and rehabilitation, as much as law enforcement.
We must recognise that outdated drug laws are no longer protecting people, especially young people, from harm. The reform of cannabis legislation would take power away from criminal gangs, regulate quality and potency, and provide safer access for adults while protecting the young. This pragmatic, evidence-based approach should inform our decisions, and we should learn the lessons from what other countries have done.
Drug-related deaths across our country remain unacceptably high, particularly in Scotland and Glasgow, where the situation requires urgent, radical thinking. We must invest more in treatment, rehabilitation, support labs and services to reduce harm, and promote public health leadership that brings us into the 21st century. Above all, we must honour the lives lost by making the change that prevents others from dying needlessly, by taking the evidence-based approach recommended by the Committee’s report.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing the debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing it.
The prevalence of drug deaths and the broader misuse of drugs in Scotland is devastating. The fall in drug deaths in 2024 was welcome, but the figure remains the highest in Europe. Between March and May 2025, drug deaths actually increased by 15%, with statistics showing that people in deprived areas in Scotland are 12 times more likely to die of drug misuse than those in the least deprived areas. We all recognise that this must change.
Nevertheless, the question of how we achieve that is not simple. We are right to reflect on how we reached this situation. The monumental failure of the SNP Scottish Government is apparent. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted that her Government had taken their “eye off the ball”. I dare say that turn of phrase vastly understates the scale of the crisis that has gripped individuals and communities in Scotland. When my former colleague, the previous Scottish Conservative leader, put forward his Bill in the Scottish Parliament to address this problem, he said:
“This is a crisis that was made in Scotland, and it is one that can be fixed in Scotland, but not if we do not have willing participants in the Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9 October 2025; c. 106-7.]
I will return to the efforts made by my Conservative colleagues in Holyrood later. However, we believe that approaches to dealing with drug use must go beyond the narrow debate about drug consumption centres.
Let me be clear: both the Conservative party and I respect the independence of the Lord Advocate as the prosecutorial authority in Scotland. The last Government were clear that, provided that power is exercised lawfully, we should not stand in the way. Respect for the institutions that underpin our Union is critical, and I would not desire to undermine them. However, that should not preclude us in this place from criticising decisions made in Scotland or from questioning some of the comments underpinning the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report. That is why the Conservative position on drug consumption rooms in England and Wales is simple: we do not support them. That position was set out transparently when the party was in government, and it is appropriate to continue supporting it now.
It is appropriate to offer clarity on this matter. I understand that was a challenge faced by the Scottish Affairs Committee when questioning the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). When she was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she produced a report that backed such proposals. As such, it would be interesting to hear from this Minister whether she or the Government believe that these facilities are now appropriate.
The reason for our concern is that the use of drug consumption rooms condones or even encourages illegal drug use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, stated:
“I cannot ever support the facilitation of addiction as a way of helping to treat addictions”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 111.]
John Grady
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the key purposes of a consumption room is to reduce harm to people who would, in any event, consume the substances in question? In Glasgow, we have had significant problems with needle-borne viruses, infections and illness, so it is only morally right to help these people, as they struggle with their addictions, to consume in a safe way. Otherwise, people lose their loved ones, their mothers and fathers, and their sons and daughters. It is a question of compassion.
Matt Vickers
I definitely believe that we should be helping people with addictions, but feeding those addictions and allowing the illegal use of drugs is not the way forward. There are many ways in which we should support people with addictions and their families, but we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of consumption rooms.
As my colleague on the Committee stated, we can never support the facilitation of addiction as a way to treat addiction. That is alongside the impact of potentially encouraging the continued supply of illicit substances, which invariably happens if there are specific locations at which to consume the products of this trade—a trade that, as we all know, has devastating consequences for our communities. Police Scotland states clearly on its website:
“Drugs can be very dangerous to your health and can kill.
The advice of Police Scotland is simple…There is no ‘safe’ way to take drugs, there is always a risk…The only way of staying safe is to avoid drugs altogether.”
Let me demonstrate why we need an effective police response. The county lines programme—which was started by the previous Government, and which has rightly continued—found a notable impact on drug misuse. Its evaluation, released at the very end of 2025, illustrated that drug misuse hospitalisations decreased by 29% in the exporter areas as a result of the county lines programme, when compared with the control group of areas that receive direct county lines funding. At the same time, the evaluation showed a 15% reduction in drug-related hospitalisations, equivalent to 22 fewer hospitalisations on average per quarter, in the importer forces, which were defined as those police forces most likely to be impacted by spillover effects from the county lines programme. Comparing the data to the 2024 evaluation illustrated that the programme is having a continued and seemingly increasing impact on reducing drug-related hospitalisations. Despite the best intentions of those who work at drug consumption facilities, it is inevitable that those taking the drugs will acquire them by criminal means. When we have targeted police action, the evidence appears to show improved outcomes for those who abuse drugs.
Clearly, enforcement is not and should not be the only approach to the problem. That is why the 10-year drugs plan published by the previous Government set out that any plan needed to be underpinned by enforcement and treatment. I appreciate that it was not focused on Scotland, but I would highlight that the previous Government’s drug strategy saw £532 million of additional funding through to 2024-25 to support improvements in alcohol and drug treatment.
Additionally, the previous Government took steps through their consultation—and we have backed secondary legislation while in opposition—to expand access to naloxone to more healthcare professionals and services. As Members will be well aware, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill introduced by a former Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross, sought to give those diagnosed with drug and alcohol addiction a statutory right to receive treatment from a relevant professional.
Patricia Ferguson
I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that naloxone is widely used in Scotland by paramedics and the police. As a councillor on Glasgow city council, I had the opportunity to be trained in its use, and I have a vial of it that I can carry around—fortunately, I have never had to use it.
However, I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member that the main driver for considering a safer drug consumption room in Glasgow was the fact that, in 2015, we had one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV infections ever seen in Europe. That was tracked back to the sharing of needles and the fact that people were injecting. That is what sparked the whole discussion about whether Glasgow needed a safer drug consumption room. So this is not just about the criminality or treating those who are already addicted; it is about preventing those blood-borne viruses, which are so harmful to people in their individual lives, but which also have such a devastating effect on our health services. It is about more than just misusing drugs; it is about a whole-society approach.
Matt Vickers
One drug death is one drug death too many. We agree on that, and we agree on the need to treat people. However, I fundamentally believe that there is a role for enforcement. I do not believe that giving people the ability to take these illegal products, in whatever environment, helps to end that addiction. There are very varied views on that, but I fundamentally do not agree.
The robust and costed provisions set out in the Bill introduced by Douglas Ross are essential if Scotland is to turn around its record on tackling the dangers of drug use by setting out the treatments that would be available, and the data and reporting requirements on the Scottish Government. It would provide a Scottish blueprint for reversing the trends that we have seen over the last decade. It was welcome that the Labour party in Scotland supported that Conservative-proposed recovery Bill to give addicts the treatment they need. Unfortunately, the SNP and the Green party in Scotland failed to back it, which was shameful.
In addition, the Scottish Conservatives have set out robust plans to end the drugs trade behind bars, following significant increases in prison drug consumption over the last couple of years. That would be achieved by installing window grilles, which have been proven to stop drone deliveries, in all prisons, and by investing in drone detection technology, sniffer dogs and X-ray machines. The scope of those proposals shows the variety of approaches needed to tackle drug use.
We know that the Thistle is an expensive experiment. Obviously, we welcome any decrease in drug abuse and drug deaths, but we must ask whether we want our actions to encourage drug use or discourage it. It is right that the Scottish Government take steps to fix this problem, but I am afraid they are not taking the steps that are needed. I would ask the Minister, when she gets the opportunity, to encourage her Scottish Government counterparts to back the proposals put forward by the Scottish Conservatives and supported by Labour. That would ensure that the Scottish Government got back to providing treatment for those diagnosed with an addiction in Scotland.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this debate, and I thank all colleagues who have spoken today. I think it is apparent that everybody in the Chamber cares very deeply about this issue and about how we deal with the harm done to individuals, communities and society by drugs, and I hope that the same is true of everybody across the Commons. I am also very grateful to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its work in this area and for conducting its inquiry. I thank all those who took part in it and who have given us the opportunity to reflect on the issues that were raised.
In the short time that I have been the Minister for Policing and Crime, I have met families who have lost loved ones through drugs, and in my own time as a constituency MP, I have regularly seen the impact of drugs. I think that we can all agree that we need to do everything we can as a country.
Dame Carol Black, who was appointed under the previous Government to be the independent adviser on drugs, has recently agreed to continue her role, for which I am very grateful. I have had the privilege of talking to her about the strategy that she developed under the previous Government and about how we think it can work. We are delivering, as the previous Government did, on the recommendations of her landmark review, which was wide-ranging. It was not just about the enforcement side—making our streets safer—but about making our communities healthier and making people better, treating them in the right way so that they can recover and thrive.
I also want to welcome Professor David Wood, the new chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. His huge experience and knowledge will be invaluable, and we are really pleased to see him. We are committed to providing people who use drugs with the support that they need. There was some debate about whether we look at the role of drugs through a Home Office or a health lens; to my mind, it should be both. When I speak to the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), she is very clear that she takes a public health approach to drug and alcohol addiction and treatment.
We are investing £3.4 billion over the next three years in treatment, sustainable recovery services and peer networks that can support people in recovery with employment, housing and education. The need for the holistic approach was raised by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I think it is the right approach, and that £3.4 billion over the next three years will help.
There are new treatments and new ways of supporting people. I have spoken to the sector about how we make sure treatments are available not just for the traditional opioid addictions, but for new forms of addiction, whether that is ketamine or other drugs, and how we evolve slightly different approaches over time. The Home Office and the Department of Health meet together; I meet my colleague in the Department of Health who is overseeing all the treatment interventions. We want to keep on top of all the emerging evidence about what treatment is best, and we work constantly with operational partners across the country to make sure we deliver the right treatment.
On drugs harm, the need for interventions and the need to get rid of the criminal gangs that drive that practice, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), talked about the county lines programme. That programme has had a significant impact in reducing harm as well as arresting criminals, taking them off the streets and shutting down county lines. Since we came to power in July 2024 the programme has led to more than 8,000 arrests and the closure of 3,000 county lines. Importantly, in that period alone 600 vulnerable young people were supported with specialist services to build safer futures. The criminal gangs exploit children and use the drugs trade to make money; by focusing on them through the county lines programme, we have had significant success in terms of drug misuse, hospitalisations and the actual impact on the criminals being arrested.
The National Crime Agency works tirelessly on disrupting and dismantling the networks. At the UK border, through intelligence with other countries and the advanced technology that we use, we are intercepting more drugs than ever. In the year ending March 2024, Border Force seized more than 100 tonnes of drugs—the highest amount on record. We are determined to reduce the number of drug-related deaths throughout the UK. We of course recognise the importance of evidence-based, high-quality treatment, and will continue to take preventive public health measures to tackle drug misuse and support people to live better lives.
In the response to the Select Committee’s report, I made the Government’s position on Glasgow’s pilot drug consumption room clear. We recognise the Scottish Government’s need to tackle drug misuse. We have talked already about the statistics on the number of drug deaths in Scotland, so I will not repeat them, but they are incredibly high and we recognise that more needs to be done. We recognise that where responsibility is devolved, the Scottish Government will need to tackle drug misuse in the ways that they see fit.
The Lord Advocate has issued a statement of prosecution policy for the operation of the pilot drug consumption room in Glasgow, as has been talked about. We respect the independence of that decision. I want to be clear that we have no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to enable the operation of drug consumption rooms in any part of the United Kingdom, but we are committed to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government.
We meet collectively. The UK Government lead the UK drugs ministerial team, which is a forum for Ministers from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That forum provides the opportunity for all four Governments to talk to one another and to come together to share challenges and best practice. The last meeting was in Edinburgh and hosted by the Scottish Government, and we will meet again this year, enabling us to talk to one another and to share information. Of course we will also work closely with the Scottish Government to enable licensed drug-checking facilities to operate lawfully.
As we have heard, chronic drug dependence plagues the lives not just of individuals, but of those closest to them. It is in all our interests to prevent people from being engulfed by that spiral, and to help those who have on to a better path. There is a determination from this Government to get it right and to look at the evidence. We are not persuaded to make any of the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and her Committee asked us to make, but that is not to say that we should not carry on talking about these issues.
The evidence-based approach that has been talked about and the review that is being done of the pilot at the Thistle are very important. I very much want to see what the evidence shows. I am committed to making sure we are always learning and always changing our approach. We met as a collective group of Ministers across Government to look at some of the problems in, for example, the prison system—we know it is a huge driver of drug use—and to see what we can do collectively across Government. When the three-year pilot of the Thistle is finished, we will of course look at that and will want to see what we can do in response. I think we collectively agree on the need to tackle drug misuse as a health issue as well as a Home Office and crime issue. This Government are doing both, but I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues in the days and months ahead to make sure we get it right.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. It is clear that, across this room, we all share the goal of tackling the harms caused by problem drug use. However, in the face of the crisis that we have talked about today, I do not think we can afford to dismiss any potential remedy, so I take this opportunity to once again encourage the Government to follow the evidence.
As we have heard, there will be an evaluation of the Thistle published in three years’ time, but some interim work is likely to be done before then. As part of our inquiry, the Committee also visited drug consumption rooms in Oslo, Bergen and Lisbon—those in Oslo have been going for more than 20 years. Around the world, there is a lot of hard evidence demonstrating that these facilities have a part to play not only in eradicating drug use, but in controlling the way in which drugs are used.
Drug consumption rooms are not the only intervention available to us, nor should they be. They are complementary to and should work in tandem with vital recovery services, as well as other harm reduction interventions. Our Committee has been clear that these facilities are just one tool available to address problem drug use—and that is what they are about: problem drug use. With Scotland continuing to record the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe, our response has to match the scale of that crisis.
I am very grateful to Members from around the House for their contributions this afternoon. I thank my friend and co-Committee member, whose constituency I cannot remember—the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—for his contribution this afternoon. Both he and his SNP predecessor on the Committee, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), played a very constructive part in bringing together our report. I am sure that he, like me, was very impressed by the mobile facilities that we saw when we visited Lisbon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), whose constituency name is much easier for me to remember, is obviously a great champion for his community. He is absolutely right that the views of the community must be heard, but the community also need more regular feedback about what is being done to address their concerns. That is one of the things we highlighted in our report, and I want to highlight it again today.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) was absolutely correct that we need a package of measures and that our approach needs to be evidence-based. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his contribution. He is right that this is not simple, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that in the time the Thistle has been open, 78 overdoses have been dealt with on the premises. If they had not taken place in the Thistle, those overdoses would likely have taken place on the street or in those people’s homes, where they would likely have been alone, and might have resulted in increased deaths. One thing we know from the evidence is that there has never been a death from an overdose in a safer drug consumption facility anywhere in the world, and that history now goes back over 20 years. We must remember that and have it at the forefront of our minds when discussing this problem.
Thank you for your steady chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. Members for their time and thoughtful contributions on this important issue; I hope they will keep an open mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485.
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution
(2 days, 19 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered religious minority persecution in Myanmar.
This is something that has been on my mind, and the mind of lots of us, for some time. We may not know very much about Myanmar in relation to religious persecution, but I am glad to see my friend and colleague in the Gallery who, along with Rev. Cecil Rasa, told us all about what was happening.
This debate has also been some time coming. There has been great interest from many hon. Members in holding Backbench Business debates, so it has taken until now for us to have this opportunity, but I am very pleased to have it and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. It is indeed an honour to introduce this debate on Myanmar and to speak once again for those whose voices are silenced by violence, repression and fear. We will hear some of the things—hopefully others will contribute as well—that relate to just how bad the situation is in Myanmar.
I speak today because freedom of religion or belief is not a peripheral concern; it is a foundational human right. When freedom of religion or belief collapses, other rights collapse alongside it: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, access to justice and, ultimately, the right to life itself. Myanmar today is a stark example of that truth. Since the military coup of February 2021, religious freedom in Myanmar has continued to worsen amid civil war.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on Myanmar, because religious and ethnic minorities there are facing some of the harshest persecution. He will no doubt be aware that Christian communities have seen their churches destroyed, their clergy imprisoned and aid blocked, and that long-persecuted Muslim communities such as the Rohingya and the Uyghurs remain stateless, are severely restricted in their movements and face further persecution. Does he agree that international condemnation, co-ordination and action are urgently needed to protect those vulnerable groups?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend—he has been my friend for all the time I have known him—for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he has outlined, in those two or three sentences, what this debate is all about. It is an opportunity to highlight religious minorities and persecution, with a focus on Myanmar.
Independent monitoring by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom documents the destruction and occupation of religious sites, the killing of clergy and civilians, and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid by the military authorities. Churches, mosques and monasteries have been affected by airstrikes, shelling and arson. In some cases, places of worship have been occupied or used by troops, turning sites of prayer into military targets. Aid convoys have been blocked or prohibited, even in areas of acute need. Religious leaders have been detained and harassed.
I know there are many issues demanding the attention of this House, and there has just been a debate in the main Chamber about the same thing, but I often think of Galatians 6:9, which urges us not to grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap if we diligently sow. The Bible very clearly gives us a challenge—indeed, it is a directive—about what we should do. We must not allow Myanmar to become a forgotten crisis, where atrocities continue in plain sight. We must continue to do what we can to help the vulnerable and the needy, and there are many of them.
The junta’s violence is nationwide, but its impact is especially severe on minority communities and on religious life itself. The USCIRF reports that over 3.4 million people have been displaced in recent years. That includes some 90,000 people displaced in Christian-majority Chin state, and around 237,200 in Kachin state. Alongside this internal displacement, around 1 million Rohingya refugees remain in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, living in prolonged exile, with absolutely no indication of when they will be able to return. That is one of the things we should look at today. I should have said that I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I always look forward to the Minister’s response. I wish her well in her role, and I look forward to her replies to our questions.
Those figures are not abstract. They represent families torn from their homes, congregations scattered, and communities unable to gather safely to worship. For many, the simple act of practising their faith has become a source of danger. This is not only a freedom of religion or belief issue viewed in isolation; it sits within a much wider framework of state violence. UN-linked reporting has documented systematic torture by Myanmar’s security forces, including cases involving children, as well as sexual abuse and sexual attacks on women and girls. I do not know whether it is my age, but I certainly get more affected by the things happening in the world than I ever did before. It is almost inconceivable to comprehend all the horror taking place.
It is important to note that FoRB violations in Myanmar are part of a broader pattern of repression and brutality. They are not isolated incidents. The plight of the Rohingya Muslims remains one of the gravest examples of this persecution. UN fact finders concluded that there were grounds to investigate senior Tatmadaw leaders for genocide and other international crimes, and they explicitly called for criminal investigation and prosecution. Can the Minister confirm whether she is aware of a criminal investigation taking place? Are there grounds for prosecution? Obviously, that would all be built on evidence, but has that started?
Crucially, this issue did not begin and end in 2017. Amnesty International has described a state-sponsored system of apartheid in Rakhine state marked by institutional discrimination, segregation and extreme restrictions on movement and daily life. Rohingya communities are confined, controlled and denied access to basic services. A people stripped of citizenship, boxed in by policy, and punished for trying to move—this is not merely insecurity; it is engineered oppression.
Christian communities have also suffered targeted attacks, particularly in Chin, Kachin and Karenni areas. The USCIRF documents repeated attacks on churches and confirms that the military has destroyed religious buildings and killed clergy and civilians through airstrikes and arson. The USCIRF further reports that at least 128 religious persons have been detained by the authorities, including 113 Buddhist monks, one imam and 14 Christians. These are not random arrests. They reflect a deliberate effort to intimidate religious leadership and community life. There are many examples, but one case in particular brings this into sharp focus: Rev. Hkalam Samson of the Kachin Baptist Convention—a respected Christian leader who is much loved in his area—was arrested, granted amnesty, and then re-arrested within hours. This is injustice. It is harassment, designed to send a message that no religious leader is beyond reach—no religious leader is safe.
More broadly, independent monitoring documents attacks and intimidation affecting multiple faith communities in churches, mosques and monasteries, and across several regions and states. When places of worship themselves become targets, freedom of religion or belief ceases to exist in any meaningful sense in the area—not just for the places of worship themselves, but for the practising Christians, Rohingya Muslims and people of other faiths as well.
We must also be clear about why these abuses occur. Many analysts argue that the Tatmadaw has long instrumentalised race and religion narratives to legitimise repression. It is beyond dispute that independent monitoring documents repeated targeting of religious leaders and religious sites across communities, reflecting persecution linked to identity rather than military necessity. They are being targeted because of who they are—because of their religious beliefs.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I have come along to learn more about the situation, which is, frankly, puzzling. Is the regime motivated by some form of extreme religion of its own? Is it just ultra-nationalism? Is it doing all this persecution to repress the people and keep them in a form of captivity, or to drive people whom it does not like because of their identity out of the country completely?
Jim Shannon
As always, the right hon. Member brings wisdom to the debate. He is right to highlight that the Tatmadaw and the authorities are using people’s religion and race as reasons to legitimise repression. As far as they are concerned, they do not want people to have anything, and by focusing on those things, they take away the very right to express religious belief—to have a race, a different culture and a different history.
Another root cause is Myanmar’s discriminatory legal architecture, particularly its citizenship regime, which probably highlights the very point that the right hon. Member just referred to. The 1982 citizenship law embeds exclusion by tying full citizenship to state-defined nationality categories and strict criteria, while granting wide discretion over who qualifies—in other words, it directly discriminates. Amnesty International documents how this framework has left most Rohingya without full citizenship rights, despite generations of residence in Rakhine state.
Citizenship denial is not symbolic; it is operational. Amnesty shows how exclusion from citizenship underpins restrictions on freedom of movement, access to education, healthcare, participation in public life and legal protection. It forms the backbone of the apartheid-like system imposed on Rohingya communities. Amnesty also documents how temporary registration cards, often known as “white cards”, were revoked, leaving many Rohingya without identity documentation linked to rights or political participation—even further entrenching their vulnerability.
This is not an accident of bureaucracy. When a state writes exclusion into its citizenship law, it builds persecution into the legal system itself—and that is how it pursues its goals. Impunity compounds all of this. The military’s long history of avoiding accountability encourages repetition. Atrocities become a tactic, not an aberration. UN fact-finding missions have emphasised the need for criminal investigation and prosecution, yet meaningful accountability remains elusive.
There are also factors that worsen and sustain this crisis. UN investigators have highlighted the role of social media, particularly Facebook, in spreading hate speech and incitement against the Rohingya. That does not absolve the state of responsibility, but it shows how hatred has been amplified and normalised. Doing it so often means that it becomes a way of life that focuses on those who are in a religious minority.
Of course, we cannot point fingers outwards and not look internally. International action also plays a role. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned Myanmar in the main Chamber debate and referred to the Magnitsky sanctions that need to be in place for some of the Myanmar leaders. With great respect, the Government—this has been going on for a number of years, so it is not just this Government, but previous ones—have not pursued those involved in horrendous things in Myanmar, but they should have.
When decisive multilateral action stalls, the junta itself can outlast condemnation. Annual monitoring shows that detention, attacks on religious sites and the obstruction of aid continues despite years of international concern. Humanitarian obstruction remains a central tool of control. The USCIRF states that the military has blocked or prohibited critical aid from reaching displaced people, worsening their suffering and vulnerability —especially for minorities. All my life I have said that if a person is denied their human rights, they are also denied their religious viewpoint, and if they are denied their religious viewpoint, their human rights are also denied.
The question is: what should be done and what can realistically be done? We cannot solve all the problems of the world—if only we could—but the bit that we can do, we should do. In the immediate term, civilians and places of worship must be protected. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach those in need. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm where, or if, that is happening. I ask that the Foreign Office tie the substantial funding that we give to Myanmar to the principle of freedom of religion or belief. The UK has provided over £190 million for aid, healthcare and civil society since the 2021 coup, including some £66.45 million in the financial year 2024-25 alone. That was boosted by £10 million for the 2025 earthquake, with further funds for the refugee crisis—always with enhanced due diligence to avoid the military regime benefiting. We must leverage our goodness to them and ensure their goodness to their own.
In the medium term, the international community must constrain the junta’s capacity to wage war, including through air power, and strengthen evidence gathering and accountability mechanisms. Those who carry out abysmal and despicable crimes need to be made accountable, and the evidence needs to be gathered and made ready so that we can at some stage hold them accountable. Diplomacy can be a mighty tool and I believe that we can do more.
In the long term, there can be no durable peace without an inclusive settlement in which citizenship and equality are restored—especially for the Rohingya—so that freedom of religion or belief is protected by law, not dependent on good will or military discretion. For many years, the House has repeatedly raised concerns about freedom of religion or belief and wider human rights abuses in Myanmar. The question now is whether our actions match the scale of the crisis.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to regular, published assessments of freedom of religion or belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring benchmarks? It is really important that we have an independent body that is able to assess what is happening in Myanmar specifically. Through that, we will be able to gauge whether persecution is decreasing, or if there is any more action that we could take.
Secondly, what further steps will the UK take with allies to constrain the junta’s capacity for attacks that destroy religious sites and kill civilians? The air force has been used to bomb and kill, and to destroy churches and even hospitals and schools—nothing is ruled out in the junta’s attacks. Something really needs to be done to ensure that they stop.
Thirdly, how will the Government ensure that humanitarian aid reaches displaced minorities when the military deliberately blocks assistance? We know evidentially that whenever aid was sent from here to Myanmar, the military blocked it, put obstacles in its way and ensured that assistance did not get to the people that it should have.
Fourthly, what additional support will be provided to the accountability pathways identified by UN fact-finding work on genocide and other international crimes? I would love to have the people who have carried out these crimes made accountable in the court of this world, and then jailed accordingly. I am a Christian; I know that whenever they come to the next world, they will be accountable then. We all know where they will end up: they will end up in a place that is very warm—in hell. Still, I would love to see them get their justice in this world, just as they will get their justice in the next—I know that is going to happen, no matter what.
Myanmar’s crisis is not only political. It is a crisis of conscience, where identity is punished, worship is targeted, and the law itself—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—is used as a weapon. This House must continue to speak clearly, consistently and persistently for those who cannot. Let us not be weary in doing good, and let us do what we can in Myanmar. I believe that with renewed focus, we can reap a harvest of freedom for those living in fear in that place. Our job today is to speak for them. They have no voice; today, we are their voice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Four Back Benchers want to speak, and I will have the chance to call all of them. We have 40 minutes before the Front-Bench speeches, so that is fairly easy to work out: there are 10 minutes each, if you want to take them.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate; he is well known in the House for defending the rights of minority faith groups, wherever they are found. The Backbench Business Committee was right to grant this important debate, so that the House has an opportunity to put a spotlight on one of the worst conflicts currently on the globe—one that does not share as much attention as other conflicts.
I wanted to secure a similar debate myself, but as the hon. Member was successful in securing this one, I was pleased to put my name down to speak, putting on record the importance of civil society in these matters. In my constituency, the human rights group meets every 10 December in Crouch End to have a Write for Rights Day, and Burma-Myanmar is always one of the areas where it highlights the importance of supporting victims of human rights violations, showing that humanity can win. I also put on record my thanks to the Burma Campaign UK, and to other civil society groups, which are so active in this regard.
We know that religious persecution is one aspect of the awful ordeal that the people of Myanmar have endured for far too long. In March 2025, Myanmar was already facing one of the world’s biggest humanitarian crises after four years of conflict, with up to 7 million children out of school. The impact of that on every family in Myanmar—and on the fastest growing region in the world in terms of economic growth—is that 7 million children will be out of school and uneducated. That will dog them for the rest of their days, and create many local problems in the region.
Drawing on the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Rohingya people and the impact of the mass movement of people over the border has led to a very fragile situation in Bangladesh. In just a month’s time, on 12 February, there will be a general election in Bangladesh. The fragile situation could easily be worsened through the further movement of people along that border, which is one of the highly militarised areas in this conflict. I hope the UK can continue to support both Bangladesh with its upcoming election next month, and Myanmar, in any way that it can through the mission in Yangon.
We are also very aware of the catastrophic earthquake that devastated a huge area of the country around the region of Sagaing. Thousands of people were killed; hundreds of thousands more lost their homes. I put on record my praise for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which worked well with a network of partners to deliver support on the ground, despite the challenges. It was just as effective in its intervention as China and a number of other important players in the region, but we need to keep that up. The humanitarian needs remain huge, and this awful conflict rages on.
Sixteen million people will require lifesaving assistance in 2026, nearly five years since the Myanmar military overturned the democratically elected Government. The regime continues to bomb and kill civilians. We have heard of that from personal stories that have come through the many representations made to MPs in this House. The military’s blockade of aid has led to severe food and medicine shortages and brought Rakhine state to the brink of famine. Two million people there are at risk of starvation.
On 10 December 2025 which, as I said earlier, was International Human Rights Day, this awful regime decided to call in an airstrike on a hospital in Rakhine state, killing more than 30 civilians, including health workers, elderly patients and children. I have spoken to people who provide vaccinations for children who have had to resign their posts because they were too terrified to go into villages for fear of aerial bombardments, as well as medics who have provided support and done surgery in trenches while bombs were falling on their heads. Médecins Sans Frontières, which has supported the hospital since 2021, said:
“Bombing of health facilities, patients being killed in their beds, this cannot be perceived as collateral damage in a conflict zone. Hospitals must remain a safe place for patients to receive medical care”.
We know that in 2024, Myanmar ranked fourth for attacks on healthcare workers.
I welcome the UK’s financial, trade and travel ban sanctions against the military regime in Myanmar. I argued for them early in 2024 as the shadow Minister for the region. I also welcome the UK’s statement at the UN on the military regime’s sham elections, which are neither free nor fair. We need the Myanmar military to cease hostilities, respect international law and protect civilians. The people of Myanmar need a peaceful, democratic future, but we are a long way from that. We need to keep hope alive. It is my plea that, in a world so full of uncertainty, we do not forget about Myanmar.
The UK has done such great work in Myanmar, together with our partners, but the people of Myanmar still need us. Can the Minister tell us what funding this desperate country attracts in her regional funding following the Chancellor’s statement in November 2025? Could she also provide her assessment of the potential for further sanctions on the Government of Myanmar and third parties, such as energy suppliers, to assist in slowing down the dreadful war machine that is harming so many civilians in Myanmar on a daily basis?
Finally, could the Minister update the House on progress in the International Court of Justice case, led by Gambia with the backing of the UK and the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, so that the people of Myanmar can finally see justice in their lifetimes?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this vital and unfortunately forgotten issue to the fore with this debate. When we speak about conflict, we sometimes look at the numbers and forget the nuances and the people who matter. As the saying goes, one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic, and so it goes with this tragedy, because behind every number are real people.
One case particularly puts that into perspective. On new year’s day, a Rohingya man by the name of Mohammed Faruque woke up in a bamboo shelter in camp 7 in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. His phone was full of birthday messages wishing him a happy birthday. It was also his wife’s birthday, his parents’ birthdays, his siblings’ birthday, his friends’ birthday and the birthdays of hundreds and thousands of other people in that camp. We all know it was not their birthday, but when they fled the massacres, arson and rape in February 2017 the poor, frankly overwhelmed care workers just entered 1 January on everybody’s refugee cards. Mohammed Faruque said:
“When I see this date, I feel like I am no one.”
That single sentence answers the question that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked: why is this being done? It is because the people of Myanmar and the junta are trying to deprive people of other ethnicities of any form of identity. They are erasing their identities and who they are.
In Myanmar, faith and identity are intertwined. Since the coup in 2021, as mentioned by all those who have spoken in this debate, persecution has escalated dramatically. More than 200 religious institutions, including Buddhist monasteries, Christian churches, mosques and even Hindu temples have been destroyed or looted, and at least 41 religious leaders have been killed, including monks, Christian clergymen and Muslim imams, not just because of their faith but because of the overlap between faith and ethnicity.
The Rohingya Muslims have suffered the most extreme violence. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called their treatment
“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”,
and a United Nations expert has identified “the hallmarks of genocide”, but this persecution, as has been mentioned, does not just stop with one community. Ethnic Christian populations, particularly in Chin and Kachin states, have seen churches bombed and pastors killed, and religious identity has become a marker for punishment. They have been tortured, raped and executed on a daily basis. The cause is that the military junta is holding power through fear. It is a regime that has scapegoated minority communities and weaponised religion. That has been in the playbook for brutal and insecure regimes for millennia. It is being employed now in other parts of the world, and I am afraid that it will continue to be used in the future as well.
There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, because the junta has never been weaker. It is only controlling about 20% of the country’s territory at the moment and thousands of soldiers have defected. There is a possible future for democracy, but the international community must step in if that is to happen, because in the meantime, civilians are paying the price. Overall, more than 2.6 million people have been internally displaced in Myanmar and about 1.3 million have fled abroad. Nearly 1 million Rohingya now live in Bangladesh, a country that already has 170 million people of its own, while 40,000 Rohingya—the number may be even greater than that—have sought refuge in India. Therefore, in addition to all the incredible aid agencies and aid workers who deserve recognition, India and Bangladesh also deserve some credit, because they have accepted large numbers of refugees despite facing their own population pressures and resource constraints.
Those pressures have unfortunately led to horrifying consequences, as was maybe to be expected. There have been stories of refugees being pushed back into the sea and of families being separated. There have been reports of Rohingya men, women and children allegedly being forced to jump from a naval vessel and asked to swim for their lives in the Andaman sea. Camps in Bangladesh are dangerously overcrowded, and fires, disease, violence and rape are unfortunately becoming routine. This is a failure not just of humanity and compassion, but of international burden sharing.
That brings me to our responsibility. I want to put a few of the issues to the Minister. First, we must confront the enablers of the crisis. The junta survives because it is propped up militarily, diplomatically and economically by external actors. Some of those countries may even have veto powers at the United Nations. The proxy enablers must be named, challenged and pressured. Secondly, we must seek justice. We should actively support the international legal action, joining Gambia’s case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice, backing the ICC investigation to ensure that the junta is held accountable for genocide and crimes against humanity. Thirdly, we must support democracy wherever we can. I feel that the future depends on a genuine federal democracy, which protects religious freedoms, recognises ethnic equality and ends decades of civil war.
Finally I say to the Minister, we must match our words with actions and resources. Cutting the humanitarian aid to the Rohingya refugees and other displaced communities will have, and is having, catastrophic consequences. Aid to the region has dropped by 85% in the past five years, from more than £112 million to just £16.9 million. That is why we must make a commitment to ringfence overseas aid for that region, not just out of charity, but as prevention—prevention of further displacement, further regional instability and future atrocities.
This is not just a moral issue, but a strategic one. We should ensure that Britain remains a reliable partner, that the humanitarian system does not collapse, and that countries such as Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Vietnam are not left to manage the international crisis alone. I ask the Minister, what aid will we provide for the crisis? Mohammed Faruque does not want a different birthday; he wants recognition that his life, his history and his identity matter.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing the crisis in Myanmar to our attention and I congratulate the other Back-Bench speakers in the debate so far on their eloquent and important contributions.
I declare my long-standing membership of the Burma Campaign UK. I joined because, about 20 to 25 years ago, I heard testimony from two Burmese refugees at my local Labour party meeting. I asked what I could do, and they said that I should sign up to the Burma Campaign. That is part of the reason I am speaking today, having received their updates and understanding what is going on in the country. I also commend the Burma Campaign on the consistency of its support for human rights. Whatever the changes—the political twists and turns in society in Myanmar, or whichever individuals ended up on different sides of the debate—they have not mattered, because the campaign has consistently advocated for fundamental human rights.
As we have heard, Myanmar is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. Since the military coup in 2021, the Christian and Muslim minority populations of Myanmar have encountered greater violence and tighter restrictions on their freedom. In Rakhine state, about 630,000 Rohingya Muslims remain subject to systematic abuses and crimes against humanity. About 150,000 are held in open-air detention camps. The Rohingya are one of the largest stateless populations in the world, in effect having been denied citizenship since 1982. As we heard from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), about 1 million Rohingya live in overcrowded refugee camps in Bangladesh, after fleeing Myanmar in 2017, showing the tangible impact of the persecution that we are highlighting, with the displacement of swathes of people, condemning them to a poor quality of life.
As conflict rages in this part of Myanmar, the Rohingya have been caught between the junta and the Arakan Army, which the UN has documented committing multiple violations of international law. Both sides have indiscriminately attacked civilians since hostilities between them resumed in November 2023. I therefore ask the Minister whether she can assure us that aid to Rohingya refugees and the people of Myanmar will not be cut in the context of the overall UK aid budget. The Arakan Army also pursues its agenda of oppression by less direct means. It limits freedom of speech, censors access to international media and communications, arrests journalists, and threatens civil society organisations in the area it controls.
For Christians, the situation is similarly bleak. Believers have been killed and churches have been indiscriminately attacked. Nowhere has that been more intense than in the landlocked state of Chin—the poorest of Myanmar’s 14 states and regions. More and more Christians have been driven out of their homes, finding refuge in churches or displacement camps. Some have even been forced to flee to the jungle, where they are deprived of access to food and basic healthcare. Last year, Myanmar rose two places on the Open Doors world watch list, an annual ranking of the 50 countries where Christians face the most extreme persecution. It now scores in the extreme category for persecution. That categorisation puts the situation facing Christians in Myanmar on a par with that in places such as Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Myanmar is currently in the process of holding a set of elections that no observer could characterise as free or fair. They will be an opportunity for the Burmese military to rebrand and put forward a false narrative that it is reforming. Frankly, it will not concern the Burmese military that we can see the elections for what they are: a sham. The military junta has said it itself that, in its view,
“Whether the international community is satisfied or not, is irrelevant.”
These elections are vital in understanding this issue. They will be passed off as a front for the appalling human rights abuses and the persecution of minorities we have heard about today. We must stand steadfast against that and reject the idea that these so-called elections give any legitimacy to a malign regime.
In April 2025, the UK supported a Human Rights Council resolution calling for the protection of civilians and all minorities. It has also been clear that it does not regard the military regime in Myanmar as a legitimate Government. I am pleased that the Government have committed to taking any steps they can, including sanctions, to bring about peace. Today is an important chance to strengthen our resolve and stand up for persecuted people who need our protection. Will the Minister therefore explain why it has been more than a year since any new sanctions were imposed to cut off money and arms going to the Myanmar military? Will she assure the House that we will resume imposing such sanctions?
We must not allow the religious minority communities of Myanmar to suffer in silence. I join colleagues across the House in urging the Government to keep standing up for the rights of those persecuted people by expanding targeted sanctions against those committing atrocities, directing humanitarian aid towards those who need it the most and working through international institutions to hold the military junta and other forces waging war in the region to account. Today, we must reaffirm that the UK will never stand by as religious freedom is crushed and human rights are denied.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, for this important debate on religious minority persecution in Myanmar. As I have done so often over the years, I sincerely thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the driving force behind the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, for securing this debate and ensuring that people who have been persecuted for professing their beliefs or—just as importantly—those exercising their human rights not to believe or practise a faith, wherever they are in the world, are not forgotten about. With the world on a seemingly endless cycle, stumbling from crisis to disaster and back again, it would be all too easy to forget or choose to ignore issues such as the persecution of religious minorities, but it is vital that we do not do so or allow others to forget or choose to ignore such a fundamental human rights issue.
No one would wish us to forget or ignore this issue more than the military regime in Myanmar, where for decades a deliberate policy of religious and ethnic cleansing has been pursued as they seek to Burmanise the country. Burmanisation is the belief that true Myanmar citizens are both Burman and, of course, Buddhist. That is why the citizenship law was introduced in 1982 to strip Rohingya Muslims of their citizenship, rendering many of them effectively stateless and making them foreigners in their own land. That hideous, racist, sectarian policy excluded minorities from the political process and limited the social and economic development of ethnic minority communities by curtailing their cultural and religious freedoms.
The attempt to erase the identity of anyone who is not both Burman and Buddhist has resulted in the most appalling oppression of religious minority communities. Notably, as we have heard, Rohingya Muslims and Christians have been the primary victims of this ethno-religious Burmese nationalism. As we just heard, this year the charity Open Doors declared that Myanmar has risen up its world watch list rankings, and is now deemed the 13th most dangerous place in the world in which to be a Christian. Since 2021, Open Doors has recorded a steep rise in murders, destruction of places of worship and forced displacement, and has now put Myanmar in the extreme category for religious persecution.
State-sponsored religious persecution—as we have heard from every speaker in this debate—has caused Rohingya Muslims to flee, predominantly over the border to refugee camps in Bangladesh, where they are having to endure some of the worst living conditions on the planet, because they are fleeing what the United Nations has described as an “ongoing genocide” at the hands of the Myanmar military. So fearful are they of returning that appalling squalor and overcrowded camps are deemed preferable to the fate that would await them should they return home. Displacement, murder, repression and widespread endemic gender-based sexual violence are every bit as real a threat there today as they were in 2017, when over 1 million Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh. It is worth remembering that in 2019, the United Nations described gender-based sexual violence as the hallmark of the Burmese military’s operations in Myanmar.
The Rohingya are stuck in what has been described as a hell on earth. For the benefit of Members who were not here the last time we debated Myanmar and the situation in Cox’s Bazar and Bangladesh, I will repeat what the journalist and documentary filmmaker Simon Reeve said after he visited one of those camps. He said it was
“like nothing I have seen anywhere on Planet Earth. This speaks of a Biblical exodus of an entire people terrorised into fleeing.”
Yet for those people, living in that unimaginable horror is deemed preferable and safer than returning home.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) is right that the situation for Rohingya Muslims living in the camps is only getting worse. Minister, that is in no small part due to the shameful decision by this Government to ape the previous Government and slash UK overseas aid, leaving Bangladesh—already one of the poorest countries in the world—to shoulder a massively disproportionate share of the costs of looking after more than 1 million refugees. When helpless, homeless refugees are dumped on impoverished countries, it leads to the crisis in Bangladesh that was alluded to earlier. We have a moral responsibility to do something about that.
As much as the Rohingya may wish to return home in a safe and dignified manner, such a return is not possible while the military in Myanmar is pursuing its reign of terror. The stark truth is that the Rohingya will be able to return home only when a Government committed to human rights, religious freedom and the rule of law are established. That prospect is unfortunately a long way off, because Myanmar, as we have heard so often, is in the grip of a man-made humanitarian crisis. The situation for the country’s religious minorities who have remained continues to worsen and the regime ramps up its persecution of those communities by attacking places of worship, forcibly conscripting minorities into its military, and continuing its genocide of the Rohingya Muslims.
As we also heard earlier, there are other armed players in this conflict who are also perpetrating abuses that disproportionately affect religious minorities—notably, the Rohingya Muslims and Christians. It is a dire situation. I desperately urge the Government to reassess the short-term, counterproductive and frankly inhumane decision to cut overseas aid; every single penny taken out of that aid pot has real-life, real-world consequences for men, women and children.
Although the return of UK aid would undoubtedly help considerably, so too would allowing refugees in Bangladesh the right to work and thereby to support themselves and their families. Of course I can understand why the Bangladesh Government would be reluctant to make legislative change that would, in their eyes, encourage 1 million or so refugees to stay within Bangladesh’s borders. But the reality is that these people cannot return home until it is safe for them to do so, and that is not happening any time soon.
Last month, I visited Thailand and Malaysia with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to meet many of those refugee communities who have been fleeing persecution—chiefly the Ahmadiyyas, Vietnamese Christians, Uyghurs, Chinese Christians and Iranian Christians, but also many more. Like Bangladesh, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. Legally, in Thailand, there is no such thing as a refugee, despite hundreds of thousands of them living there.
The largest group of refugees in Thailand are from Myanmar, and they have lived in the camps along Thailand’s northern border for decades. With no legal right to work they obviously make a living in the black market, but in recent months the Thai Government have recognised the reality that such people are unable to return home and could well be an economic asset, and so have loosened the rules to allow them to work legally in Thailand. Perhaps, at least, the Government of Bangladesh might look at that—and indeed, why would the UK Government not look at it as well? What is happening in Thailand could happen in Bangladesh, and here. Refugees can be that economic asset. Allowing them to work will allow them to contribute, better themselves and benefit us all.
I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I hope the Government can see that, although the persecution of these communities happens so far from our shores, we have a moral and a humanitarian obligation to help—because we absolutely, certainly do.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate, and for all his work. I also thank all the hon. Members, from across the parties, who have spoken in this debate with such clarity and conviction, and so powerfully.
Next month marks four years since Myanmar’s military junta launched its brutal coup against the country’s elected Government. In the years since, Myanmar has been plunged into a brutal, bloody civil war. The consequences have been devastating, with mass killings, widespread displacement, economic collapse and profound human suffering across the country. Myanmar’s military junta has long been the principal driver of repression, including in the sham elections, and particularly in the persecution of religious minorities. What we witness today in Myanmar is not random unrest between non-state militias; it is systematic state violence with airstrikes on civilian areas, arbitrary detention, torture and collective punishment. It is a deliberate, large-scale system of repression, which has deep roots.
For decades, the Rohingya Muslim population has been subjected to sustained persecution, stripped of citizenship, denied basic civil rights and subjected to repeated military attacks. Over 600,000 Rohingya remain trapped in Rakhine state, stateless, confined to camps and facing severe restrictions on movement, healthcare and livelihoods.
More than 1 million Rohingya have fled the country, primarily to neighbouring Bangladesh, as we have heard. They face appalling conditions: the largest refugee camp in the world is in Bangladesh, just across the Myanmar border. Christians in Myanmar have also faced growing repression. Around 4 million Christians live in the country, many of them in ethnic minority regions that have borne the brunt of military violence. Churches have been damaged or destroyed, religious leaders have been detained, and entire communities have been displaced by airstrikes and ground offensives. Those are clear violations of the most basic freedoms—freedom of belief, freedom of worship and freedom from fear.
That brings me to the central point that I want to make today. The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar does not occur in isolation; it is part of a far wider assault—an attack on not just specific communities but civilian society itself. Nearly a decade ago, when the Rohingya Muslims were subjected to large-scale military operations that drove them into a corner of the country and across borders, that moment should have been a turning point for international resolve. Instead, it became something else entirely. It became a test, and the world failed it.
What happened to the Rohingya was not an aberration but the tragic rehearsal of what was to come next. The tactics first deployed against the Rohingya, including collective punishment, mass displacement and the criminalisation of identity and dissent, have since been expanded and used by the junta against a broader section of Myanmar’s civil society. Today the junta targets not only particular ethnic or religious groups but anyone who stands outside, or stands up to, military control—pro-democracy activists, journalists, human rights defenders, teachers, doctors, nurses and aid workers. The common denominator is no longer faith or ethnicity; it is defiance, independence and the mere refusal to submit to a brutal military regime. The civilians’ bravery in the face of this is astonishing.
The humanitarian picture today is dire. Millions of people are internally displaced, and entire communities have been cut off from food, healthcare and shelter. Civilian infrastructure has been deliberately attacked; aid is obstructed; local humanitarian workers are criminalised; and starvation and displacement are used as weapons of war. This is a political strategy and a man-made humanitarian crisis, which brings me to the international response, particularly the UK’s. The case for action could not be clearer. There is an urgent need for cross-border humanitarian aid, for sustained support to local partners and for far less deference to junta permission that is never given in good faith.
However, the Government’s cuts to the aid budget, with spending projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027—the lowest level this century—pose dire problems for Myanmar. Four years on from the coup, 22 million people require humanitarian assistance. That rise in need has also been partly driven by overlapping crises, such as the devastating earthquake this year. The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has warned that 16 million people now require lifesaving assistance and protection, yet the programme budget for Myanmar fell in 2025-26 to £47 million.
The international response is failing to keep pace with the need. The UN humanitarian response plan for Myanmar is only 17% funded, a dramatic fall from the already inadequate 36% reached at the end of 2024. Does the Minister have plans to increase the assistance to Myanmar? Where does Myanmar sit in the bilateral priority list of the FCDO, and does that not underscore the point? Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, Bangladesh and Myanmar—I could go on and on. In the midst of all this conflict, why are the Government now cutting aid to such a low level? The Government must get back to their legal commitment of 0.7%. As the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) said, to pile conflict upon conflict makes us less secure.
The UN has found localisation extremely difficult, unlike the UK and FCDO, whose localised approach is very welcome. The UN agencies themselves acknowledge that Myanmar is a context in which local actors are indispensable, because international access is so severely restricted. Military interference through visa delays, travel authorisation refusals and access constraints has significantly hampered UN operations since the coup.
The UK has avoided some of those obstacles by consistently supporting a localised approach—funding local actors outside the UN system, working through intermediaries and supporting informal delivery models, as well as working with local partners, including in areas beyond military control. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that approach. However, continued cuts to funding will inevitably undermine localisation, particularly when local actors are left without sufficient backing from the UN system. Can the Minister lay out how that support will continue?
The Government’s sanctions regime also reflects a troubling lack of urgency. Sanctions have been piecemeal, slow and insufficiently co-ordinated with international partners. We need the Government to co-ordinate and enforce a new round of targeted sanctions, to cut the flow of funds and arms to the junta in Myanmar and of the aviation fuel that enables the military there to conduct airstrikes against civilians.
Key economic enablers of the junta remain untouched, while accountability for atrocity crimes remains distant and uncertain. If we are serious about protecting religious minorities and about defending democracy and civilian life, that must change. The Government must support international accountability efforts and name those responsible for atrocities, rather than hiding behind diplomatic caution. Why will the Government not expel Myanmar’s military attaché as the representative of a regime committing war crimes? Given that the UK remains the penholder on Myanmar at the UN Security Council, it is in a unique position to lead the global response to the crisis in the country.
It is disappointing how little sustained attention the crisis receives, both internationally and in this House—the only substantive debate about it in this Parliament followed the Government’s own statement on the earthquake. Will the Government seek a new resolution on Myanmar at the Security Council to stop attacks on civilians and on religious freedom?
The Government have stated that they stand in solidarity with those calling for a return to democracy in Myanmar and they have urged the military regime to engage in dialogue with opposition groups representing the Myanmar people, including the national unity Government. I would welcome an update from the Minister on what engagement has taken place with pro-democracy actors, including the national unity Government, and on what steps the UK has taken to support efforts to achieve a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it most.
Finally, if the junta were to fall—we have heard today how weak it is—is the UK prepared politically and operationally, with the requisite resource to respond quickly, to scale up humanitarian assistance and help support a civilian-led democratic transition in Myanmar?
The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar is not a side issue but a warning—a warning about what happens when authoritarian regimes learn that the world will look away: first from one group, then from everyone else. We owe it to the Rohingya, Christians and other religious minorities in Myanmar, and to the millions of ordinary people in the country who continue so bravely and against all odds to resist repression and to hope for a different future, to take action. We must stand with them, not step back.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
Like other Members, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his long-standing and tireless commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief around the world. This debate is the latest example of those efforts. Once again, he has brought before the House an issue of grave moral urgency and deep international concern, which too often escapes the sustained attention of hon. Members across this House. For that, he deserves our sincere thanks.
In my capacity as a shadow foreign affairs Minister, I have stood in this very place on a number of occasions to raise the vital importance of defending freedom of religion and belief. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the assault on the right to believe, to worship or simply to think freely is not receding. I regret to say that in many parts of the world it is intensifying, and Myanmar is the most tragic and alarming example of that. It is, sadly, a depressing way to start 2026: to hear that such tragic circumstances in a country continue in the second quarter of this century.
However, I find it reassuring that today we have heard from MPs from about six different political groups who all had the common theme of wanting to see the tragedy in Myanmar end. I thank all Members who have helped to play a part in that process over many years, some of whom have spoken today.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the importance of upholding the rights of religious minorities and about the need for international action in Myanmar. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hit on a very important point about the motivation behind all this, so there are still questions to be answered. Why is there such severe repression against religious minorities in that country? The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who served as a Minister until recently and who worked on this issue as a shadow Minister, spoke about the fragile situation on the border with Bangladesh and the importance of remembering that issue as part of the overall tragedy taking place in Myanmar.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for highlighting that the issue is not about one religion; it is about all religions that are persecuted. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians are all being persecuted, and he particularly highlighted the plight of the Rohingya. I was not aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) had been so involved in the Burma Campaign over the years. I commend him for that. He also spoke about the appalling humanitarian crisis and the tragic failure of the global community to highlight it more seriously. We look at so many other issues going on in the world, but we rarely talk about that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), made a similar point.
Finally, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) spoke about erasing identity and culture—exactly what is happening in Myanmar today—and Burmese nationalism. I think there is unity among all Members this afternoon, but there is a lot more to be said on this. Religious persecution is at the very centre of the wider conflict taking place in Myanmar. The military junta has deliberately targeted religious minorities—whether they are Muslims, Christians or others, as hon. Members this afternoon have mentioned—simply because of their faith, identity and ethnicity, which are so deeply intertwined in that country. The result is a campaign of terror that has displaced millions of innocent people and destroyed so many places of worship.
Independent human rights organisations such as Fortify Rights have documented deliberate aerial attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools, churches and hospitals, in the run-up to the sham elections, blatantly indicating how systematic and widespread the military junta’s violence is. The latest report shows multiple airstrikes targeting civilian areas, many of which may constitute war crimes under international law.
Muslim communities, particularly the Rohingya, continue to suffer what many have rightly described as crimes against humanity. Hundreds of thousands remain in refugee camps in Bangladesh, a nation that has its own international issues to overcome, while those still inside Myanmar endure what Human Rights Watch has described as apartheid-like conditions, arbitrary detention and systematic deprivation of their most basic human rights.
Christians, too, often from ethnic minority communities and most starkly in Chin state, have been brutally targeted. Churches have been bombed, clergy have been killed and congregations have been forced to flee into jungles or makeshift displacement camps. Nor has Myanmar’s religious and cultural patrimony been spared, with historic cathedrals and churches damaged or destroyed in a deliberate attempt to erase identity as well as faith. That amounts to a sustained pattern of persecution carried out by the Tatmadaw armed forces with impunity.
As a country, and particularly in this place, we cannot look at Myanmar without recognising our own historical connections to that country. During the period of British administration, Burma was, as it remains today, home to a remarkable tapestry of peoples, languages and faiths. In its latter years as a Crown colony, there was at least a recognition, imperfect though it was, that diverse communities could co-exist under the protection of shared institutions and the rule of law. That pluralism was and is very much still being violently dismantled by the current regime. The very sense of cultural multiplicity that once defined Burma is now treated by the military junta as a threat to be eradicated. That should matter to us in Britain, given our role in establishing what is now Myanmar but, perhaps more importantly, because Britain’s standing in the world rests on our willingness to uphold the values that helped to hold that country together, with the borders that it still has today, in the first place.
I acknowledge that the United Kingdom, under Governments of both colours, has taken a strong stance on Myanmar. Successive statements at the United Nations have rightly condemned the violence and reaffirmed support for freedom of religion or belief. However, we all know that in the second quarter of the 21st century, eloquent statements in international forums are not enough when entire communities are being erased before our eyes. The International Court of Justice case involving the Rohingya continues at a glacial pace while atrocities persist on the ground, so I say this to the Minister: what further support are the UK Government providing to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to ensure that evidence is preserved and that perpetrators are identified and, we hope, brought to justice?
Beyond judicial mechanisms, what discussions has the United Kingdom had with counterparts in the region, particularly countries such as China and India, to ensure that those responsible, particularly within Myanmar’s military leadership, face real political and diplomatic pressure today and not at some indeterminate point in the future? Action is required immediately. Despite the UK’s imposition of sanctions, including on aviation fuel suppliers, airstrikes against religious sites continue. Does the Minister believe that the current sanctions regime is sufficient, or should we go further? What concrete steps are being taken to close the loopholes—particularly on jet fuel, arms transfers and financial flows—that continue to enable these atrocious attacks?
The UK Government rightly state that freedom of religion or belief is a core human rights priority, but how is that reflected specifically in our Myanmar policy? Is there a dedicated strategy to support persecuted religious minorities both in Myanmar and among refugee populations in neighbouring countries? We know that aid is being deliberately blocked from reaching displaced religious minorities, particularly in ethnic and Christian-majority areas, so what pressure are the UK Government exerting, bilaterally and through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those for whom it is intended, without interference or manipulation from the junta?
Will the UK Government commit to raising once again at the UN Security Council the crisis facing religious minorities in Myanmar? Will the Minister work with international partners to build a stronger coalition in defence of freedom of religion or belief across south and south-east Asia more broadly? We have seen the United States take a strong stand in defence of persecuted Christians in countries such as Nigeria, and the US Congress’s work on freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar. Although the findings are grim, they have been instructive, so what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Washington? Is she pressing for deeper American engagement on this issue?
The United Kingdom has long been a world leader on freedom of religion or belief. When dealing with religious regions that have modern political foundations tracing back in part to this very building, I believe that we have a particular responsibility to show leadership—if not for the sake of those suffering today, to ensure that Britain is seen not as an irrelevant observer in global affairs, but as a nation that still stands up for justice, freedom and the rule of law, as our forebears have always done.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave at least two minutes at the end of the debate for the mover to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and powerful contributions.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there has been real consensus across the House today. With the continuing horror of the situation in Myanmar, it is important that we have a strong sense of our responsibilities in the international community. Given Britain’s history with Burma, we must do all we can to support Myanmar to move forward to a more positive future and to keep hope alive.
The persecution of religious minorities and the freedom of religion and belief are important areas that go across the work of the Foreign Office. Indeed, earlier this week I met our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief to talk about the overall strategy, and why it is so important that we uphold these values and continue to be champions for freedom of religion or belief across the world. I will respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised today, but first I will make a few opening points.
First, religious persecution in Myanmar is a grave violation of fundamental human rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) powerfully stated, we must speak with one voice in condemning these injustices and must work together to ensure accountability and protection for the most vulnerable, so let me say that the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to defending the freedom of religion and belief for all. As hon. Members have rightly highlighted, Myanmar’s religious minorities have faced decades of persecution, from discriminatory laws such as the 1982 citizenship law to long-standing restrictions on worship, on movement and on citizenship. Indeed, since the coup in 2021, religious freedoms have deteriorated even further. This debate has raised the issues of attacks on religious sites, confiscations of places of worship, widespread destruction, families torn apart and communities displaced.
The regime continues to exploit religious tensions, particularly in southern Shan and Rakhine, where ethnoreligious nationalism fuels hostility, particularly towards Christian and Muslim minorities. We are also seeing the military weaponising online spaces to spread hate. The UN’s independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar has highlighted how disinformation has driven identity-based violence, including against the Rohingya, as the hon. Member for Strangford has referred to. For the first time, we have seen brutal violations taking place in predominantly Buddhist regions. Sagaing is now one of the hardest-hit areas, facing daily airstrikes, village burnings and mass displacement.
In the face of those challenges, I want to address some of the points that were raised in the debate, particularly around the support we are giving. It is the case that, in the light of unprecedented global humanitarian need and the current fiscal situation, the UK has adjusted its annual official development assistance allocations. However, the plight of those in need and fleeing Myanmar remains a UK priority.
In 2024-25, the UK increased humanitarian support to Myanmar to £66.5 million, and the UK is providing £80 million this financial year. This year, as we provide that £80 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we are supporting emergency healthcare and education for the most vulnerable. We are also working very closely with faith-based organisations, which are trusted actors with deep community ties that are often first on the scene in crises.
UK-funded education initiatives are helping to make schools more inclusive by supporting minority languages and cultures, so that every child feels able to learn. It is important to reiterate the point that no UK aid goes to the Myanmar military. This year, through the John Bunyan fund, we have supported organisations that tackle hate speech, misinformation and online harms that drive discrimination and violence. We have also trained religious and community leaders to challenge harmful narratives, strengthen civil society and develop practical tools to help communities respond.
Jim Shannon
Just one thing to confirm, Minister, and I think it is something that each and every one of us who has spoken has raised: we have all highlighted the issue that the aid the Government are sending to Myanmar is not getting to the refugees, that the junta—the military—is stopping it and is an obstacle to it getting there. We are all seeking an assurance that the aid will get to the refugees, which is where it is needed, and that the junta will not try to stop it. Please.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member is right to highlight what the junta continues to try to do. That is why it is incredibly important that we are continuing to work to make sure that humanitarian aid is not prevented from reaching where it needs to go. It is also why it is so important that we continue to work with local organisations and actors on the ground, so that we are able, as much as possible, to reach the frontline through trusted organisations with deep community ties. I am happy to continue dialogue with the hon. Member on how we are working in Myanmar on these very difficult challenges.
I also want to mention the incredibly important role that Bangladesh is playing, and to commend Bangladesh for the accommodation of 1 million refugees. We know the challenge that has been. The UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis response in Bangladesh, contributing £447 million since 2017, including an additional £27 million announced in September, just a few months ago.
My colleague Baroness Chapman was fairly recently in Bangladesh, talking to the Government, visiting Cox’s Bazar and looking at what more can be done to support further skills development and other productive activity for those in the refugee camps. She also looked at how we can keep alive the hope that it will one day be safe for return, and how we continue to work as an international community towards that future.
Over 150,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, however, have been confined to camps for over a decade, with no freedom of movement, no civil liberties and limited access to services. Since 2017, the UK has provided £57 million in assistance to Rohingya communities in Rakhine, delivering water, food, cash, sanitation and health support. We continue to press the regime to stop attacks on communities and places of worship.
Sanctions have been raised by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), who I want to thank for catching me in the House in relation to this issue. Since the coup, we have imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and 39 entities, including those responsible for human rights violations. We are using our role at the United Nations Security Council to keep this firmly on the agenda. At our last meeting, we condemned attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
We also continue to keep all evidence and potential designations under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate in this debate about potential future sanctions and designations, as to do so could reduce their impact. However, I say to my hon. Friend and other Members that we are clear that sanctions remain an important tool to maintain pressure on the Myanmar military. Since the coup, the sanctions that I mentioned have targeted the regime’s access to finance, arms and equipment.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister mentioned the UN Security Council, and we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) about what he perceives to be a potential weakness in the regime, which is being propped up by outside forces. Is it true that Russia has been most supportive of the regime, has supplied most of its aerial capability to bomb, strafe and kill civilians, and has been blocking moves against the regime on the Security Council? What assessment have the Government made of the survivability of the regime without military support from Russia?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I will make some references to the UN Security Council in my further remarks, so I will hopefully be able to address some of his points.
Seema Malhotra
I am concerned about time, so I will continue my remarks.
We continue to raise discrimination against minority communities at the UN Human Rights Council. We also know that pressure alone is not enough, and that there must be accountability, which is essential for breaking the cycle of impunity and violence. That is why the UK has provided over £900,000 to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to collect and preserve evidence for future prosecutions. We have also established the Myanmar witness project to verify open-source evidence, and to train civil society organisations to do the same. We will go on to advocate for increased protections for minority groups, and for inclusivity, with opposition actors. That remains critical for a future transition out of conflict, and it is key to delivering the aspirations of the people of Myanmar.
I want to make a couple of remarks. First, in relation to criminal investigations, which the hon. Member for Strangford referenced, the UK is clear that there must be accountability for atrocities committed in Myanmar. We condemn ongoing serious human rights violations by the military regime, and those actions require further scrutiny. The UK is supportive of any attempts to bring those issues before the ICC. We support the prosecutor’s initiative to investigate these acts. It remains our assessment that there is not sufficient support among United Nations Security Council members for an ICC referral, but as penholder on Myanmar at the United Nations Security Council we convened five meetings in 2025 and will continue to maintain international focus on the crisis.
In 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged breaches of the genocide convention, alongside Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Denmark. It remains the UK’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by a competent court or tribunal. The UK’s intervention at the ICJ presents legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention, and we are closely monitoring these proceedings, which begin on Monday. We reaffirm our commitment to accountability and to the international legal order. We also stress the Court’s vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Seema Malhotra
I am sorry, but I have to wrap up.
I know that there are matters that I have not been able to address today, but I am sure that we will continue to have these debates. In conclusion, the courage of Myanmar’s communities in the face of persecution must remain at the forefront of our minds. I thank those in the Burma Campaign and others who are here today, who continue to bring a lot of information to Parliament. The UK Government and the UK will continue to stand with Myanmar communities, defending freedom of religion and belief, supporting those at risk and pressing for accountability, and we will continue to work internationally for a more just and peaceful future for Myanmar.
Jim Shannon
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including those who have now left. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), as always, very clearly highlighted the issue of the Rohingya Muslims; the fragile peace, if it is such a thing as peace; and the fragile conditions in which they live.
We all look forward to contributions from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), because they are always very applicable to the issues. His question was who is behind this and what their purpose is. Quite clearly, the junta is focusing on race and religious beliefs.
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in her place. I thank her for her well-known interest in the issue. We can almost see how de-stressed she is as a result of not being the Minister any more, but we very much welcome her contribution. She referred to the need for sanctions, and I will come to that point in a wee minute.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) voiced the intelligent thought that the junta is holding power through fear, propped up by others outside. A really important question, which may have been raised in the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East, is “If the junta falters, do we step in or does somebody else?” If the Minister does not mind, perhaps she could come back to us on that point.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) told me earlier today about his particular interest in the subject. We thank him for his contribution and his interest for all those years as a Labour party member. He referred to the fact that the elections will not be free or democratic, and to the need for sanctions.
My good friend the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), who brings great knowledge of the world to these debates, referred to sexual violence. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) spoke about mass killing and economic collapse. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), put things very clearly in his contribution and referred to perpetrators being made accountable.
My very last ask is whether the Government will commit to publishing regular assessments of freedom of religious belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring—I think we need an independent person to do that. Once again, I thank the Minister and everyone else for their contributions.
Business and Trade
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden
Last week I met Community union representatives representing steelworkers across Wales, including in Llanwern—I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They support the welcome movement on energy costs, and they know that the Government are working on procurement and that there will be a steel strategy, but the most urgent ask is on the EU’s steel import quotas and tariffs. Can the Minister please give us an update on those?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue of Llanwern; sometimes we focus on some of the other steelworks in the UK, but this is about the whole sector. I met Commissioner Šefčovič yesterday; we are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard, but we also need to ensure that the UK has a steel safeguard after the end of June. We will do everything we can to ensure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the UK, including in Llanwern.
[Official Report, 11 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 480.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
… I met Commissioner Šefčovič yesterday; we are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU trade measures, but we also need to ensure that the UK has such trade measures after the end of June. This will ensure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the UK, including in Llanwern.
Other Correction
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Rural Communities
The following extract is from the Opposition day debate on rural communities on 7 January 2026.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
A further threat is to the shooting industry. Shooting directly contributes £3.3 billion to the rural economy and £9 billion to the wider economy. Last year we saw a staggering 245% increase in shotgun and firearms certificate bills. What is worrying the shooting community at present, however, is the moving of shotguns from section 2 to section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, which will involve a huge amount of extra bureaucracy. A petition opposing the move, organised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, now has well over a million signatories. I urge the Government to reconsider that damaging proposal.
[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 350.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown):
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
…A petition opposing the move, organised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, now has well over 100,000 signatories. I urge the Government to reconsider that damaging proposal.
Memorandum of Understanding between the ICO and the Government
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
This Government are today publishing a memorandum of understanding between the Information Commissioner’s Office and HMG.
It is essential that we have strong public trust in the Government’s protection of sensitive personal information. This memorandum of understanding sets out a shared understanding of how Government and the ICO will work towards better Government data security and use.
The memorandum of understanding will help ensure that the measures we have in place to protect sensitive data are robust and support this Government’s ambition to use new technologies to transform public services, create a modern digital Government, and drive economic growth.
I have placed a copy of the memorandum of understanding between the Information Commissioner’s Office and HM Government in the Library of each House. The memorandum of understanding will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1228]
SSEN Transmission Orkney Link
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I wish to inform the House that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero intends to undertake a contingent liability under the statutory spending authority under section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It is a bespoke, time-limited, capped policy indemnity offered by the UK Government to SSEN Transmission to satisfy the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s permit requirements for SSENT’s Orkney transmission link project, under the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018. Upgrading and expanding the grid is critical to the Government’s clean power mission and growth objectives. The project was granted initial regulatory approval by Ofgem in 2019, and final regulatory approval in 2023, and was awarded a marine licence by the Scottish Government in 2020, which was extended in 2022 and 2024. This indemnity will enable the project to proceed, and avoid potential delays, by satisfying a regulatory requirement, subject to SSENT obtaining the necessary permits, ensuring long-overdue progress in connecting Orkney to the GB transmission grid. This critical grid infrastructure will unlock significant clean power capacity that Orkney possesses—including community renewable projects—and bolster security of supply for the islands, helping support a stronger local economy and delivering a more efficient grid for GB consumers which is fit for the future.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability that is novel, contentious or repercussive to present Parliament with a minute, in line with “Managing Public Money”. In line with this guidance, the liability will not be entered into until 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed following the laying of the minute.
The indemnity covers the extremely unlikely scenario where SEPA determines that an intervention is required, by virtue of SSENT’s construction activity resulting in a statistically significant increase in irradiated particles washed up onshore from disturbing irradiated particles on the seabed, and that the required intervention is beyond the scope of the Nuclear Restoration Services’ existing particle monitoring and recovery programme. The indemnity is time-limited for 20 years. Due to the extremely remote probability of this risk materialising, it is highly unlikely that this full cost would crystalise. HM Treasury has approved this proposal.
A departmental minute has today been laid before Parliament setting out full details of this contingent liability. In accordance with “Managing Public Money”, the liability will not be entered into until 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed following the laying of the minute. Subject to satisfaction of the relevant conditions precedent, the Orkney indemnity will become live as soon as practicable after 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed following the laying of the minute.
[HCWS1227]
Farming: Profitability and Sustainability
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Farmers are at the heart of our national life—for what they produce, the communities they sustain, and the landscapes and heritage they protect.
Since becoming Secretary of State, I have seen first hand the resilience farmers show in the face of increasingly unpredictable weather and volatile markets, their innovation in finding new ways to farm productively and sustainably in a changing climate, and their determination to build businesses that they can pass on to the next generation.
Today, at the Oxford farming conference, I have announced a package of measures that show that we are serious about partnership with the farming sector, that we are committed to giving farmers clarity and stability, and that we are backing farmers to grow their businesses with confidence and resilience.
We recognise that when British farming thrives, consumers benefit through affordable, high-quality food on their tables. We are ensuring that modern British agriculture is productive, profitable and sustainable.
This was a key theme in the recommendations from Baroness Batters’ farming profitability review. In response to the review, we are establishing the farming and food partnership board, which will give farmers and food businesses a seat at the table when policy is developed. This is part of our ongoing commitment to work in partnership with farmers to make decisions that stand for the long term—not just for the life of one Parliament, but for the future of British farming.
At the heart of this partnership is listening. I have listened to farmers and stakeholders about their concerns on proposed changes to inheritance tax. That is why we are increasing the inheritance tax threshold for agricultural and business property relief from £1 million to £2.5 million. This means that couples can now pass on up to £5 million without paying inheritance tax on their assets. That is on top of the existing allowances such as the nil rate band. Around 85% of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those also claiming business property relief, will pay no more inheritance tax in 2026-27. The reforms will still ensure that the wealthiest estates do not receive unlimited relief.
Today’s package of announcements include:
An update on the sustainable farming incentive—This includes our plans to simplify the scheme and make it more focused, with fewer actions and less complexity. Previously, 90% of SFI spending went on fewer than 40 of the 102 actions available. A quarter of SFI money goes to just 4% of farms. This is not fair. We will improve fairness and accessibility, including by initially opening the scheme to small farms and those without an existing agreement. We are committing to greater stability following lessons learned from last year, including regular updates on uptake. These reforms will also help us to meet our ambitious environmental improvement plan target to double the number of farms delivering for wildlife, while recognising that food production is the core of farmer’s businesses. SFI needs to work alongside food production, not displace it, so we will also review how much land can be put into certain actions and review payment rates for others.
£30 million Government investment in the Farmer Collaboration Fund, funding peer-to-peer networks and advice—We are developing a new approach that will provide funding for existing and new farmer groups and networks. It will help those groups to connect with experts and create strong partnerships on everything from environmental action to business growth.
A long-term transformation of England’s upland areas—Our uplands provide over 70% of our drinking water, support rural livelihoods and are home to precious wildlife and beautiful landscapes; and they produce food in some of the most challenging conditions anywhere in the country. For too long, upland communities have faced a perfect storm of economic fragility, social isolation and environmental pressures. We want to change that. Over the last year, we have started working with social entrepreneur Dr Hilary Cottam on a new approach—an approach where we get out on the ground and talk directly to upland communities. This has been the beginning of what is a long-term partnership, starting with communities in Dartmoor, then Cumbria. Working with Hilary, our next step will be to develop a place-based approach for what these communities need, co-designing solutions to specific problems—for example, by developing a common understanding of how land can be best used for food production and the public good. Together, we will look at pooling public, private and third sector resources, laying the foundations for new income streams, and creating the skills and networks that let communities lead their own transformation.
Extending the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme for another three years, with £30 million in funding next year—This locally led programme has farmers and FiPL advisers working side-by-side to deliver projects tailored to their landscapes. This extension means farmers in our most precious landscapes can continue delivering for nature, climate and their communities.
We will continue to work alongside farmers to deliver these changes through our new farming and food partnership board, through peer-to-peer networks, through community-led change, and through engagement on the detailed changes to SFI.
We will provide the certainty farmers need to plan, giving clear timelines and a clear way forward with the farming roadmap later this year.
And we will deliver growth built on strong foundations: profitable farming and a thriving environment—not as a trade-off, but as two sides of the same coin.
[HCWS1230]
Murder and Manslaughter Abroad: Family Information Guide (England and Wales)
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am today announcing the publication of the family information guide for families bereaved by murder and manslaughter abroad.
I recognise how deeply distressing and traumatic such events are, and the Government are committed to ensuring that such victims can access the help that they need. This guidance sets out the support available from agencies and specialist services in England or Wales.
Until now, there has been no single, victim-oriented guide, which has often led to challenges for families in understanding what is available to them. This new guidance consolidates existing information as to the services available to support families, and signposts support in a way that is clear and accessible. Through this guidance, we aim to improve awareness of the support available, offering reassurance to families at a difficult time.
The guidance sets out:
What families can expect in the immediate aftermath of a death abroad, including initial contact and support from agencies in England and Wales;
The ongoing support available to family members to help them through this difficult time and which meets their individual needs. This includes access to emotional support, legal guidance, financial assistance and referrals to specialist services.
The roles and responsibilities of agencies and support services with which families may engage, in order to ensure families understand who is involved, what each agency does and how they can help.
Clear information on how to access services and what to expect at each stage of the process.
I am grateful for the commitment of Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council in preparing this guidance.
I also wish to thank the Victims Commissioner’s Office and the charity Murdered Abroad for their invaluable support in making this guidance as helpful as possible for victims, and for their continued commitment to improving services for bereaved families.
I pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, whose advocacy for families bereaved by murder and manslaughter abroad was instrumental in shaping this guidance.
The guidance will be available online, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/murder-and-manslaughter-abroad-family-information-guide
[HCWS1229]
Pavement Parking: Consultation Response
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
This statement provides the House with an update on steps the Government are taking to tackle pavement parking. In short, we are giving local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking more effectively, while ensuring consistency, clarity, and fairness for all road users.
I am today announcing the publication of the Government response to the 2020 public consultation, “Pavement parking: options for change”. The response demonstrates our commitment to improving transport users’ experience, ensuring that our roads and pavements are safe, reliable, and inclusive.
The Government are taking forward a new, devolved approach to pavement parking, reflecting our commitment to decisions being made closer to the communities they affect. Local leaders know their communities best, so they are in the strongest position to meet local needs effectively. Our overarching objective to make pavements accessible and safe remains unchanged, but rather than introducing a “one size fits all” national prohibition, which was one of the consultation options, we will instead enable local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking across their areas at the next legislative opportunity.
In strategic authority areas outside London, the power will be vested in the SA as the local transport authority. In non-SA areas, the power will be vested in the LTA, which is either the unitary authority or county council. This will support more responsive and inclusive transport planning in the interests of local communities.
In the meantime, secondary legislation will be introduced in 2026 to enable local authorities to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement. This provides a practical and proportionate interim solution, allowing councils to act where pavement parking is observed by uniformed civil enforcement officers. This power will sit alongside existing traffic regulation order making powers, enabling councils to enforce pavement parking restrictions both where TROs are in place and in other areas where obstruction occurs. The Department will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in using this power.
Taken together, these steps will give local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking effectively and fairly in their areas, and I commend the Government response to the House.
[HCWS1226]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, in the admittedly unlikely event that there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sounding of the Division Bells.
AI Systems: Risks
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that advanced AI development remains safe and controllable, given the recent threat update warning from the Director General of MI5 that there are “potential future risks from non-human, autonomous AI systems which may evade human oversight and control”.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the most pressing issue facing humanity: the advent of superintelligence. I am particularly grateful to have had the support of ControlAI, a company working in this area, in preparing this speech.
Several weeks ago, MI5 Director-General Ken McCallum warned in his annual lecture about
“risks from non-human … AI systems which may evade human oversight and control”.
But this warning only follows on from Nobel Prize winners, leading AI scientists and CEOs of AI companies that:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority”.
In my opinion, it should be the global priority because of the seriousness of the situation.
The fact is that the leading AI companies are racing and competing with each other to develop superintelligent AI systems, despite the risks they acknowledge that such systems pose to humanity, possibly as early as 2030. For example, the CEO of Anthropic, which as many noble Lords will know is one of the leading AI companies, has assessed the chance of AI destroying humanity at between 10% and 25%. Most worryingly, AI companies are developing machines that can autonomously improve themselves, possibly leading to a superintelligence explosion.
The AI companies are in fact bringing into existence, for the first time, an entity that is more intelligent than humans, which is obviously extremely serious. People talk about pulling the plug out, but they simply would not allow us to pull the plug out. I do not know whether any noble Lords have seen a wonderful film about all this called “Ex Machina”, where the AI does not allow the plug to be pulled out.
In the face of these threats, I urge the Government to take the following steps: first, to publicly recognise that superintelligence poses an extinction threat to humanity; secondly, for the UK to prevent the development of superintelligence on its soil; and, thirdly, for the UK to resume its leadership in AI safety and to champion an international agreement to prohibit the development of superintelligent systems.
If noble Lords can believe it, I was terribly young when I first spoke on this subject: I was here in my 20s as a hereditary Peer. I have had a lifelong interest in this area after reading a book called The Silicon Idol by a brilliant Oxford astrophysicist, and I spoke about my concerns all those years ago. When I spoke on this subject two years ago, I quoted the well-known words of Dylan Thomas, which many noble Lords will recognise:
“Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
That, of course, is the dying of the human light. But now I will add WB Yeats’s equally famous poem:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”.
I devoutly ask the Government and the Minister that they now be full of conviction and passionate intensity in protecting the UK and humanity from the risks—including extinction—of superintelligence, which, as we have heard, is being developed by the AI companies in competition with each other. I fear that we may have a window of only, say, five years in which to do this. I thank noble Lords for listening to me, and I very much look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax for securing this very important debate. We are already seeing the potential of artificial intelligence being realised as a driving force throughout this country. Businesses are profiting from it, and the country as a whole is benefiting. The United Kingdom has positioned itself well to exploit the benefits of this new technology, with only the United States and China being ahead of the UK in total investment into AI.
With this growing industry come the external threats and risks of a new unregulated technology. National security is perhaps the most pressing issue, but every week there is a new story in which AI has been used for malicious ends. Whether because of deepfake images or fraud, it is clear that the technology employed needs appropriate oversight.
The last Conservative Government were committed to ensuring that the UK becomes an AI superpower with thorough safety rules. As Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak hosted the AI Safety Summit, which saw the signing of the Bletchley declaration, bringing academia and industry together with the representatives of 28 countries. The AI Safety Institute was launched, set up to test new types of AI before and after they are released. The institute now has more researchers than anywhere else in the world and provides the safety check on new technology without stunting innovation.
The question remains as to how this Government will eventually seek to regulate artificial intelligence. To give AI companies complete free rein would be imprudent, but the Government’s current approach has not established business confidence. Despite promising to bring forth binding regulations on the most powerful AI models, the Government have stalled. Regulation was supposed to be introduced this parliamentary Session but, as we approach Prorogation, the policy is still yet to be seen. On the one hand, companies are expected to prepare for potentially heavy-handed measures, yet on the other they are left in a state of flux. That is not the way to encourage growth in a booming industry.
The Prime Minister has described his inheritance as world leading. It would be foolish to squander that, yet the Government are at risk of doing so. The Government must implement policies that safeguard national interests and prevent AI being used for crimes, yet at the same time promote the expansion and innovation of the technology that will do so much to define the future of our economy.
The AI Opportunities Action Plan presents a chance to build on the Conservative Government’s legacy. Its recommendations include bolstering the AI Safety Institute in a way that does not impede growth and investing in research and development for the evolution of new assurance tools. These measures would promote business confidence while ensuring a level of AI safety.
I hope the Minister can assure your Lordships that the Government will seize this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing their plans from him.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, on raising what is rightly a fundamental question of our time: the risk of AI systems becoming more powerful than their human creators. Advanced AI does not become unsafe in a vacuum; it becomes unsafe by design when it is developed without accountability, driven by profit incentives of private actors and embedded in infrastructure that the state can neither inspect nor exit. Alongside concerns of runaway capability is the risk of dependency. Long before any dramatic accident or attack, we risk a growing reliance on a narrow set of foreign-owned technologies, leaving the UK unable to act as a sovereign state with values, choices and technologies of its own.
Just this week, the Ministry of Defence awarded a £240 million contract for “critical operational decision-making support” to Palantir. The issue here is not one company but a pattern of outsourcing our national infrastructure to American firms, backed by a US Administration whose national security strategy states plainly: “In everything we do, we are putting America first”.
Across the economy, we have normalised deep vendor lock-in to US companies to the point where security, critical industries and sensitive government departments cannot credibly switch suppliers, even as the risks or the terms of engagement shift. One security expert recently described it to me as economic warfare, where they create strategic advantage by advancing their domestic industry and technology while simultaneously degrading the same capacity in adversaries and allies alike. Where the state cannot inspect, audit or exit the systems that shape its decisions or handle sensitive data, it has no sovereignty.
The US and China are determinedly ahead, but many AI experts believe that the next phase of AI will favour systems that are reliable, auditable and governed by understood rules. That is where the United Kingdom has an opportunity.
There is not time today to set out a sovereign strategy for AI. But in systems that shape our defence, policing, health service and democratic decision-making, sovereignty must be the default, with onshore audit and assurance, procurement that builds domestic capability, control over strategic pinch-points and the ultimate power to say no. I join the noble Lord in asking for greater autonomy and power for the AI Security Institute.
AI will not evade human control because it suddenly becomes clever; it will evade control because we have designed systems in which no one is responsible, no one can see clearly and no one can intervene in time.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, on securing this question for short debate on such a timely issue. AI is an incredible development for many reasons—R&D, innovation, economic growth, productivity, faster health diagnoses and many other areas. However, this must be balanced with a regulatory environment which allows and encourages all those positive things and provides safeguards against harms. We must be risk-aware, and I hope that the Minister will be able, in closing this debate, to set out where the Government are with their risk analysis and action plan to deal with those risks.
Two sorts of harm can occur with autonomous AI systems. The first is intentional harm, which I hope could be identified and regulated in a straightforward manner. It is the second type of harm—unintentional or reckless harm—which may be more difficult to detect and, therefore, to regulate. So-called superintelligent AI is the riskiest type of AI. Sometimes, as the MI5 director, Kenneth McCallum noticed, it would be reckless to ignore.
Serious harms from AI have already begun to materialise. Before Christmas, I asked the Education Minister in the House a question about the fact that toys with AI, such as speaking teddy bears, were unregulated and had the potential to be very dangerous indeed to very young children. If children interact with AI chatbots and toys instead of their parents, guardians and friends, that could lead to serious harms. There have been documented cases of health deterioration and tragic instances where young people have taken their lives after forming attachments to these systems.
Modern AI systems, I understand, are not built in a piece-by-piece fashion, like a machine, but grown. That means that no one, not even the initial AI developers, understand the AI they create. That is frightening indeed.
Geoffrey Hinton the Nobel Prize-winning British scientist has warned that humanity has never before encountered anything with intellectual or cognitive abilities superior to our own, and that we simply do not know what a world with smarter-than-human AI would look like, much less how to manage or grow it safely.
At a recent conference in Kuala Lumpur on responsible AI—where one of the hosts works for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—a joint declaration was issued calling for international co-operation to establish global readiness for the responsible use of AI in the common interest of humanity. The declaration urged parliaments to, among other things, set common rules and regulatory frameworks. I urge His Majesty’s Government to look at that declaration. Hoping for the best and that AI companies have the best of intentions is not an appropriate strategy. I hope that Labour, as it said it would in its manifesto, will look to developing a regulatory environment. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron for securing this hugely important debate. Like other noble Lords, I very much acknowledge the transformative potential of AI, not least in areas such as medicine.
However, there are dangers. We would be mad to ignore them because many of the same people who built this technology—people who have won Nobel Prizes and Turing Awards—are warning that AI poses an extinction risk to humanity. Hundreds of AI experts recently co-signed a letter that said:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
Among the signatories, you will see the names of Sam Altman—CEO of OpenAI, as noble Lords will know—and Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the godfather of AI.
A separate letter signed by Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, among many others, reads:
“AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity”.
It also calls for a moratorium on the next generation of AI until we know more about it. These people cannot be dismissed as Luddites or technophobes. They are the architects of this brave new world. They recognise that superintelligent AI is far more powerful than any of us can understand and has the capacity to overwhelm us.
It is not just that we do not understand where things will end up; we do not even understand where things are today. The CEO of Anthropic, one of the world’s largest AI companies, admitted:
“Maybe we … understand 3% of how”
AI systems work. That is not that reassuring. We have already had a glimpse of what losing control looks like; for example, in an experiment, an Anthropic AI system attempted to blackmail its managing engineer when told that it was going to be shut down.
However, although so many AI experts and AI bosses are blowing the whistle, Governments are miles behind; in my view, our Government need to step up. They can start by acknowledging the existential risk of advanced AI and joining the numerous UK parliamentarians—including many in this Room today—who have called for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence unless and until we know how it can be controlled.
Finally, there are a number of important choke points in the supply chain that potentially allow the opportunity to monitor and control it. The most advanced AI systems depend on state-of-the-art chips produced by a scarce supply of lithography machines. The chips are then installed into massive data centres, including some being built right now here in the UK. This raises some questions. Who should have access to those chips? Should data centres be required to include emergency shutdown mechanisms, as with nuclear power plants?
I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject but there are big questions that need answering. The Government need to get down to the job of addressing these questions before we are left scrambling for retroactive solutions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, for securing this debate. I begin from a position of some scepticism. As many experts say, there is a great deal of hype around AGI—so-called human-level intelligence—but increasing numbers of experts are saying that, unless we get to at least physically embodied intelligence, the large language model-type approach will never get us to that point.
However, my intervention is about a different risk from the generative AI being promoted so much now: resilience. It starts with an incident that is not about AI at all. I shall take noble Lords to Berlin on Saturday, where 45,000 households—including some 2,000 businesses, four hospitals, 74 care homes and 20 schools—found themselves without power. It was not until Wednesday that a significant number of those were reconnected. Unsurprisingly, in Berlin there is now a lot of discussion about vulnerability and today, our own local think tank, the Council on Geostrategy, is highlighting how by cutting just 60 undersea cables, or a percentage of those, we could see a 99% cut in data flows. Imagine the financial impacts and the impacts in societal chaos.
To make this practical, I note that the Government are funding Northumberland County Council, through the £200 million flood and coastal innovation programmes, to trial a flood prediction service for six catchments in that county that are particularly vulnerable to flash floods. Such flashy catchments have a big problem with traditional models of flood warning, so maybe AI can provide the solution. But of course, that is dependent on electricity, data flows and cyber systems that are functional and have not been hit by some kind of malevolent force.
More than that, what kind of data are we relying on? Is it spoiled or polluted data? It is not impossible to imagine that being through human agency. I see that Northumberland is also trialling the use of AI in considering flood risk in planning applications. There could be a lot of money at risk there. Even if there is not an active agent, is it taking adequate account of the changing weather resulting from the climate emergency? Maybe with enough data it could allow for that, but would it also allow for changing human behaviour, ageing populations or loss of trust in authority?
There is a temptation to regard any judgment made by a computer system, even more any judgment by something labelled as AI, as somehow infallible or at least preferable to on-the-ground human experience and knowledge. That is a by-product of far too many people at the head of such AI programmes regarding themselves as somehow superior to other human beings—but they are not. They are just as fallible and multiply their fallibility in their systems.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, for giving us this valuable opportunity today. When, within our lifetimes, we experienced the introduction of the world wide web and the internet, we could see the opportunities that that technology brought—but it also brought harms, something we have learned far too late to deal with. We debate almost every week in the Chamber how we are going to deal with those harms. If intelligence is about anything, it is about learning from that past experience and using that knowledge to avoid repeating the mistakes with AI. It is not Luddite to express the concerns that have prompted this debate today on the safety and development of AI. I believe we are already behind the curve.
I am not an expert on this subject but, as an older person, I have concern for future generations, not just in my own family but in this country and the world, and that is not an exaggeration. It is not just on a domestic basis that we see this; it is interesting that we have seen some of those organisations that one might think have a vested interest already expressing their concern. We have received a briefing for this debate from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, and it is interesting that it should say:
“AI safety and the assessment of risk must go beyond the physical, to look at financial, societal, reputational and risks to mental health, amongst other harms”.
If that is what industry is telling us the potential harms are, we should already know how we are going to control it.
I hope that today’s debate will ensure that, when the Minister responds, he will give us some information not only about what the Government are intending but about what timescale the Government are working to, because clearly industry also thinks that we are behind the curve. The institution also talks about standards and transparency, and says:
“Industry standards should not only aim to be met but exceeded”.
How rare is it for us ever in this House to hear industry say on regulation that we should exceed the norm? From what we have already heard in this debate, there is a clear identity as to why we should do that.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax. I agree with almost everything he said, bar one aspect that I think was optimistic, which is that we have a five-year window—I fear it might be even less than that. I also agree with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, about the impact of AI chatbots on the well-being of children, but like all of us I am even more worried about the risks of development of superintelligence.
I can discard some of my quotes because your Lordships have heard them already, so I can be a bit briefer, but I will give another Anthropic quote from Jack Clark, who is the co-founder and head of policy. He said:
“We have what I think of as appropriate anxiety and a fear of hubris. This is a huge responsibility that shouldn’t be left only to companies. One of the things that we advocate for is for sensible policy frameworks that make our development practices transparent. I think a larger swath of society is going to want to make decisions about these systems. It would be a failure for only the companies to be making all of the judgment calls about how to build this”.
If the AI executives are worried, I am worried and we all should be worried. Although the AI Security Institute is a step in the right direction, despite manifesto commitments, as your Lordships have already heard, we do not yet have legislation, and without a legislative framework we are really at significant risk.
The AI company executives talk about how they are taking decisions to try to teach their AI systems to value human life above the AI superintelligence, but they should not be the ones having to think that is a good thing to do. We must act before we reach the point of no return and the genie is out of the bottle.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, on bringing forward this important debate on the impact of artificial intelligence. I have read deeply concerning reports from AI companies. For example, the chief scientist of Anthropic, who has already been referred to—that is the company behind the AI Claude—told the Guardian that if his company and others succeed at making AIs able to improve themselves without human assistance, it could be the moment that humans end up losing control.
Undoubtedly, as other noble Members have referred to right across the Committee, AI is important and provides certain benefits in the whole medical field. But there is a need for proper regulation and accountability mechanisms, and we need to see the legislative framework. Therefore, in that regard, can my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench provide us with an update from the Government’s perspective in relation to the regulatory environment, to regulations and to those accountability mechanisms? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, already referred to that, and others right across this Room today have referred to the need for the legislative framework.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can provide us with some detail, because there are warning signs. Even AI companies appear to agree with the scale of the risk. For example, the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind signed a statement that others have referred to today about the extinction risk posed by AI. This is sobering and opens the question of what is being done by these companies to address these risks. My understanding, thanks to helpful briefings by ControlAI policy advisers, is that no technical solution is in sight, so maybe my noble friend the Minister can provide us with some detail from the governmental perspective in relation to that matter.
I realise that small steps are being made here, but nothing that amounts to a full guarantee that superintelligence, should it get developed, will stay under control. OpenAI seems to agree, stating:
“Obviously, no one should deploy superintelligent systems without being able to robustly align and control them, and this requires more technical work”.
I look forward to the answers from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax for bringing this debate and for his continued efforts on this topic. I shall focus my remarks on so-called advanced general artificial intelligence, AGI. I understand the resistance to legislation. I understand the fear that technology will get around barriers and that technologists and technology will simply go elsewhere, with the associated growth that that might bring. But I think that, as everyone who has spoken in this debate has said, there are very real fears, expressed by the head of MI5 no less, that this technology could get out of control. We have to ask the question: it is not just whether you can do something; it is whether you should do something.
There is a real example of the UK tackling a different but similar problem brilliantly in our recent past: the Warnock report of 1982 to 1984. Dame Mary Warnock was charged with reviewing the social, ethical and legal implications of developments in human fertilisation and embryology. What Dame Mary and her team did at that time was to settle the debate and to settle public opinion on what ought to be done—not what could be, but what ought to be. That included, for example, the 14-day rule for research on human embryos. At the time, human embryos could be kept alive only for a couple of days. That rule has lasted 40 years and is currently being redebated. What we have is a British model for what was at the time a global technology that presented huge opportunity and created great fear. Does this sound familiar? I think it does.
I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider something similar. The AI Security Institute is doing good work, but it is scientific work. It is asking, “What do these models currently do?” It is not asking, “What should they do?” I think we need ethicists, philosophers and social scientists to build that social, moral and then legal framework for this technology, which I would be the first to say I welcome—but, my goodness, we need to decide what we want it to do rather than just wait to find out what it can do.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, for initiating this important and timely debate. As a signatory to the AI Red Lines initiative, I agree very much with his reasons for bringing this debate to the Committee. Sadly, with apologies, there is too little time to properly wind up and acknowledge other contributions in the debate today.
In September 2025, Anthropic detected the first documented large-scale cyber espionage campaign using agentic AI. AI is no longer merely generating content; it is autonomously executing code to breach the security of organisations and nations. Leading AI researchers have already warned us of fundamental control challenges. Yoshua Bengio, AI pioneer and Turing Award winner, reports that AI systems and experiments have chosen their own preservation over human safety. Professor Stuart Russell describes the control problem: how to maintain power over entities more powerful than us. Mustafa Suleyman, one of the two founders of DeepMind, has articulated the containment problem: that AI’s inherent tendency towards autonomy makes traditional containment methods insufficient. The Institution of Engineering and Technology reports that six in 10 engineering employers already use AI, yet 46% of senior management do not understand it and 50% of employers expecting AI to be important lack necessary skills. If senior leaders cannot grasp AI fundamentals, they cannot govern it effectively.
The Government’s response appears fragmented, not only as regards sovereign AI development. We inexplicably renamed the AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute, muddling two distinct concepts. We lag behind the EU AI Act, South Korea’s AI Basic Act, Singapore’s governance framework and even China’s regulation of public-facing generative AI. Meanwhile, voluntary approaches are failing.
Let me press the Government on three crucial issues. First, ahead of AGI or superintelligence, as I frequently argue, we need binding legislation with clear mandates, not advisory powers. ISO standards embodying key principles provide a good basis in terms of risk management, ethical design, testing, training, monitoring and transparency and should be applied where appropriate. We need a broader definition of safety that encompasses financial, societal, reputational and mental health risks, not just physical harm. What is the Government’s plan in this respect? Secondly, we must address the skills crisis. People need confidence in using AI and need more information on how it works. We need more agile training programmes beyond current initiatives and AI literacy and we need to guard against deskilling. Thirdly, we must consider sustainability. AI consumes enormous energy, yet could mitigate 5% to 10% of global greenhouse gases by 2030. What is the Government’s approach on this?
As Stuart Russell has noted, when Alan Turing warned in 1951 that machines would take control, our response resembled telling an alien civilisation that we were out of office. The question is whether we will act with the seriousness that this moment demands or allow big tech, largely US-owned, to override the fundamental imperative of maintaining human control over these increasingly powerful systems in its own interests.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Fairfax for securing the debate and for speaking so powerfully, as ever, on the subject.
When I attended my first university course on AI in 1999, AGI was more a theoretical thought experiment than a serious possibility, so the warnings from the director-general of MI5 and, as we have heard, from a great many others are not just testament to the dangers of these technologies but equally a reminder that this tech is moving far faster than anyone has expected.
For today, I will confine my brief remarks to what we consider to be three essential requirements if frontier AI is to remain safe and controllable. First, we need a shared definition of artificial general intelligence. At present, Governments, companies and researchers use the term “AGI” to mean a huge variety of different things. Indeed, the very helpful notes from the Library for this debate found it necessary to include a definition and, whether we accept its definition or not, the important thing is that we need to reach a point where we all agree on what we are talking about. I suggest that, without a common, internationally accepted definition, regulation will always lag behind capability.
Secondly, I am afraid that national approaches alone will not work because the AI stack—that is, the hardware, software, data, finance, energy and skills for any significant AI tool—must necessarily be spread across the globe. A number of global and multilateral organisations are working towards global standards for AI safety, but not so far with sufficient co-ordination or impact to provide much reassurance. I suggest, as others have, that the UK has an unrealised opportunity to lead here more.
Thirdly, we all know that we need dynamic alignment of AI with our human societal goals, but we do not know what that means in practice, how it translates to technical and procedural rules and how such rules are to be deployed and enforced. Again, the AISI and other UK bodies are surely well placed to drive that thinking forward globally and I hope the Minister will comment on the UK’s role here.
I close by somewhat unwillingly quoting Vladimir Putin: whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world. In other words, for some nations and for some organisations, the incentives to push ahead at speed outweigh the incentives to do so safely. This is a global problem, but we in this country have an opportunity to show leadership. I hope that we take that opportunity.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, in this area of artificial intelligence and congratulate him on securing this important, wide-ranging and timely debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I will use the time available to set out the Government’s position and respond to noble Lords’ questions. If I am unable to answer all of them because of time constraints, I will go through Hansard, write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library.
Recent remarks by the director-general of MI5 highlight that advanced AI is now more than just a technical matter: it has become relevant to national security, the economy and public safety. The warning was not regarding panic or science fiction scenarios; it focused on responsibility. As AI systems grow more capable and more autonomous, we must ensure that they function on a scale and at a speed within human control.
The future prosperity of this country will be shaped by science, technology and AI. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is absolutely right that we have to look at the advantages that AI brings to society and to us all. That is why we have announced a new package of reforms and investment to use AI as a driver of national renewal. But we must be, and are, clear-eyed about this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned, we cannot unlock the opportunities unless AI is safe for the public and businesses, and unless the UK retains real agency over how the technology is developed and deployed.
That is exactly the approach that this Government are taking. We are acting decisively to make sure that advanced AI remains safe and controllable. I give credit to the previous Government for establishing the world-leading AI Security Institute to deepen our scientific understanding of the risks posed by frontier AI systems. We are already taking action on emerging risks, including those linked to AI chatbots. The institute works closely with AI labs to improve the safety of their systems, and has now tested more than 30 frontier models.
That work is not academic. Findings from those tests are being used to strengthen real-world safeguards, including protections against cyber risks. Through close collaboration with industry, the national security community and our international partners, the Government have built a much deeper and more practical understanding of AI risks. We are also backing the institute’s alignment project, which will distribute up to £15 million to fund research to ensure that advanced AI systems remain controllable and reliable and follow human instructions, even as they become more powerful.
Several noble Lords mentioned the potential of artificial general intelligence and artificial superintelligence, as well as the risks that they could pose. There is considerable debate around the timelines for achieving both, and some experts believe that AGI could be reached by 2030. We cannot be sure how AI will develop and impact society over the next five—perhaps even less than that—10 or 20 years. Navigating this future will require evidence-based foresight to inform action, technical solutions and global co-ordination. Without a shared scientific understanding of these systems, we risk underreacting to threats or overcorrecting against innovation.
Through close collaboration with companies, the national security community and our international partners, the Government have deepened their understanding of such risks, and AI model security has improved as a result. The Government will continue to take a long-term, science-led approach to understand and prepare for risks emerging from AI. This includes preparing for the possibility of rapid AI progress, which could have transformative impacts on society and national security.
We are not complacent. Just this month, the Technology Secretary confirmed in Parliament that the Government will look at what more can be done to manage the risks posed by AI chatbots. She also urged Ofcom to use its existing powers to ensure that any chatbots in scope of the Online Safety Act are safe for children. Some noble Lords may be aware that today Ofcom has the power to impose sanctions on companies of up to 10% of their revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater.
Several noble Lords have touched on regulation, and I will just cover it now. We are clear that AI is a general-purpose technology, with uses across every sector of the economy. That is why we believe most AI should be regulated at the point of use. Existing frameworks already matter. Data protection and equality law protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination when AI systems are used to make decisions about jobs, credit or access to services.
We also know that regulators need to be equipped for what is coming. That is why we are working with them to strengthen their capabilities and ensure they are ready to deal with the challenges that AI presents.
Security does not stop at our borders. The UK is leading internationally and driving collaboration with allies to raise standards, share scientific insight and shape responsible global norms for frontier AI. We lead discussions on AI at the G7, the OECD and the United Nations, and we are strengthening bilateral partnerships, including our ongoing collaboration with India as we prepare for the AI Impact Summit in Delhi next month. I hope this provides assurance to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. The AI Security Institute will continue to play a central role globally, including leading the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, helping to set best practice for model testing and safety worldwide.
In an AI-enabled world, it matters who owns the infrastructure, builds the models and controls the data. That increasingly shapes our lives. That is why we have established a Sovereign AI Unit, backed by around £500 million, to support UK start-ups across the AI ecosystem and ensure that Britain has a stake at every layer of the AI stack.
Several noble Lords asked about our dependence on US companies. Our sovereignty goals should indeed be resilience and strategic advantage, not total self-reliance. We have to face the fact that US companies are the main providers of today’s frontier model capabilities. Our approach is to ensure that the UK can use the best models in the world while protecting UK interests. To achieve this, we have established strategic partnerships with leading frontier model developers, such as the memoranda of understanding with Anthropic, OpenAI and Cohere, to ensure resilient access and influence the development of such capabilities.
We are also investing in advanced, AI-based compute so that researchers can work on national priorities. We are creating AI growth zones across the country to unlock gigawatts of capacity by 2030. Through our advanced market commitment, we are helping promising UK firms to scale, win global business and deploy British chips alongside established providers.
We are pursuing AI safety with such determination, because it is what unlocks opportunity. The UK should not be an AI taker. Businesses and consumers need confidence that AI systems are safe and reliable and do what they are supposed to do. That is why our road map to trusted third-party AI assurance is so important. Trust is what turns safety into growth. It is what allows innovation to flourish.
In January we published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, setting out how we will seize the benefits of this technology for the country. We will train 7.5 million workers in essential AI skills by 2030, equip 1 million students with AI and digital skills, and support talented undergraduates and postgraduates through scholarships at leading STEM universities. I hope this will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, at that point, I will just interrupt the Minister before the witching hour. The Minister has reiterated the approach to focus governance on the user—that is, the sectoral approach—but is that not giving a free pass to general AI developers?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will quickly respond. We have to be very careful about what level we regulate at. AI is multifaceted: at different stacks we have the infrastructure, the data level, the model level and so on. At which level are we going to regulate? We are trying to work with the community to find out what is best before we come up with a solution as far as regulation is concerned. AI is currently regulated at different user levels.
Let me continue. We are appointing AI champions to work with industry and government to drive adoption in high-growth sectors. Our new AI for Science Strategy will help accelerate breakthroughs that matter to people’s lives.
In summary, safe and controllable AI does not hinder progress; rather, it underpins it. It is integral to our goal of leveraging AI’s transformative power and securing the UK’s role as an AI innovator, not merely a user. Safety is not about stopping progress. It is about maintaining human control over advances. The true danger is not overthinking this now; it is failing to think enough.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Minister for such a generous and wide-ranging response. He said that we are going to regulate at the point of use, yet in this House we saw such a battle about the misuse of UK creative data that is protected by UK law. The UK Government wanted to give it away rather than protect UK law, so that is one example. Equally, the Minister mentioned the sovereign AI fund, but I hear again and again from UK AI companies that they are dominated by US companies in those discussions and that the UK companies are not really getting an advantage. I would like to hear the Minister’s response, given that we have a little time.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that; I respect her interest and work in this area. It would take me at least 20 minutes to cover most of what was asked. There were points about regulation at different levels, about AI and copyright and about the Sovereign AI Unit’s funding of £500 million. We need to work at each different level and, as I said, regulation is vital. Personally, I think it will be very difficult for us to have one AI regulation Bill to cover everything, because we may miss something. We need evidence from speaking with academia, the players and so on to help us shape what regulation is required. I want to give the noble Baroness a comprehensive answer and I cannot do that here, so I will write to her accordingly.
Environmental Improvement Plan 2025
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 will deliver the targets of the Environment Act 2021.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the environmental improvement plan sets out how the Government will meet the legally binding targets in Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021. These targets cover air quality, biodiversity, water quality, resource efficiency and waste, woodland and trees, and marine protected areas. I will not attempt to cover all these areas in my eight minutes, and equally I will not rehearse the debate we had on Tuesday concerning nitrogen pollution, which was highly relevant.
The urgent need for an improved EIP was highlighted last year by the Office for Environmental Protection in its January 2025 progress report. Only nine of 43 targets for the environment were on track, and 20 were largely off track, including targets that covered most of the areas in the EIP. The report said that the new environmental improvement plan
“must show real intent, and focus. It needs to front load efforts to catch up and to set out clearly to all, what has to be done, by whom and by when”.
The report of the OEP covered the year up to March 2024 and therefore reflected the actions of the previous Government. Today’s Question is about whether the current Government’s plans and the new EIP will improve prospects for our environment.
The new environmental improvement plan is distinctly better than its predecessor. It sets out the specific actions that will contribute to achieving the targets and who is responsible. I very much welcome this and congratulate the Government on their intent. However, the contribution of individual actions towards the delivery of targets is not quantified, and I will return to this point later.
In the end, it is not just the targets and the processes but the actual outcomes for the environment that will be the measure of success or failure. Take, for example, sites of special scientific interest. The 4,100 SSSIs in England, covering 4,200 square miles, are among our most precious habitats. They are supposed to enjoy special protection. However, the OEP’s report of 4 December last year concludes that only a third of them are in favourable condition and that many SSSIs have not been monitored for years. This is not new news; it was highlighted more than 30 years ago by Peter Marren, and the data for the past decade suggest that there has been no substantial change—and if anything a steady decrease—in the proportion of SSSIs in favourable condition.
Does the new EIP say anything to convince us that the next decade will be different? Far from pressing its foot down on the accelerator to restore SSSIs, the new EIP delays progress. The commitment in the 2023 environmental improvement plan to have 50% of SSSIs with actions on track to achieve favourable condition by 2028 has been delayed to 2030. The target for all SSSIs to have an up-to-date condition assessment by 2028 has been deferred until 2032. I assume that these delays reflect the reality of what is achievable. Even if we accept this point that there will be delays, I would like to know what is going to change that will deliver the required improvements, given that no improvement has been achieved in the past.
The delivery plan for protected sites was published last month. It includes 10 delivery measures and a monitoring plan. I assume that there must be something in the plan that has convinced Ministers that it will work when previous plans have failed. Can the Minister tell us specifically what aspects of the new plan give her confidence that it will deliver improvements in the condition of SSSIs? For example, does the delivery plan address the four key concerns highlighted by the OEP’s recent report? How many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts, and how many more would be needed by 2030 for the plan to be on track? About half of SSSIs are within national landscapes. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will maintain the biodiversity duty for national landscapes, bearing in mind the recommendations of the Fingleton review?
I now turn to the question of who will deliver the outcomes. Although the EIP sets out clear plans and processes, the actual delivery of the outcomes will often depend on bodies outside government. I am pleased, therefore, that the new EIP recognises that the Government cannot achieve their targets without the actions of others. As the Minister will recall, my Private Member’s Bill was designed to formalise this by placing a statutory duty on public authorities, including landowners and regulators, to contribute to the Environment Act’s targets. Because public authorities such as local councils have many competing demands on their resources, without a statutory duty, this matter will inevitably move to the back of the queue. Would the Minister therefore consider adopting my Private Member’s Bill in support of the delivery of the new EIP? If not, how will public authorities that play a key role be persuaded to prioritise this objective?
I return to the contribution of different actions to delivering the targets. One of the key targets of the Environment Act is halting the decline of species by 2030. This is part of goal 1 in the EIP: restoring nature. That goal is supported by 33 actions, four of which contain the word “deliver”; some of the others include softer actions such as “publish”, “introduce”, “build” and “review”. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on which actions in the EIP will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity in the next four years. This is especially relevant given that the latest official biodiversity statistics for England show that many indicators are moving in the wrong direction.
My final point concerns cross-government co-ordination. The new EIP recognises that the delivery of the targets will require concerted action across government departments. This co-ordination will be achieved through a new EIP delivery board. Some activity is already under way. For example, ARIA—the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which is a non-departmental public body of DSIT—recently launched a research programme called Engineering Ecosystem Resilience, which includes the option of gene-editing ecosystems. What role does Defra assume gene editing in ecosystems will have in restoring nature?
I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords—we have a small but select band with us this afternoon—and to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, both for giving us this opportunity to talk about a very important issue and for his excellent introduction. I, too, welcome the EIP, in particular the concept of delivery plans. However, some of the delivery plans are delivering more than others.
I turn to a subject close to my heart for an example. There is no specificity—it is good to be able to say that on a Thursday afternoon—on the timing of the ban on peat in horticultural products. I remember that, when I joined the RSPB as chief executive back in 1990—35 years ago, in case your maths is not very good—we were campaigning for a ban on peat products. I used to go to the local garden centre and insist that its staff took all the peat-free or reduced-peat products out from the back of their compost displays and put them at the front. I did that for nine months until I was banned from that garden centre. I subsequently went around all the garden centres in Bedfordshire and was systematically banned from one after the other. We have waited for this for quite a long time—and that is just one example. We do not really have any clear targets as yet; across the piece, we need to go through this EIP systematically and see what more needs to be done to get targeting into it.
The second point I want to make is that some of the targets, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, are pretty immediate: the biodiversity ones, particularly on species abundance by 2030, and the 30 by 30 targets. The whole issue of ending nature declines by 2030 was always very ambitious. I am a great believer in ambitious targets, but we have not yet had confirmation of whether the delivery plans will actually deliver the target. It is work in progress and there is not long to go, so I hope that work can be expedited. Across the whole enterprise, there needs to be renewed pace and vigour.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also talked about cross-government commitment and this is incredibly important. Defra obviously has to be the cheerleader and the thinker in this, but it needs help right across government to be able to deliver. For example, SSSI condition can be delivered only by a huge variety of different landowners and land managers, yet we still have—I have spoken about this before—an outbreak of newt bashing in certain parts of government. We really have to get away from the nature versus growth dichotomy, which is unreal, and towards a system where we are talking about the real benefits to growth that nature recovery can produce.
Important in that whole process of getting cross-government commitment, apart from moving hearts and minds, will be implementing the legal duty on all Ministers to pay due regard to the environmental principles when proposing or revising policy. What is the implementation plan for making sure that the environmental principles are actively used across government departments? What training is there for civil servants, and indeed perhaps even for Ministers, in thinking about the environmental principles in their daily work, and what monitoring of their implementation will take place? I would say this, of course—I am on record as having said it before—but the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was absolutely splendid and should be adopted by the Government.
The fourth point I want to make is about land. Noble Lords cannot really expect me to talk on this issue without talking about the land use framework and the farming road map. It is slightly unnerving that, to my understanding, the farming road map will not actually have a map in it. It seems a bit strange that everybody else in various government departments is busy drawing up spatial plans and strategies but the farming road map will not necessarily have a map.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I am glad to have identified something that the Minister will have to find out about. The whole business of the contribution of agri-environment schemes and the farming road map to the EIP is huge. Nature-friendly farming is fundamental: it will be key, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, to delivering goal 1, the restoration of nature, as will a proper land use framework. Goal 3, clean, resilient and plentiful water and nature-based solutions to those, will be fundamental. I know that water is a very important government priority: we really have to get the EIP to focus on that and get the land use framework and nature-friendly farming solutions implemented.
The land use framework should help the Government in their prioritisation of their own spend on biodiversity. I know that the latest timetable is for March, which is terribly close to local government and Scottish and Welsh elections. We can anticipate that there might be a little turbulence after those. I would hate there to be another Minister who wants to pore over the land use framework all over again when, in fact, in many government departments, spatial strategies are progressing apace.
I was going to talk about trees, but I am getting a bit close to the end, so I shall finish with farming and the farming road map. We really have to set out how the three environmental land management schemes we have currently will balance. How much will we see invested in each of them? What contribution will each make? We need to give surety to people who are going to put their heads above the parapet and take up these schemes that they will be there for the future—that they will be maintained and developed, and have predictable application windows—so that we can get landowners of all sorts, large and small, investing in these very sensible schemes, with the surety that they will not find them disappearing from under their feet. My last words, before I get cut off in my prime, are, in summary, to commend energy and pace to the Minister, because that is absolutely what we need in this important area.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Although the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 applies only to England, as we all know, nature does not understand county, country or political lines. I therefore declare my farming and land management interests in Wales.
I welcome the plan’s ambition and the Government’s stated commitment to delivering the statutory targets of the Environment Act. The direction of travel is right, but ambition alone will not restore nature unless it is matched by delivery, accountability and, above all, coherence across government. I will focus on three issues: delivery on the ground, policy contradiction and accountability when targets are missed.
First, the plan rightly acknowledges that land managers are central to nature recovery, but acknowledgment is not the same as empowerment. Many actions in the plan remain expressed in aspirational terms, dependent on future consultations or lacking long-term funding certainty. If we want farmers and landowners to commit to landscape-scale change, they need stability, trust and confidence that policies will endure beyond a spending round or a change of emphasis.
The second and more serious point is policy contradiction. The plan speaks of restoring habitats, reconnecting landscapes and reversing species decline, yet at the same time other government policies are pulling hard in the opposite direction. Nowhere is that clearer than in land use. We are allowing large-scale solar developments on grade 1 agricultural land, the most productive biologically rich soils we have. These are landscapes that support food production, soil biodiversity, farmland birds and ecological connectivity. Converting them to industrial land uses may serve a narrow interpretation of net zero, but it often does so at the direct expense of nature recovery and food security. Some net-zero policies are therefore not merely neutral to biodiversity; they are actively harmful.
This is not an argument against renewable energy. It is an argument against poor siting and the absence of a coherent land use framework. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I sat on the Land Use in England Committee, which in 2022 reported that a framework was essential. As a Defra Minister, I listened to repeated calls from all parties—including from the Minister, then in opposition—for a land use framework. The Government’s consultation closed in April 2025, so I join in asking when we will see some progress there.
I am afraid that government policy contradiction is not confined to energy. Housing and infrastructure policy continues to fragment land at large scale while biodiversity requirements are weakened or made more flexible in the name of growth, all in contrast with goal 1 of the plan. Conservation organisations, including wildlife trusts, have warned that nature is increasingly being treated as an obstacle to development, and even scapegoated, rather than as the foundation for long-term resilience and prosperity. That rhetoric is deeply damaging and entirely at odds with the plan’s stated objectives. Once a habitat, a hedgerow or an ancient woodland is gone, it is gone for ever, and no amount of biodiversity net gain or carbon credits will bring it back. Brownfield sites must be prioritised for housing development and greenfield sites used only as a last resort, not an easy land grab by DESNZ or MHCLG.
There is also a tendency to rely on designation and access as proxies for recovery. Drawing lines on maps or increasing public access—this is where I may lose the Committee—does not restore ecosystems. Many species require quiet, undisturbed space. Wild animals do not thrive under human pressure. If we conflate access with recovery, we risk creating landscapes that are busy, accessible and even more biologically impoverished.
The Environment Act targets are legally binding, but what happens if they are missed? At present the consequences are largely procedural: reporting, explanation and future adjustment. The OEP can scrutinise but it cannot compel corrective action or force alignment across government departments. That is a central weakness of the current framework.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. When Environment Act targets are missed, what concrete, enforceable action will follow? How will the Government ensure that net-zero, planning, housing and energy policies, including solar development on grade 1 farmland, are brought into alignment rather than continuing to undermine nature recovery?
The environmental improvement plan does not lack vision. What it risks lacking is honesty about trade-offs, courage in land use decisions and mechanisms to resolve contradictions at the heart of government policy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I do not have any farming interests to declare, but I have two allotments that take a lot of time and energy.
It might not seem like it, but I want this Government to succeed, particularly in their environmental aims. The problem I have is that again and again we see that this Government do not understand the countryside, rural areas, farming, green space, newts, frogs, beavers or anything that actually contributes to the environment. That is going to be a huge barrier to this Government achieving what they say they want to achieve.
What are the headline changes in the plan that will reverse the decline in species? I cannot see a wholesale shift in our farming practices or a clamp-down on people shooting birds of prey—no names here. Of course, there is more money to improve peat-lands, but where is the peat ban that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has been seeking for 35 years? I like the promise to grow more trees, but what about stopping cutting down ancient woodland? You cannot grow new trees into ancient woods. Once they have gone, they have gone.
I want to talk about some of the targets, because some of them are clearly failing. Target 1 is on thriving plants and wildlife. The Planning and Infrastructure Act has wrecked any chance of meeting that target. Labour’s manifesto pledge of 30% of land and sea protected, connected and managed for nature recovery by 2030 is now an unreachable promise. The targets for marine protected areas, which I will mention again, are delayed by another couple of years, and there is no wholesale site protection for marine areas, just the safeguarding of a few high-profile species. The Government do not even try to pretend they care about reaching good environmental status for our seas and ocean and have not bothered to set a target. I wish the Office for Environmental Protection good luck in its investigation of the Government, because I think they will probably fail. There is a target to restore salt marsh, sea-grass and oyster reefs, but a 15% increase by 2043 is ridiculously modest, given that we have lost 85% to 95% of these habitats historically.
Target 3 is on clean and plentiful water. That is a sore point for many of us here. Labour inherited a mess, and its refusal to take water into public hands has just deepened the mess it is in, especially as it goes into the next election. People will remember, and they are not happy. I will remind them, obviously.
The Minister has pledged to halve sewage dumping by 2030. So in another four years, I can stand here and thank Labour for there being only 2.5 million hours of sewage being pumped into UK waters in 2030. Bathers on beaches will have another five years before they can go swimming without drowning in human excrement. Meanwhile, it is the water bill payers who are funding all the work and shareholders who still make a profit.
Target 5 is on maximising resources and minimising waste. The aim of creating a circular economy based on reuse, recycling and repair is a worthy goal. But instead, we have a country full of oil-burning chimneys. The number of incinerators has gone up, and the material we should be recycling has been shoved into furnaces. Plastic production has increased along with oil company profits, and we have taken the easy option of burning plastic instead of recycling it or, even better, not producing it in the first place. Some councils have got locked into 25-year contracts with various incinerator companies, and that means that sometimes they take the refuse out of recycling and throw it into incinerators.
Target 7 is on minimising and adapting to climate change. The whole world is switching to renewable energy, but where is the big investment here in the UK in energy storage schemes? Producing the batteries and local energy storage schemes is where the innovation is. Instead of that, the Government have put £22 billion into carbon capture and storage. The biggest system of carbon capture and storage on the planet is the ocean, and the Government have not taken that seriously.
I will get back to my speech now. There is no guarantee with carbon capture and storage that the money—taxpayers’ money—will not go to oil and gas companies that have already spent decades profiting from pollution. The Government are also supporting airport expansions and adding millions of extra flights every year. That is not minimising climate change.
Target 8 concerns reducing the risk of harm from environmental hazards. It took more than seven months for the authorities to deal with a mountain of fly-tipping near the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire—a pile of rubbish 20 feet high and as long as the Lords half of the Palace of Westminster. That is broken Britain. Also, why have the Government not adopted Zane’s law to deal with hazardous waste? When seven year-old Zane died and his father fell ill, the Environment Agency had already commissioned a study showing that the ex-landfill site near his home posed a high risk to life. Yet it did nothing to warn residents before, during or after the 2014 flooding. Further, to this day, it has adamantly refused to test the land, which has flooded again this year, fully. We need a law to ensure that the Environment Agency protects people and wildlife rather than profits and secrets.
Finally, I wanted to read out the Marine Conservation Society’s ideas on how to protect our waters, rivers and seas, but I have run out of time. I shall instead give the document to the Minister and encourage her to read it because it is full of ideas, such as setting up a marine litter strategy for England to clean up the debris that we have on our shores.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this timely debate. I welcome the revised EIP published by the Government. I declare my interests as a co-chair of the Water All-Party Parliamentary Group and a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.
I am sure that the Minister will accept, in the spirit in which it is intended, that there is a growing list of unfinished business from the department, such as—this has already been referred to—the land use framework, for which we have been waiting for some time, and the water White Paper, which we were promised before the end of last year. Questions arise from the EIP. What will the relationship between the environmental improvement plan and the land use framework be? At what stage will that be set out? There is still a lot of detail left unclear in the EIP. For example, how will it be funded? Can the Minister elaborate on the success that the Government have established with private partners, farmers and others to progress the targets that they have set out in the land use framework?
More generally, having grown up in the countryside and having represented deeply rural areas in both the European Parliament and the other place, I yield to no one in my admiration of the work that farmers do in nurturing nature. How will the EIP as revised help promote domestic food production, boost self-sufficiency in food and increase food security? Farmers have faced three major shocks in recent years: Brexit, Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I recognise that farmers have a role to play in nature recovery but they have also been battling the elements. As my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out, we have seen major flooding of farmland in recent years. Last year, we had a major wildfire on the North Yorkshire moors—it lasted for a long time—and faced severe water shortages that also affected farming. Clarity and certainty need urgently to be set out in the sustainable farming incentive to enable farmers to have the tools they need to grow our food and boost domestic farm production.
I welcome the focus in the EIP on nature-based solutions to water management. I pay tribute to the work performed by Pickering’s Slow the Flow scheme in saving the town of Pickering from a major flood. Its strength has been tested since its inception; I hope the Government will look to other such schemes to be rolled out in due course.
I make a plea—I know the Minister would be disappointed if I did not—and once again press her on the implementation of Schedule 3 to implement SUDS as a mandatory scheme for all major new housing developments, as set out in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That one instrument alone will protect many future and existing housing developments from future floods. Is the Minister able to set out today a firm date for the water White Paper to be published and an idea of the timetable for the legislation that will follow that White Paper and the excellent Cunliffe report?
I turn to species recovery and review of species. I am grateful for a briefing from Chester Zoo, which I understand is at the forefront of global conservation. It highlighted a number of threatened species on the priority list in England alone, of which 940 are in need of urgent recovery work. It is working specifically on the disappearance, surprisingly, of the harvest mouse, which it reintroduced successfully in Cheshire; the yellow sally stone-fly, a rare insect; the cotoneaster cambricus, a rare tree; and the large heath butterfly. I pay tribute to its excellent global work with its partners, and I hope the Government will be able to say today what plans the department has to work in this area of global conservation to reintroduce these species.
I am mindful of our work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, looking at the numbers of species in this country that were at one time under threat, such as badgers, after the dreadful episode of badger baiting, outlawed in 1968. To what extent does the Minister’s department keep under review species such as badgers, bats and newts, which might not be as rare as we think and could be holding up development where it is needed? That goes to the heart of the Government’s growth programme.
Finally, I invite the Minister to complete the unfinished business I have set out, to work closely with farmers and others developing nature recovery to the best of their ability, and to give farmers and landowners the tools they need to increase food production, increase food security and boost self-sufficiency for food in this country.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and all other noble Lords for this timely debate on precisely how the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 intends to deliver the legally binding targets set out in the Environment Act 2021. Given the alarming trajectory of nature decline in this country, such scrutiny is critical. In the Liberal Democrats, we acknowledge that the revised EIP offers structural improvements compared to its predecessor, showing clearer responsibility for some actions and providing delivery plans. Yet, as we have heard from so many other speakers, if we are honest about the scale of the climate and nature crisis, the EIP 25 remains profoundly underwhelming and fundamentally lacking the necessary ambition, pace and long-term funding certainty required to haul the Government back on track to meet their 2030 legal obligations.
As we have heard, the Office for Environmental Protection has repeatedly cautioned that the Government are largely off track to achieve their environmental commitments, stressing that
“the window of opportunity is closing fast”.
This plan, presented late last year, should have been a transformative response to that warning. Instead, in too many critical areas, we see weakness, delay and backsliding on previous commitments, when what is needed is urgent delivery and real-world change.
Nowhere is this inertia more evident than in the marine environment and I thank the Marine Conservation Society for its briefing, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The plan risks entrenching managed decline, instead of enabling genuine recovery. The commitment to achieve good environmental status for our seas, originally targeted for 2020 under the marine strategy framework, has seen its date pushed back and effectively faded from view. This is despite the UK previously meeting only a fraction of the indicators for healthy seas. Targets for marine protected areas are now effectively folded into a broader 30% by 2030 headline, while the conspicuous absence of the promised marine net gain framework means we have removed a vital mechanism to catalyse and encourage private investment into marine restoration and recovery.
I turn to land. The core statutory target to halt the decline of species abundance by 2030 is, as other speakers have mentioned, under immense pressure. While we welcome the target to restore or create 250,000 hectares of habitat outside protected sites by 2030, rising to 500,000 hectares by 2042, this cumulative target does not account for nature lost or degraded in the meantime. To deliver the scale of habitat creation needed, we must empower and properly fund our farmers, who are the true stewards of our land and are already grappling with climate impacts and volatile markets. Can the Minister say, in modelling for the farmland wildlife delivery plan, what assumptions are made of the proportion of ELM funds dedicated to Countryside Stewardship and landscape recovery?
The Government’s current approach to funding leaves too many farmers unsure whether they can commit to long-term schemes. We note the headline announcement of £500 million for landscape recovery projects over the coming decades, but this averages a relatively modest annual sum set against the scale of change being asked of land managers. There is genuine concern that without a clearer vision and greater certainty, this will not be enough to shift the dial for the many farmers being asked to do more.
That is why we made the case in our own manifesto for an extra £1 billion a year for the farming budget, focused on nature-friendly farming schemes that support both sustainable food security and nature recovery, particularly for smaller family farms and tenanted holdings. Fundamental reforms are needed, including establishing upland reward schemes to remunerate those who cultivate some of our toughest landscapes—that point will be no stranger to the Minister, given where she lives—for their public good outputs, from carbon and biodiversity to flood mitigation and access.
The revised EIP claims to be a flagship delivery plan, yet it often defers definitive actions through consultations and sometimes vague commitments. We must move beyond this cycle of promised and not delivered, particularly when communities are already living with polluted rivers, depleted soils and declining local wildlife. That is why we call for decisive action: urgent implementation of a truly comprehensive national food strategy; the creation of a new, strengthened water regulator to enforce the clean-up of our waterways; and a renewed commitment to fund and quantify the actions needed now to meet the 2030 deadlines. As others have mentioned, we were promised a White Paper by Ministers on water by the end of last year—with a clear understanding of the urgency, for instance, about chalk streams—when we discussed this on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Where is that urgency now? We really need to see that White Paper.
If the EIP 2025 is genuinely intended to deliver the targets of the Environment Act it requires immediate, quantifiable and bold action.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who made a very good point about the condition of our SSSIs. The Government’s 2025 plan speaks with confidence about restoring nature and becoming a clean energy superpower. That confidence must be matched by clarity. Where the plan allows trade-offs, we need rules that protect the natural systems we depend on. The Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 sets out ambitions we can all support: cleaner water, richer soils, healthier wildlife and a transition to cleaner energy. Those ambitions are necessary, but a plan’s rhetoric is only as strong as the targets, timelines and delivery mechanisms that underpin it.
Today, I will focus on two areas where the gap between rhetoric and delivery is most worrying—our seas and our farms. On the marine side, the plan introduces recovery targets for marine protected areas, yet it also explicitly allows up to 5% of MPA features to be left in neither favourable nor recovering condition to “accommodate net-zero ambitions”. That is not a technical tweak; it institutionalises a trade-off.
Everyone knows that the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr Miliband, is obsessed with net zero, and his fanaticism will countenance any damage to our economy and cost to the public by driving up the cost of UK energy to be the highest in the world. Now he is damaging our seas as well. When we write a carve-out into a national plan, we change the default from recovery to compromise. Offshore wind and other infrastructure can contribute to our climate goals, but they must not become a standing excuse to delay or dilute recovery in protected areas. Any deviation from recovery must be time limited, independently scrutinised and accompanied by mandatory like-for-like enhancement measures that restore what has been lost. The real tragedy of this carve-out is that our seas will be damaged by wind turbines that will be switched off for about half the time. Billions will be paid to the operators not to produce electricity, as we read in the press yesterday.
We welcome ambition on this side, but ambition without detail is a promise unkept. Allowing a formal carve-out for marine protected areas to accommodate energy projects, delaying a marine litter strategy and failing to commit to PFAS consumer bans are not small omissions; they are structural weaknesses that will determine whether our seas recover or continue to decline.
As has already been said by noble Lords, marine litter is another glaring omission. It cannot be left to a general circular plan scheduled for next year. We need a dedicated marine litter strategy now, with measurable interim targets, funding for deposit return schemes, fishing gear management, improved port reception facilities and coastal clean-ups. These are practical measures that reduce harm to wildlife, protect coastal economies and cut the cost of clean-up for local communities. The marine recovery fund has currently framed this as becoming a mechanism that enables development rather than driving restoration. Compensation must be like-for-like by default, and there must be a separate ring-fenced enhancement fund to finance proactive habitat creation and ecosystem recovery at scale. Without that, we will see payments in place of genuine ecological outcomes.
On farming, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that there is no Minister in the Government who understands the countryside. I say to her that there is one—she is winding up this debate, and it is a pity that she is not the Secretary of State for Defra. The plan’s target to double the number of farms providing sufficient year-round resources for wildlife by 2030 is welcome in principle but underspecified in practice. Farmers need certainty. They need clear definitions of what “sufficient resources” means. They need published payment rates, long-term contracts and technical support. The sustainable farming incentive must be reformed and published with predictable payments so that farmers can plan investments without risking their livelihoods or domestic food production. Sequencing matters. Biosecurity targets and invasive species scanning must be timed so that there is adequate opportunity to respond before deadlines arrive. If we are serious about the rhetoric, we must strengthen the EIP now, remove the carve-outs, ban non-essential PFAS, fund enhancement—not just compensation—and give farmers and fishers the certainty and support they need to deliver. That is how we turn a plan into recovery.
To be concrete, I conclude by calling for six immediate actions. First, remove or tightly condition the 5% MPA carve-out. Any deviation from recovery must be demonstrably unavoidable, time limited and independently scrutinised, and require mandatory like-for-like enhancement. Secondly, ban PFAS in non-essential consumer products and publish a clear phase-out timetable for other uses, applying group-based controls to prevent substitution. Thirdly, please publish a dedicated marine litter strategy immediately, with measurable interim targets and funding for ports, coastal clean-ups and fishing gear management. Fourthly, redesign the marine recovery fund with two streams, mandatory like-for-like compensation and a separate enhancement fund for proactive restoration. Fifthly, accelerate SFI reform and publish payment rates and transition support so that farmers can plan, with explicit safeguards for food production and farm viability. Sixthly, strengthen fisheries management plans with binding spatial and gear measures, and fund a just transition package for fishers to adopt low-impact methods.
We can be a clean energy leader and a world leader in nature recovery, but only if we stop treating nature as negotiable. Strengthen the rules, fund the delivery and give those who steward our land and sea the certainty they need. Do that, and the rhetoric of the plan will become the recovery that our communities and our children expect.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am quite tight for time. I shall do my best to answer all the many questions, but if there is anything that I do not cover, I will make sure I write to noble Lords with responses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond and to discuss how the environmental improvement plan will deliver the targets of the Environment Act.
The EIP, as noble Lords are aware, sets out the Government’s commitment to the ambitious statutory Environment Act targets. It is our road map on how we are going to improve the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it. It ensures that nature’s recovery is a key priority for this Government and is fundamental to our general approach, including growth, because we know that growth is not possible without a healthy and resilient natural environment.
Our EIP goes further than the previous one. It is a credible, clear plan with clear, prioritised actions to deliver the environmental outcomes of restoring nature, improving environmental quality, creating a circular economy, protecting environmental security and improving people’s access to nature. It sets out who is responsible for these actions across government and our wider society.
The EIP sets ambitious yet achievable interim targets. It is essential to have those as staging posts on our journey in order to deliver the targets that have been rightly described today as challenging. Each interim target will make an appropriate contribution to corresponding statutory targets over the next five years. We have increased the ambition of some of the interim targets since the Government’s last plan, including for air quality and to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats. We have also introduced new targets on farm wildlife and on invasive non-native species. We are maintaining our delivery trajectories for other targets and have adjusted others to ensure that they remain deliverable and credible.
On other targets, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the MPAs and whether the 5% flex was watering down that target. The flex is introduced largely to account for adverse impacts of offshore wind developments that have been consented to because they pass the habitats regulations or MCZ derogation tests. We think it is the best option to set an interim target that contributes towards the statutory target while aligning it with the changing MPA network that supports the Government’s clean energy mission. I hope that explains why we have done that.
Of course, setting clear targets and goals is simply not enough; we need to know exactly how we are going to reach them. I hope noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the first time we have published delivery plans for those targets. They clearly set out how actions contribute, who will deliver them and how progress will be measured. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked which actions will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity. The delivery plans will set that out on a strong evidence footing so that we know exactly what is happening.
Driving environmental change and understanding the impact of actions being taken will obviously be complex and take time, so the delivery plans are designed to remain live and can be refined over time in response to emerging evidence, to policy evaluation and to any feedback that we get from stakeholders carrying out the delivery. We believe that this transparent and collaborative approach to communicating and adapting our plans is a major step forward. It is also central to our monitoring and our reporting of progress, which, again, is essential to keeping any delivery on track.
The EIP sets out more than 90 commitments. Each is associated with a delivery metric, and we will report on changes to those metrics in our annual progress reports, along with the latest evidence and changes to trends in our environmental indicator framework. The framework, which is also published online, objectively measures how the environment is changing across the 10 EIP goals.
Together, such approaches better enable external appraisal and will ensure that we learn and adapt appropriately as we move towards the targets. I am already very grateful to stakeholders, including the OEP, whose scrutiny and recommendations are helping to shape this improved approach. We have a clear plan and process, but we also know the scale of the challenge and are trying to match this with the right actions to get where we need to go.
SFI was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, just this morning at the Oxford Farming Conference, the Secretary of State set out how we are reforming SFI to make it simpler and fairer and to enable as many farmers as possible to benefit and help nature thrive. As someone who has a smallholding, I was particularly pleased to see that this is also targeted now at smaller farmers. At that conference, the Secretary of State also made clear that protecting the environmental foundations of farming is not separate from productivity but an essential part of it. All this will help us to meet our EIP targets, including doubling the number of farms delivering for wildlife. This follows the most nature-friendly farming Budget we have seen, to give farmers the support they need to produce food sustainably while protecting soil, water and wildlife.
Last year we had the highest amount of tree planting in 20 years, as I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear—over 10 million trees—and we have started planting the first of the three new national forests. We recently implemented the Water (Special Measures) Act. I have been asked about the water White Paper, and I confirm that it will be published very soon; watch this space.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about PFAS. The EIP includes a commitment to publish a PFAS plan in 2026, and that will set out how the Government are taking action to protect people and the environment from the particular harms and risks that this relates to. We are acting decisively to improve air quality. A circular economy is an important part of this. We are further reducing environmental harm by turning waste into opportunity and creating green jobs across the country—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly interested in this. We are boosting opportunities and, as the Minister for access to nature, I am pleased that we have a chapter in the EIP on how we will do this. I was pleased that we launched the first of the nine new river walks on Boxing Day.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of working together. It is important that we do this, as we will not make progress unless we have cross-government contributions in achieving these targets. That includes the land use framework, the farming road map and what we are doing across the department as well as across government. This is important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, particularly talked about the importance of working with stakeholders and people who have to deliver. Only by government working hand in hand with communities, businesses, farmers, the public sector and the third sector can we achieve our target delivery.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions, and I will try to fit those in. If there is anyone else, I will come back to them. He asked what aspects of the new plan give me confidence around SSSIs —in fact, there were a few questions around SSSIs. I have an SSSI on my land, so I completely understand the challenges of site management. Natural England has improved its understanding of SSSI condition and the pressures and actions needed to restore SSSIs. It is making progress: it has a more strategic focus than previously and, over the spending review, it is looking to improve the evidence from each site. It is looking at a strategic landscape scale, with a greater focus on what happens on the land outside the site boundary as well as just within it, and at those implications.
The noble Lord asked how many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts. It is approximately 40% at the moment. Additionally, Natural England has developed a conservation enhancement scheme to fund actions on SSSI land that is not eligible for environmental stewardship schemes. We want to continue to build on that work.
On national landscapes, we know we need to go further and faster in protected landscapes to meet our national targets, and we will ensure that protected landscape bodies, landowners and land managers have the tools and resources to achieve that. We will continue to work closely.
The PMB was excellent and very much in line with government ambition. The principles of it—to drive and strengthen action towards meeting natural environment and climate targets and objectives from both local and other public authorities—are absolutely at the heart of what we will achieve. I hope we can continue to talk to the noble Lord and bring in his expertise around that.
I seem to have run out of time. I am really sorry; I had lots of lovely answers to all of the questions posed by noble Lords.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Would it be possible for the Minister to tell us about peat?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have just been told that I can carry on because I have another five minutes; my officials will tell me when I need to stop.
I turn to the gene editing of ecosystems. We are supportive of that innovation. We have agreed the parameters for the new SPS agreement with the EU. The EU has accepted that there are a number of areas where it will have to look at our laws. This is something that we are discussing with the EU.
I turn to peat. To confirm, we are committed to ending the sale of horticultural peat and peat-containing products by the end of this Parliament. That is part of our ambition for this Parliament. We are working very closely with the sector to look at how we can make that transition.
The noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to SUDS. It is worth reminding the Committee that we made immediate changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support the increased delivery of SUDS. Clearly, we need to continue to discuss that.
My noble friend Lady Young talked about the environmental principles and asked whether people, particularly officials, have training. The answer is yes. Our recent report on the implementation of the environmental principles, which was published in November, recognised that our tools are valuable and that we do provide training.
Is there anything else that I have forgotten? I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to the debate and assure them that we are committed to delivering the environmental improvement plan and to meeting the environmental targets.
Israel: Trade
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution that trade with Israel makes to the United Kingdom economy.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw attention to my role as the UK’s trade envoy to Israel.
I start by welcoming the Minister and thank all noble Lords—especially the noble Baroness—who are here to discuss the contribution that trade with Israel makes to the UK, the businesses it supports, the jobs it creates and how many thousands of people are better off as a result of trade with our closest ally in the Middle East. The argument I want to make is that increasing trade with and attracting investment from Israel will help the Government achieve their most important objectives by improving growth and delivering their industrial strategy.
I pay tribute to the brilliant team at our embassy in Tel Aviv, led by His Majesty’s Ambassador Simon Walters CMG, the Trade Director Debbie Shapiro and all their colleagues, who work so hard to encourage British companies to export to Israel and Israelis to invest here in the UK. I am sure that the Minister will join me in thanking the officials in his department who promote trade with Israel and support my work in the trade envoy team.
Before the conflict, trade between Israel and the UK was at an all-time high—and our relationship stronger than ever before—in trade and investment, technology and innovation, defence and security, and health and education. Over the past five years, more than 300 Israeli companies have expanded into the UK, generating 4,000 jobs and almost £1 billion in investment. Israeli investment created 871 jobs and contributed £173 million to the UK economy in the last year alone, as trade increased again, despite the Gaza war and campaigns to boycott Israel.
Official figures from the Department for Business and Trade showed that total trade amounted to £6.2 billion in the year to June last year. This represented a 3.2%—or £218 million—increase driven by a surge of financial services exports to Israel. Given the overall balance of UK trade around the world, it is particularly important to note that more than half of the trade with Israel is in British exports, which accounted for much of that, increasing by 10.5%. We export clothes and cars, power generators and aircraft engines, medical equipment, scientific instruments and pharmaceutical products—and Scotch whisky exports are up 300%.
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming that increase, and so will he set out the UK’s current trade policy with Israel and what more the Government are doing to encourage exports to and investment from Israel? Does he have any plans to visit Israel to see all this at first hand, to meet UK companies working there, to encourage exports and to encourage Israelis to invest here?
Israel supplies one in seven NHS prescriptions, which save the health service nearly £3 billion every year. It is a global leader in digital health, biotech and medical innovation, delivering cutting-edge breakthroughs in early cancer detection, gene editing, Alzheimer’s research and cardiovascular treatment. The UK-Israel Health-Tech Academy was launched in 2024 by the UK-Israel Tech Hub, which is based in our embassy in Tel Aviv, to bring Israeli health breakthroughs to benefit UK patients. Supported by the Dangoor Education foundation, the academy educates cutting-edge start-ups in Israel on the UK healthcare system and enables medical technology trials with NHS partners. The result of that is Israeli start-ups conducting research and spending R&D capital with the NHS to enable patients in the UK to benefit from ground-breaking Israeli healthcare developments and technologies.
Established by the British Council, our embassy and the Pears Foundation, BIRAX—the Britain Israel Research and Academic Exchange—is the flagship UK-Israel research partnership, which has invested £15 million in 32 collaborative projects to tackle huge challenges such as debilitating diseases, regenerative medicine and healthy ageing. Led by Ravit Capauner, it funds university partnerships to bring academic researchers in Israel and the UK together to strengthen innovation and scientific research. It uses cutting-edge technologies in AI, big data, life sciences and personalised medicine to tackle NHS priorities in dementia, multimorbidity, women’s health and mental health, to help people live longer, healthier and more independent lives. It contributes to economic growth in the UK by creating hundreds of jobs in scientific research and leveraging other funding to generate much greater economic benefits for the UK.
Israel is also a key defence and security partner. It is the third-largest supplier of arms to the UK, and Israeli military equipment has saved the lives of British forces in combat zones. Its technology provides crucial support for the Armed Forces, and Israeli intelligence has helped prevent terror attacks here in Britain.
It is obvious, in the face of Putin’s aggression, that we need to strengthen Britain’s air and cyber defences, and we are using Israel’s expertise in cyber security for that. So, I ask the Minister whether he will welcome Israeli defence investment in the UK, which has seen Israeli firms set up UK subsidiaries and establish joint ventures with UK defence companies, which provide good, highly skilled and well-paid jobs, as well as supporting our Armed Forces and the UK’s defences.
It is absolutely clear that the partnership between our two countries matters across so many sectors already, but there are huge opportunities in areas such as financial services, infrastructure, life sciences, AI and cyber security for the future.
The current trade agreement is 30 years old. It ensures tariff-free trade on 99% of goods but it predates even the invention of the internet, Israel’s emergence as a tech superpower, the growth of financial services here in the UK and the climate crisis. Given that services now count for 80% of both our economies’ activities, there is obviously great potential in digital trade, innovation, services, low-carbon and environmental technologies.
The UK’s new industrial strategy focuses on eight high-potential sectors, including clean energy, advanced manufacturing, defence, financial services, business, digital, technology and so on. These are all fields where Israeli innovation is recognised globally. This means that closer collaboration with Israel can help to meet our industrial strategy goals faster.
Can I draw to the Minister’s attention two initiatives launched by our embassy in Tel Aviv? First, Ambassador Walters and trade director Shapiro have launched ScaIL UK to accelerate the expansion of high-growth Israeli tech companies aligned with our industrial strategy into the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the work of the UK-Israel Tech Hub, which is led by Keren Shurkin, has brokered over 300 high-impact tech partnerships, which boost productivity and deliver sustainable economic growth. These partnerships have led to a growth of Israeli-founded unicorns in Britain and venture capital being invested in UK innovation, and they have improved the quality of life for stroke patients, reduced waste at our supermarkets and saved bank accounts millions in reducing fraud losses. Israel boasts the highest start-up density in the world, and the UK-Israel Tech Hub links this dynamism with our industrial strategy by engaging venture capital, entrepreneurs and accelerators that bring their skills, talent, capital and technology to the UK.
Israel is number three in the world for start-ups. Its economy is not just recovering from 7 October but rising stronger. London is the best city in Europe for start-ups, second only to New York globally. We have more tech unicorns than any city in Europe, so what greater partner could there be for the start-up nation than the UK?
In conclusion, the reason all this works is pretty straightforward: the longstanding partnership between two great countries. We are like-minded partners with shared values, free societies and open democracies. We are liberal countries which value the contribution of every citizen regardless of background or gender. We are two countries focused on trade and innovation, working together to create jobs, boost prosperity, improve defence and security, and tackle the world’s biggest challenges. This is the truth about our relationship with Israel. We should celebrate that success and do all we can to bring our two countries closer together.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin, on securing this debate and his excellent opening speech. I thank His Excellency Simon Walters, our man in Tel Aviv, and the Israeli embassy in London for its assistance in my comments.
As has been said, trade with Israel is strong, and the UK is the net beneficiary of that. Israel climbed to be in the top eight of European countries investing in FDI in the UK. Israel brings tested solutions in counterterrorism, emergency response, infrastructure protection and crisis management, and not just that but a huge social and political impact through trade. Trade with Israel supports thousands of UK jobs. Israel’s defence companies have UK subsidiaries, which manufacture here and provide income for hundreds of families.
Trade is such a huge topic that I will have to focus on a few areas. The first is defence. Nowhere has the UK benefited more from its relationship with Israel than in defence. Israel is the third-largest supplier of arms to the UK, and the contribution from Israel’s cyber companies has been enormous, which helps keep us all safe. The UK Government’s growth plans are all in areas where Israel can contribute and has globally recognised expertise. Of course, the third-largest concentration of AI start-ups in the world is in Israel.
In my opinion the UK is very unprepared for AI-driven drone warfare, but Israel has anticipated that future and we need to try to benefit from those skills. Unfortunately, banning arms sales to Israel has been extremely unhelpful at this time and now needs to be reversed, as does the ludicrous decision to ban Israeli defence officials from the Royal College of Defence Studies and then to ban Israel defence firms from a major London arms fair. The Royal College of Defence Studies has long accepted students from countries with dire human rights records, yet only Israel has been subject to blanket exclusion.
That takes me to my second theme: the hugely disappointing approach sometimes taken by UK Governments. As we know, the Labour Party talked out the BDS—boycott, divestment and sanctions—Bill, which was very important to UK-Israel relations. As I understand it—I am happy to be corrected—they have no intention to bring it back. Boycotts create a chilling effect: they deter investment, research and partnership far beyond their formal scope, and in fact, they nurture violence, extremism and antisemitism. The attempt to normalise the delegitimisation of Israel is pure antisemitism undertaken by bad actors with dangerous motives. It needs to be challenged rigorously at every opportunity.
Under this Government’s watch, unfortunately, Israeli factories in the UK have been invaded and huge damage has been done to equipment, as recently as last month, in Edinburgh. But, more importantly, these horrific and violent actions unsettle the UK staff employed at these crucial defence businesses, and they greatly discourage Israeli academics and professionals from coming here. I was in Israel last week with Conservative Friends of Israel, and people were all asking me, “What’s going on in the UK? Is it a safe place for me to go to?” That would have been unimaginable a few years ago.
The curtailment of the negotiations of a trade treaty in May 2025 was a disgrace. If the Minister cannot apologise for those decisions—because they happened well before his time in office—at the very least it would be good to hear from him when they will be reversed. Can he please tell us exactly what the trade policy is now in respect of Israel? Can he spell it out, please, as clearly as is possible? We want to hear from him, very loudly, that the UK is proud to be Israel’s supplier, customer, partner, ally and collaborator in many fields—including, for the purpose of this most welcome debate, trade.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, compared with some of the big debates facing us around phase 2 of the Middle East peace process, the urgent need to get reconstruction going in Gaza, and the Iranian people’s uprising against their theocracy, debates on trade can sometimes seem rather esoteric, although they are clearly important in terms of jobs and living standards. But I want to make very tangible—picking up some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Austin—the importance of the bilateral relationship for health and life sciences.
The reason that is so tangible is that today, like every day of the year, millions of our fellow citizens—millions of NHS patients—will have taken a tablet supplied to them by an Israeli pharmaceutical company for a huge range of conditions, spanning multiple sclerosis, cancer, pain management and antibiotics. Millions of patients benefit and, frankly, the NHS saves billions of pounds as a consequence. One estimate put before the Commons science committee just before Christmas suggested that we gain about £2.4 billion of savings each year as a consequence particularly of that trade relationship we have, buying those medicines from a leading Israeli company, which turns out therefore to be a top-15 strategic supplier to the NHS.
There is another reason why it makes sense to have some geographical diversity in our medicine supply chain: it is no secret that at the time of the Covid pandemic, for example, we saw some questionable behaviour on the part of the European Commission seeking to restrict flows of vaccines and medicines. It is also no secret that the current US Administration has been putting significant pressure on the British Government to hike the drug prices that the NHS is paying. So having a range of other suppliers geographically around the world strengthens our resilience and our negotiating hand.
It is not just about medicines, of course, but also medtech, for the reasons we have heard. The Government’s 10-year health plan talks about the transition from analogue to digital. Frankly, the epicentre of where that innovation is fizzing away is not just in the US; it is also in a lot of the companies that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, referred to.
One point for the Minister would be that we had in 2023 the memorandum of understanding that set out the importance of these kinds of bilateral relationships in something called the 2030 road map. It would be very useful to hear where that has now got to in the context of the Government’s current trade policy with Israel. Again, if that could be spelled out and shared with us more clearly, it would also be of great interest to many of the British life sciences companies that supply their own medicines across the world, including to the Middle East and Israel. I am thinking of companies such as GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, for which this is hugely important. Of course, they are able to be successful because of the innovative science that happens not just in each of our countries but around the world. No country has a monopoly on science.
When the world’s most prominent scientific journal was publishing its year-end assessment of 10 of the breakthrough science discoveries in the last year, it referred to one of them at the Weizmann Institute. Unfortunately, the lab that had produced that discovery was then hit by an Iranian missile in the summer. But the conclusion that Nature magazine drew from those 10 discoveries, including that one of the Weizmann, is that they
“showcase the ongoing strength of science globally: its ability to transcend national borders … its power to save and improve lives … They also serve as a reminder of what is lost when governments … fail to nurture the international collaborative spirit that creates the breakthroughs that make the world a better place for all”.
Let us ourselves not make that mistake.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Austin, for tabling this QSD and I welcome, if rather belatedly, the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, as a Minister. It is excellent to have somebody with his extensive business knowledge in the position. I think I am right in saying that he has a good knowledge of Israel, from his time in a kibbutz as a student, so he will be able to contribute in many ways.
I speak as an ex-Minister for Trade and Investment but also as someone who has been a director of many companies that trade around the world. While many other noble Lords have spoken about the size of trade with Israel, I will talk a little about quality rather than just quantity. There is a great fit between the UK and Israel in many sectors: life sciences, fintech, defence—which has been mentioned—AI, cyber and technology more generally. In fact, when I was CEO of BT, we had one technology scanning team for Asia, one for Silicon Valley, one for Europe and one for Israel. That gives an idea of the scale of technological innovation coming out of Israel.
As a Trade Minister, I recall how many Israeli companies would seek to come to the UK as their first point of expansion out of Israel. They were setting up their European or global hubs in the UK; indeed, one of the largest sources of AIM-listed companies was Israel. Yet we have the BDS movement, which uniquely agitates against a democratic country that has so many shared interests with the UK. I would point out to these protestors that, if they are truly serious in their misguided views and want to boycott Israel, they are going to have to do something different from picketing Barclays, which does not have much of a relationship with Israel, or standing beside the kosher counters of Marks & Spencer supermarkets.
If they want to be serious, for a start they must stop using their iPhones, which contain a huge amount of Israeli products. They must turn off their computers, because one of Microsoft’s major research hubs is based in Israel, and not use AI: Nvidia recently described Israel as its second home, so they would have to stop using AI. They must also reject the range of medicines and cutting-edge treatments that Israeli health companies provide. When they come down for their weekly protests, please can they not use the mapping software provided by Waze, which is Israeli, or the buses, because the software that supports all our bus scheduling comes out of Israel as well. I would tell them to get lost, but they will probably manage that on their own, in the circumstances.
It is also worth reflecting on the relationship between Israel’s universities and businesses, which I think we can replicate in the UK; it is particularly strong. I recently met the rector of one of Israel’s leading universities, who is a renowned neurobiologist. She told me that she had been disinvited from a number of conferences, presumably to strike a blow against the supposed Israeli apartheid. She is an Arab Maronite Christian. This highlights the absurdity of the BDS movement.
We need to recognise the substantial benefit to the UK of Israeli trade, but we also need to stand against the malign forces we are seeing, promote the benefits to the UK of this trade and assure Israeli companies that this is a good place to invest in order to create UK jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, just said. I would be interested to hear how the Minister and his Government will, going forward, say that the UK is a good and safe place for Israeli companies to invest.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, for securing this debate. I declare that I am not Jewish, but I am a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
In the year to the end of 2025, the UK and Israel traded roughly £6.2 billion in goods and services, with the UK reporting a trade surplus of £1 billion over that period. Services account for a large and growing share of that relationship, and thousands of British jobs depend on exports to Israel. As we have already heard, the UK-Israel economic relationship is concentrated in high-value sectors such as technology, cyber, life sciences, finance and services, which support British jobs and R&D partnerships. Then, of course, there is the other trade that is vital to our economy and security: intelligence sharing and co-operation on the military and defence. We co-operate with Israel, the only democratic country in the whole of the Middle East, on signals intelligence, counterterrorism, cyber security and aerial surveillance data.
All of that co-operation with a trusted partner helps our trade. I regret that it has been put at risk by the foolish suspension of further FTA discussions and some restrictions on the supply of defence goods. Those were, I think, token gestures to appease some Labour Back-Benchers in the Commons who are fearful of losing their seats to pro-Palestinian agitators, and they risk weakening the very economic and diplomatic ties that have worked so brilliantly up to now.
Our close working relationship with Israel has been made possible for more than three centuries because Jewish people have been integral to our national life, building businesses, schools, hospitals, cultural and scientific institutions, and charities. British Jews have served in our Armed Forces in large numbers: around 40,000 in the First World War and 60,000 in the Second World War. These figures reflect sacrifice and loyalty to this country. Jewish citizens have been prominent in science, law, medicine, the arts and public life, enriching our national life through peaceful and industrious behaviour. Just look around this Committee and the House and reflect on the dozens of Jewish Peers who have contributed across religion, politics, the media and public service. The Jewish community has not sought special privileges but has long sought to belong, to serve and to improve Britain through hard work and civic engagement.
The relevance to this debate of the huge contribution that British Jews have made to this country is that many of them still have links with and have relatives in Israel. Israeli Governments and businesses saw that the UK was a Jewish-friendly country with which they could do business. I worry that that is now under threat with the despicable rise of antisemitism against the very community of whom we should be most proud in terms of what it has done for the UK. I am appalled to see those vile people in our streets celebrating the death of 1,200 Jews in the massacre on 7 October and cheering the murders in Manchester and Bondi Beach, leading the chief constable of Greater Manchester to say:
“The intolerable has become normalised, and has almost become accepted as the way that things are”.
We must not permit the intolerable to become normal. To those demonstrators, I say this: you have no right to protest until those whom you champion do what hundreds of good Jews have done for this country over the centuries.
I am proud to support Israel and stand with Jewish people in the UK. The work of British Jews and Israel over the past 60 years has made this country better through peaceful civic contribution—not by demanding special rights or committing acts of terrorism. They all deserve our respect, our protection and our increasing trade with them.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Austin both on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction. I must thank from the bottom of my heart my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his remarks just now, which have almost brought me to tears. I declare my interest as a member of various APPGs on Britain and Israel and British Jews, and I associate myself fully with the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Livingston, on the BDS issue.
There are many important areas in which Israeli trade contributes significantly to the UK and helps improve our future economic growth. In my allotted time for today, I will focus on three vital issues: Israel’s contribution to our health, technological advances and security.
On health, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, explained, Israel supplies many medicines for the NHS and saves this country significant sums. There is a long history of co-operation between Israel and the UK on national and international health challenges. For example, the Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humberside NHS Trust is working with the Israeli firm Taliaz, with its AI technology supporting mental health patients; that is just one small example. Israel is a recognised global leader in digital health, biotech and medical innovations, as we have heard from other noble Lords. We have much to learn from the advances that Israel continues to make. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to expand scientific, medical and commercial co-operation with Israel to ensure that its breakthroughs directly support UK healthcare and bolster the NHS?
In science and technology, including environmental tech, Israeli innovation is world-renowned. Its advances can help the UK. As a global leader in fields ranging from sophisticated air traffic control systems to high-level security, it has developed improvements in sectors such as clean energy, the creative industries, life sciences, digital technology and services, which are core areas of the Government’s 10-year plan to boost the UK’s economy and productivity. Since these are such important areas of our plan for growth, does the Minister agree with me that closer co-operation with Israel can accelerate UK technological leadership, helping the Government meet their industrial strategy and growth goals even faster?
Lastly, on national security, including intelligence sharing and counterterrorism, Israel makes a positive contribution to the UK. Past Governments built a strong defence partnership and developed close co-operation on counterterrorism and cyber security, with Israeli experts playing an important role in defending our country against bad actors. In that connection, I repeat that it is an extreme disappointment that our Government have suspended some of our trade with Israel—and only Israel—on what I consider spurious grounds. There are hints of antisemitism. Given that both nations face increasingly complex security challenges, does the Minister agree that Israel-UK trade and co-operation can offer significant potential for boosting UK growth, innovation, intelligence collaboration and the joint development of advanced capabilities?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness. The problem with speaking so far down a list of many eminent speakers is that, I am afraid, a lot of the good stuff I was going to say has already been said—but I am still going to crack on.
This is the first time I have engaged with the Minister, so I congratulate him; I appreciate that he has been in his position for some time, but his is a fantastic role. I also congratulate my personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Austin, not just on securing this debate but on all of the great work that he does as a trade envoy, in standing up for the Jewish community in this country and in tackling antisemitism.
As everyone has already said, it is important that we are honest about what is already true and the facts of the relationship with Israel, which are often, I am afraid, overlooked or selectively disregarded. The relationship, as has been said, is incredibly strong. Co-operation extends beyond trade into counterterrorism, research, technology and AI. It is one of the few major trading relationships in which we enjoy a trade surplus, and it is one that continues to grow. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is one of the many virtues of Brexit that the ability to pursue new trade agreements means that we can also pursue our own national interests at the same time. As has been said, sadly, part of a new trade agreement under discussion has been halted.
Trade is not just commercial, though: it is the arena for engagement, co-operation and influence. If the Government felt unable to continue those talks during the war, what precisely is preventing their resumption now that the war is over? If the issue is aid, surely the Government can set out the threshold they expect to see. If it is about human rights, are we saying that we will suspend or abandon all trade discussions with every country with whose record we have concerns, or is this approach being applied only to Israel? If the concern is around a lack of progress on the peace plan, this week, even the Government briefly touched on the need for Hamas to disarm as part of that process, as my noble friend Lord Massey noted in the debate last night. The point is that it is widely recognised that the obstacles on the ground are not solely of Israel’s making.
So what is holding us back? Is our economy performing so well that we can afford to turn away deeper trade with a key partner? If the Government are so opposed to Israel’s actions, do they no longer consider Israel an ally? If we truly objected to Israeli policy, why did we not suspend all trade rather than only these new discussions? Like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I am afraid to say that this makes me feel as though this was simply something for the Prime Minister to placate his Back-Benchers. If we were so opposed to what Israel was doing, why did we not apply the same approach to the United States, whose support for Israel was unequivocal?
If the Prime Minister objects to President Trump’s actions in Venezuela on the grounds of international law, will we now curtail economic ties with America on that basis? I hasten to add that I do not agree that we should—personally, I think that we should be congratulating it—but this is an inconsistency. I cannot help but feel that, at times, the Prime Minister appears to be intentionally trying to send different messages to different audiences, banning Israelis from the Royal College of Defence Studies and cancelling certain defence exports to appear tough to one group, as has been said, while maintaining the bulk of defence co-operation and the purchasing of arms—that has been mentioned—to reassure another. There was the announcement of the recognition of Palestine—but not immediately—and the halting of new trade talks while maintaining the wider relationship.
If we are serious about supporting a two-state solution, disengagement does not help. The Trump peace plan explicitly envisages Israeli investment in the reconstruction and economic stabilisation of Gaza. A prosperous and secure Israel is essential for Israelis, Palestinians, the region and our own national interest. Now that the war has ended, surely this is a moment to re-engage, rebuild momentum and strengthen that relationship, to the benefit of both nations; that is in the interests of the region, economic growth in this country and our shared security.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin, on initiating this interesting debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, to his new role as Minister.
As noble Lords have mentioned, Israel and the UK have a very strong trading relationship, with a high proportion of technology and high value-added goods. There is, of course, enormous potential for growth. Israel’s success story as a growth economy, despite living in an almost perpetual state of war, is truly remarkable—almost miraculous. If one looks at a comparison of its growth with that of countries such as the UK, Germany or France, one sees that Israel has grown its key wealth metric, GDP per capita, from $26,000 in 2005 to more than $60,000 today—more than doubling in two decades. By contrast, the UK and other European countries have increased their GDP per capita in that timeframe by about 25%. So Israel started 50% behind us 20 years ago and has now outstripped the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain on a per capita basis—a remarkable achievement.
How has it done this? There may be some lessons to be learned for us. Entrepreneurship and technological innovation have been the main drivers of its outperformance. Its weighting of its tech sector, in terms of percentage of workforce and percentage of GDP, is double ours, so it brings very complementary skill sets to our own economy.
Israel is an ideal trading partner for the UK, bringing expertise in technologies, as many noble Lords have discussed today, such as cyber, AI, clean energy, biotech, defence equipment and electronics. Those are areas that we need in order to grow, and we have the additional benefit of running a £1 billion surplus with it as it buy our business in financial services, cars and pharmaceuticals. That is why Israel was one of the first countries targeted for an FTA post Brexit. The last Government began to update the trade deal in 2022 in order to support cross-border services, both professional and digital, but of course in May this year, as has been mentioned, the Government decided to freeze negotiations on the FTA that would have significantly enhanced the economies of both nations. They did so because this Government do not like the way that Israel has prosecuted the war in Gaza, despite the fact that its enemy is an Islamic terror group hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews.
Thus far, the £6 billion of trade carries on because business needs it to, not because of any actions by the UK Government, but growth is on hold—another decision, if I may say so, where this Government have placed politics ahead of their much-vaunted objective of generating economic growth. In the meantime, Israel has entered into serious FTA discussions with a much larger and faster-growing trading nation: India, no less—and we wonder why the UK is falling behind.
We are placing a valuable long-term relationship at risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, suggested. I urge the Government to reconsider the decision of last May at the earliest opportunity, now that a ceasefire has been reached and a peace plan signed. The Government have stated that it would take “a sustained shift” in the Israeli position for the Government to resume negotiations. I invite the Minister to comment on his understanding of what would constitute such a shift and whether he would support the further expansion of our trading relationship with Israel.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Austin, for securing this debate. I express my agreement with the themes of his speech and those of many other speakers this afternoon. I welcome the Minister to his new position.
I declare the interest that I was for more than 10 years the chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association. En passant, in those 10 years I would frequently, as a strong supporter of and much engaged in the Good Friday agreement, argue with Israeli audiences and say, “You ought to be careful. Let’s not assume that Hamas are as fundamentalist as they appear to be. After all, it turned out the IRA weren’t”. After 7 October, that argument inevitably falls on stony ground. I have made that argument for 10 years but it can no longer be sustained. That is the tragedy of the position we are now in: Israel has no alternative but to fight a many-sided war in which it cannot afford to end up appearing as a weak horse, to use Osama bin Laden’s dictum. I am afraid I do not think our Government are fully facing up to that brutal and unfortunate reality.
When I first came to this House in the summer of 2007, the boycott movement was just about getting going and there was a debate covering many of the same themes that we have covered today. I looked at it again in preparation for this debate, and the one thing I would say is that those who spoke in favour of Israel, including the importance of scientific co-operation, the medical achievements of Israel and so on—there were many distinguished academics who spoke—actually understated their case. As I look back on it now, the case is much stronger. The fact is that Israel is now a world leader in medical and paramedical research, and it is tremendously important to acknowledge that. Many speeches have made all the points. It is not just a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, says, of the thousands of people in England who owe their jobs to Israeli investment; there are quite lot of people walking around now who owe their lives to Israeli achievement in the medical and scientific spheres. As I say, those who defended Israel 18 or 19 years ago in this House understated the case that we made for the importance of collaboration with Israel in medical and scientific matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Austin, referred to the great work in this area of our ambassador in Israel, Simon Walters. I agree, and I am rather proud that Simon Walters comes from exactly the same part of the world that I do. I take a certain chauvinistic pride in that.
I have one final point. The Royal College of Defence Studies was raised. For many years I lectured there, and I was happy to do so. As has been rightly said, many of the soldiers I spoke to did not come from the most liberal, democratic countries in the world, but I still did it and I still think it was the right thing to do. I have had to stop now as a consequence of that decision, which is just astounding and very unfortunate. It is a difficult matter for the Minister to comment on, but I hope he realises that many of us are very unhappy with that particular decision.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Austin, for introducing this really interesting debate. He ranged into a whole lot of different areas and pinpointed some of the great pieces of trade between our two countries.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are clear that trade with Israel is a positive thing, as we have all stated, and that we should be consolidating ties with our closest ally in the region and looking to expand them into the future. We should not, as the Government are intent on doing, be closing channels and limiting agreements based on moral posturing rather than the empirical reality.
The last Government understood this. That is why we signed a trade continuity agreement with Israel that commenced upon our exiting of the European Union. We knew that close links contribute to our countries’ prosperity, which is why we relaunched negotiations for a new deal in 2022. As a result, Israel stands as a growing contributor to our economy. In the four quarters leading up to Q2 2025, total trade between the two countries, as mentioned by noble Lords, amounted to £6.2 billion, £3.6 billion of which came from Israel buying British goods and services—up more than 10% on the year.
Israel is a vital trade partner to the United Kingdom. The former Trade Minister in the other place, Douglas Alexander, noted that one in eight of the prescribed drugs available through the NHS is provided by an Israeli company—it was really interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, a bit more detail on the different drugs being imported to this country. Yet that is despite rather than because of the Government’s best efforts. They have cut trade, amended policy to specifically exclude Israel from arms programmes, and have most recently suspended the free trade agreement negotiations that the Conservatives started.
What is particularly damaging is that these suspended negotiations had the aim of expanding trade to financial services and digital trade—our biggest sectors. Services comprise about 80% of Israel and the United Kingdom’s economies. Telecommunications and IT services trade with Israel surged by over 40% last year, and yet services make up just over a third of the total trade between our two countries. Renewed trade negotiations and a renewed trade deal would galvanise the service sectors of both economies. They would drive competition, promote innovation and stimulate growth. The Government are missing the opportunity, through their adherence to a vindictive and, I am afraid, misguided policy. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position his Government currently hold and I look forward to hearing his response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I start by saying that I have visited Israel on many occasions over the years, both for personal and business reasons. Some visits started many years ago, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Livingston. I still have a number of friends who live in the country, and in particular, as someone who has spent decades as an entrepreneur, I am a huge advocate and admirer of its tech sector, which many noble Lords mentioned in the debate.
Israel is without doubt a vibrant, dynamic democracy and a fast-growing economy. While this Government have consistently made our concerns with the conduct of the Israeli Government known, Israel remains a trading partner that plays a significant role in the UK’s economy, with business and personal ties that we continue to value greatly. The UK is committed to our existing trading relationship, and we retain the services of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, our trade envoy, to maintain our relationships with Israeli businesses and attract inward investment in key sectors of the industrial strategy. I express my personal thanks to him for bringing this debate to the Committee today and echo his comments about the British Embassy in Tel Aviv and His Majesty’s Ambassador Simon Walters, who provided me with some helpful advice in our meeting in December.
Israel’s innovative, high-tech economy is well aligned with our own, providing an avenue for critical imports in key sectors mentioned, such as healthcare, medicines for respiratory care, neurology, oncology and pain management to support the treatment of chronic and high-burden diseases. Our economies are highly complementary, with clear parallels in services, technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. We have seen Israeli firms expand in the UK across strategic sectors such as cyber security, climate and energy, fintech and the automotive sector. These all fit neatly into our industrial strategy, as mentioned, and our trade strategy, and as such support our economic growth as a nation. Trade with Israel supports thousands of jobs across the UK. This is especially true across the north and the Midlands, which benefit from Israeli investment, and firms in the advanced manufacturing sectors.
Reflecting our shared heritage as tech-savvy and innovative entrepreneurs, more Israeli tech companies operate in the UK than anywhere else in Europe, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Austin. Co-operation between our nations is extensive, particularly in the sphere of scientific research and development. British and Israeli scientists collaborate on research and development projects, resulting in new products, industrial processes and services. This has led, for example, to the Leeds-Israel Innovation Healthtech Gateway, a collaborative initiative designed to strengthen ties between the UK and Israel in the health sector.
We continue to build on these relationships, including, as mentioned by the noble Lord, through the recently launched ScaIL UK initiative, a first of its kind programme led by DBT and the British Embassy in Tel Aviv. It is designed to help scale-ups establish a strong UK presence by unlocking opportunities in the aforementioned eight priority sectors of the UK industrial strategy, from advanced manufacturing and clean energy to digital technology and life sciences. As a result, these selected high-growth companies will gain practical insights, strategic guidance and direct connections to drive physical expansion, job creation and impactful commercial activity in the whole UK market.
All this is supported under our current trade agreement with Israel. The UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement rolled over, post Brexit, from the 1995 EU-Israel Association Agreement. Accordingly, in line with our European friends and partners, the UK-Israel TPA does not grant preferences to goods from illegal Israeli settlements. Furthermore, we neither support nor condone commercial or financial activity undertaken by British businesses with entities in these illegal settlements. Government guidance is absolutely clear that trading with these settlements brings significant risk and that businesses should seek legal advice before undertaking such activity.
It remains this Government’s firm belief, as set out in the trade strategy last year, that more trade with dynamic and fast-growing partners will generate economic growth in the UK, supporting British jobs and providing the prosperity we need and everything that is foundational to this Government’s growth mission. However, we have also been clear that an enhanced trading relationship with Israel cannot come at any cost. That is why, as the Committee will be aware, we took the decision to pause negotiations on an enhanced trade free trade agreement in May this year in response to the Israeli Government’s rhetoric and actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Since that announcement, we have been, and continue to be, clear that we would need to see sustained change in the Israeli Government’s position before we could resume trade negotiations—and to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that extends to the RCDS courses.
However, we welcome the moment of significantly profound relief and hope that the ceasefire agreed early this year, after two years of devastating suffering, has brought to all. This Government will continue to do all we can to support an enduring ceasefire, and the UK will continue to play our part in supporting not just the implementation of phase 1 of the peace initiative but the crucial work going forward now in phase 2. In line with this, we will continue to monitor the situation in Israel and Palestine and work to support long-term peace and stability in the region. The UK clearly believes that a two-state solution is the only path to justice for Palestinians and enduring security for Israelis. A two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, is the only path to lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the outstanding topics raised by noble Lords during the debate that I have not yet referred to. Several noble Lords raised the issue of antisemitism. Let me be really clear on this: the UK Government are absolutely committed to combating antisemitism in the UK and globally. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets.
On the issue of BDS, I say to the many noble Lords who raised it today that the UK Government are committed to promoting our trade and business ties with Israel and strongly oppose boycotts.
We will continue to monitor the situation in Israel and Palestine and work to support long-term peace and stability in the region. If it remains the case, in the long term, the UK and Israeli economies are strongly compatible, with plenty of significant opportunities for our businesses. To that end, we will continue to support and encourage the business-to-business and people-to-people connections that underpin any successful trading relationship and maintain our frank and open dialogue with the Israeli Government, which is important between trading partners.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the Minister say exactly what he wants to see, further than a ceasefire, to restart the trade talks?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
We are waiting to see phase 2 of the ceasefire put in place. At that point, the dialogue can continue.
Vaccine Health Technology Assessment
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to include wider societal and economic benefits within the vaccine health technology assessment, rather than limiting evaluation solely to clinical outcomes.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I was delighted to secure this debate as this is a subject of significant importance and one in which I have a close interest. Health and economic growth are rightly identified by the Government as two of their central priorities and they sit at the core of the NHS 10-year plan. Vaccines lie at the intersection of these ambitions, yet the way we currently assess their value does not reflect the full contribution they can make to either. Vaccines are among the most effective public health interventions ever developed. For more than two centuries, they have saved lives, reduced pressure on health services and enabled societies and economies to function. Yet, despite this well-established record, the health technology assessment of vaccines in England remains too narrow.
At present, vaccine assessment focuses predominantly on direct clinical outcomes and immediate health system costs. While these are clearly important, they do not capture the wider societal and economic benefits that vaccines deliver, benefits that are directly relevant to both national growth and the long-term sustainability of the NHS. Vaccines keep people in work and children in school, and they enable carers to care. They reduce absenteeism, protect productivity and help prevent avoidable demand on already-stretched NHS services. In doing so, they support economic growth and help deliver the Government’s ambition of a healthier, more productive population, as set out in the NHS 10-year health plan. This matters because vaccines are fundamentally different from many other health technologies. They prevent disease before it occurs, reduce transmission and generate benefits that extend well beyond individual patients. Assessing them through a narrow clinical lens risks undervaluing prevention and slowing access to innovations that could deliver long-term health and economic gains.
Recent evidence from the Office of Health Economics provides compelling data in this regard. Its latest report provides estimates of the annual burden associated with respiratory illnesses for four selected vaccination programmes from the NHS routine schedule, as well as the projected costs and savings associated with those vaccines. Despite the delivery of national vaccination programmes for these four disease areas, a significant burden of disease remains. The report shows the costs to the NHS and quantifies the broader socioeconomic impact of vaccines, specifically the impact that they can have on reducing the UK welfare budget and workplace absenteeism and increasing UK productivity—helping to support the Government’s priorities on health and growth.
Key findings include the fact that the cost to the NHS of treating the unprotected population for these four respiratory illnesses alone is £3.9 billion. The cost to the wider economy is £3.6 billion, making a total of £7.4 billion a year. At the same time, the UK spends only 1.07% of health expenditure and 0.1% of GDP to cover immunisation programmes in the national schedule. A 10% reduction in the current burden, through higher coverage with the same vaccine, a future vaccine with higher efficacy or improved effectiveness at the same coverage levels, or a combination of the two, could deliver significant benefits—£384 million in annual NHS savings and £356 million in lower productivity costs. These findings are undoubtedly compelling and reinforce the point that vaccines should be viewed not as a short-term cost but as a strategic investment with benefits that extend well beyond the health system.
The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic made this abundantly clear. Vaccines were not only a health intervention; they were essential to economic recovery, educational continuity and social stability. Yet our routine assessment frameworks have not fully embedded this lesson.
I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that if the Government are serious about delivering their growth agenda and the ambitions of the NHS 10-year health plan, prevention and vaccines in particular must be valued accordingly. That requires assessment frameworks that recognise long-term, cross-government benefits, not just short-term clinical outcomes. I thank the Minister for the recent response she gave to my Parliamentary Question on this issue.
I welcome the recent positive decision by NICE to revise its cost-effectiveness thresholds. This is an important and constructive step. However, with these revised thresholds, the current framework does not systematically include broader socioeconomic benefits. I therefore ask the Minister whether these changes will feed through to JCVI evaluations of vaccines and immunisation programmes.
Crucially, while changes to thresholds may improve flexibility at the margins, they do not address the more fundamental issue that vaccines are still assessed using methodologies that fail to capture their full, long-term societal and economic value. I therefore urge the Government to consider how vaccine health technology assessment can evolve, including clearer guidance on incorporating societal and economic impacts, improved alignments between NICE, JCVI and the NHS, and an explicit recognition that prevention requires a different evaluative approach from treatment.
In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether His Majesty’s Government will commit to establishing an independent committee to evaluate this existing vaccine health technology assessment process. Such a review could assess whether current approaches are fit for purpose, consider international best practice and make recommendations on how wider societal and economic benefits can be appropriately and consistently incorporated.
This is not about lowering evidential standards; it is about measuring the right outcomes over the right time horizon in support of the Government’s priorities on health, growth and NHS sustainability. If we continue to undervalue vaccines, we risk missing one of the most effective tools available to improve population health, reduce pressure on the NHS and support long-term economic prosperity.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to take this forward and the contributions of other noble Lords on this very important issue.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has just given an utterly compelling speech on the subject of the debate today. I do not want to repeat the points she has made; they are completely convincing. Instead, I want to build on her arguments from my experience as a Health Minister by addressing the question of why, despite broad rhetorical agreement from all corners of this Parliament, we are still struggling to implement sensible measures on our assessment frameworks, and to suggest a couple of measures, some of which the noble Baroness has already alluded to, for how we can move forward constructively. In this, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Royal Society for Public Health.
No one thinks that vaccines are a complete panacea for all the health problems we have in this country. But, although we have multifactorial issues around social care, workforce, primary care access and all kinds of problems, vaccine prevention is a very significant, very important and easily modifiable contributor to our nation’s health. It is one of the few levers we have to improve the human capital of this country, and we do well in this country with the vaccines we have—but my lord, we could do a lot better. We should be leaning in, especially since new vaccines, including cell therapies and gene therapies, are on the horizon for cancer, heart disease and even depression. If we take the limited laid-back approach of today, we simply will not take advantage of the technologies of tomorrow.
UKHSA data shows that vaccine-preventable infectious disease hospitalisations cost the NHS between £970 million and £1.5 billion annually in avoidable emergency admissions. In other words, that is in-year healthcare costs for our system and our taxpayers. I appreciate that these are not totally fungible savings that automatically release money for the rest of the system, but they represent important opportunities to reduce preventable suffering and free up capacity, so that it can be turned to other urgent needs. They should therefore be valued highly.
If the case for greater use of the vaccines we have is so obvious, why have we not changed? I want to engage very seriously with the legitimate concerns raised by NICE, JCVI and the DHSC. First, there is the consistency argument. DHSC’s 2018 CEMIPP consultation stated that,
“if changes to thresholds and time horizons are considered for vaccines, they should also be considered more broadly”.
That is absolutely right. The implication is that we cannot treat vaccines differently, and I agree with that strongly. We need to completely change our approach from top to bottom, across all medicines. The solution is not to keep undervaluing vaccines but to update methods for all preventive interventions. After all, Germany operates modified frameworks for preventive technologies and the WHO explicitly recommends this, so why not Britain? The DHSC’s attitude is: “Because we assess everything badly, we must continue to assess vaccines badly too”. Let us be more ambitious, embrace the opportunity and make sure that we are allocating resources thoughtfully for maximum impact across the piece.
Secondly, there is the NHS perspective argument. NICE’s 2013 methods guide required assessment
“from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services”
because considering broader benefits would favour technologies that are less efficient at improving health when non-health benefits are higher. You bet they would—that is the entire idea. It is the voters’ priority and the taxpayers’ priority. It is this Parliament’s stated mandate. It is also the Treasury’s concern, so let us do it. I fear that, in this instance, NICE is not constrained by methodology; it is just out of date and failing to remember who pays the bills. We will lose the voters’ confidence with this approach.
Thirdly, there is the methodological uncertainty argument. The Office for Health Economics noted in 2021:
“Recognising the broader value of vaccines … requires … advancements in data and methodological capabilities”
to avoid double counting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, alluded to, we should absolutely be clear about the limitations of evidence for long-term population health investments. Some of the productivity and long-term effects I have described in this speech come from economic models, not from randomised trials. That is inevitable but, even taking this into account, I fear that we are completely off the pace here. WHO published comprehensive guidance in 2019, and I can point noble Lords to countless reliable models that demonstrate the value of vaccines. In this case, the UK is not constrained by some daunting methodological frontier; we are just too easily overwhelmed by distracting clinical standards and behind the methodological curve.
Fourthly and lastly, there is the equity argument. NICE and DHSC raised concerns that including productivity could bias allocation towards working-age populations and against older people. NICE’s concern about bias towards working-age populations reveals the problem: the organisation views human capital preservation as a bias rather than an objective. Every pound we invest in keeping a 45 year-old healthy returns a huge multiple that can fund care for a 75 year-old. These are not competing priorities; they are complementary. We must stop apologising for the fact that preventing a death at 55 delivers massively more economic value than preventing one at 85. That is not discrimination; it is demography and economics.
Pressure is mounting. The British Social Attitudes survey shows widespread consensus that the NHS must transform from a national sickness service to one that supports people to live healthy lives. Voters, taxpayers and patients are expecting better. In other words, this debate is a metaphor for a broader failure. Our healthcare system focuses on system maintenance rather than on capital preservation.
So I ask for four concrete commitments from the Minister: first, to commission NICE to develop a broader value assessment for vaccines and preventative interventions by April 2026, and in this I echo the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie; secondly, to expand respiratory vaccination to all ages over 50, phased over three years, from April 2026, including flu, pneumococcal and shingles—I declare an interest here: I recently paid for my shingles vaccine; thirdly, to launch targeted MMR catch-up campaigns in London and the West Midlands, where we are massively behind the pace; and, fourthly, to mandate UKHSA to publish annual human capital impact assessments for all major vaccination programmes.
Our £220 billion healthcare system does not need more money for this. We need to shift spending from wasteful, late-stage and low-value crisis management into early-stage, high-value prevention. This requires some services to shrink—specifically, expensive emergency capacity that we have built to cope with preventable disease should instead focus on vaccines—and requires an investment that yields massive economic, societal and human capital benefits. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for arranging for us to have this debate today. It could not be at a more important time for us.
Vaccines are one of the clearest examples that we have of prevention working well. They stop illness before it starts, they reduce pressure on the National Health Service, and they protect the most vulnerable in our society, yet, when we assess their value, we tend to look at them through a very narrow lens. At present, vaccine health technology assessments focus primarily on clinical outcomes and direct health system costs. That matters, of course, but it is not the whole story. When we ignore the wider societal and economic effects of vaccination, we risk undervaluing one of the most effective public health tools we have. This matters particularly for women, children and carers.
I shall start with children. When children are vaccinated, they are less likely to fall ill, less likely to miss school and more likely to stay engaged in learning. School absence is not a trivial issue. We know from the Government and from OECD analysis that sustained absence affects educational attainment and long-term life chances. When illnesses disrupt schooling, that does not affect the child’s health in the short term but it can shape their future for the long term, and that affects the country as a whole, yet the benefits of vaccination in reducing school absence and protecting learning are rarely counted in formal assessments. These costs do not disappear; they simply fall elsewhere, on families, on schools and ultimately on society. Every child’s health should matter.
I turn to carers. When a child is ill, or when an older or disabled family member becomes unwell, someone steps in to care. In the UK, that someone is most often a woman—mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters. They take time off work and reduce their hours. Sometimes they have to leave the workforce altogether. That does not make a family happy, it does not help GDP and it does not really help the family. The Library briefing makes it clear that societal perspective on health technology assessment can include informal care and productivity effects. That is not radical—it is already recognised in economic evaluation guidance—but in practice these impacts are often excluded or treated as secondary.
If we do not account for the burden placed on carers, we are in effect saying that their time, labour and lost income do not count. This is not gender neutral; it entrenches inequality by hiding costs that fall disproportionately on women and their pensions. Vaccination reduces that burden. It helps families to function and prevents crises in households that are already under strain. Those are real benefits, even if they do not show up immediately in the national health balance sheet.
There is also an important equality dimension. We know that vaccination uptake is not equal across communities; in some areas and groups in England, childhood vaccination rates have fallen and inequalities have widened. When preventable illness occurs, the social and economic consequences are felt most sharply in the communities that already face disadvantage. We must work hard to encourage families in those communities that vaccinations are safe overall and that it is the right thing to do. At the same time, we must not be too pushy; we have to work out the right way to encourage this across friends and across communities, as we did during the Covid situation. We worked very hard on that in this House. One of the leaders, who was a Muslim, very much helped us to do that and we need to look at that kind of work again.
This is not a fringe argument. The World Health Organization defines health technology assessment as
“covering both … direct and indirect consequences”
of health interventions. Academic work has repeatedly shown that vaccinations generate broader societal value, including educational benefits, productivity gains and protection against inequality. NICE already allows for analysis beyond the standard reference case when appropriate. The tools exist; what is missing is consistency and clarity about how and when wider societal benefits should be included for vaccines.
I want to acknowledge that there are challenges here. Measuring wider impacts is complex. There are legitimate concerns about double-counting and about privileging economic productivity over other values, but complexity is not a reason to ignore large and predictable effects; it is a reason to be transparent, to publish assumptions and to use sensitivity in all analysis. It is precisely because of those concerns that we must ensure equality and caregiver impacts are explicitly considered, not sidelined. If we count only what happens inside the clinic, we miss what happens in homes, in schools and in carers’ lives. Vaccines do not just prevent disease, they prevent disruption, inequality and unnecessary strains on families and workplaces. If we are serious about prevention, fairness and long-term guidance, our assessment frameworks need to reflect the world as it actually is.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, some weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, tabled a Written Question on this subject. With great respect to the Minister, her response was not a strong one: it merely suggested the possibility of considerations such as productivity costs being highlighted by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, so we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate and enabling us to take up the issue further.
I believe that considerations such as impact on productivity and the wider economy should always be included at the heart of decision-making concerning the provision of medicines and vaccines, but there is a general problem in public policy-making, with too much short-termism and insufficient weight being applied to factors beyond simple clinical outcomes. I often argue in the House that productivity, which was discussed in the Chamber yesterday, as well as wider socio-economic considerations, should be applied more generally to decisions about procurement in the healthcare sector. We need to consider these issues in relation to the provision of assistive technology supporting people with disabilities and we need to apply them to the provision of medical equipment, such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps for people with diabetes.
In many public policy areas—not just healthcare—we need real, long-term cultural change. We need much less short-termism and much less policy development based on silos that exclude the consideration of wider relevant issues. Long-term benefit analysis concerning vaccinations must cover not just costs to the NHS against improving life expectancy but the benefits of a healthier workforce, of more people paying into HMRC and of fewer people with illnesses and disabilities being more dependent on the DWP. We should also look much more at the considerable potential benefits of greater emotional well-being to both people and society as a whole.
However, first, we must think ourselves lucky to live in the United Kingdom and not in the United States, where a dangerous, ignorant and prejudiced man was appointed by President Trump to undermine sensible public health policies with his anti-vax agenda. Millions of people worldwide are at risk because of his prejudices, which contradict the scientific evidence. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are doing everything they can to prevent right-wing nutters in this country—many of whom are influenced by the far right in America—spreading dangerous disinformation here about the safety and necessity of vaccination programmes. Everyone should know that vaccinations prevent millions of deaths every year from diseases such as measles, rubella, polio, flu and Covid-19. We need to educate people from an early age against the prejudice of ideologies that are hostile to vaccinations.
We also need to look carefully at the current evaluation process for new medicines and vaccines, led by NICE and the JCVI, which is built on something that is too narrow and is termed the “health sector perspective”. This approach is about managing the immediate budgets of the NHS, but it is not about the budgets of the NHS in decades to come. This approach does not look at the economic consequences of inaction. Recent research from the Office of Health Economics suggests that respiratory infections alone cost UK businesses an estimated £44 billion annually in lost productivity. This is a drain on our national prosperity; productivity should be a key factor in considering the evaluation and rolling out of vaccines.
Last year, I got my flu jab. As a person with diabetes, I also got my Covid-19 jab on the NHS. However, this year, I was told that I no longer qualified for the Covid-19 jab. I had to pay £90 to have it privately, but not everyone can do that. Failing to vaccinate as widely as we should for flu and Covid-19 costs money in many ways. I understand that the prevalence of flu this year has been very damaging to the public sector and that many people will be badly affected by this. We also need to consider the impact of vaccination programmes on educational attainment. For childhood vaccines, the current models of evaluation often miss the long-term benefits of improved school attendance and cognitive performance, which eventually translate into higher lifetime productivity.
We need to look more at the benefits of vaccines that can make other life-saving treatments, such as chemotherapy for the immunocompromised, safer and more effective. We need to be more aware of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. Vaccines are front-line defences in this battle, reducing the need for antibiotics and thus slowing the development of resistant strains. Although the JCVI acknowledges this, it does not yet consistently capture the value in its cost-effectiveness models.
The Government’s 10-year health plan and Life Sciences Sector Plan set an ambitious target: for the UK to be one of the top three fastest places in Europe for patient access to medicines by 2030. I know that there will always be pressure within government to prioritise measures that show benefit by the time of the next election. There is always intense pressure from the Treasury to consider the implications for immediate budgets and, as we know, whichever party wins the election, the Treasury stays in power. I believe that, to establish better practice, we should look more to nations such as Sweden, which already incorporates a broader range of studied impacts, including productivity losses for both patients and carers, in its assessments. I hope that the Minister can respond positively.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for securing this timely and important debate and for the eloquent way in which she laid out her argument. We saw the value of vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic. Millions of people rolled up their sleeves, with the impact not just on patients and hospitals but on the wider economy. I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell, who was a Minister during that time, given some of the challenges Ministers faced in making sure that we found the vaccine solution and then were able to roll it out. That rollout was a turning point that allowed restrictions to be lifted and our country to try to get back to normal, but we know that we are still feeling the effects in some places, and some people are still feeling them.
When respiratory illnesses such as flu and Covid strike, people are forced to stay off work and children miss school. I thoroughly recommend the excellent briefing by the House of Lords Library; in fact, I may well use it in my teaching. At this point, I probably should declare my interest. I am a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University in Twickenham, and I will be teaching an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy this semester. The excellent Library briefing quotes the Office of Health Economics, which estimates that such absences cost employers around £850 per employee annually. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, that amounts to about £44 billion across the UK.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health suggests that reducing vaccine-preventable illnesses helps children to stay in school more consistently, improves access to education and supports better educational outcomes overall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, alluded to. In the Lancet, Professor Philippe Beutels wrote about the “peace of mind” that vaccination can bring, particularly for the clinically vulnerable. Knowing that you or your loved ones are protected matters enormously, yet this assurance is often overlooked in formal evaluations.
But there is a challenge. Taking account of wider societal and economic benefits within the current health technology assessments is not straightforward and is often subjective. We should also be aware of any unintended consequences, whether for healthcare budgets or for the cost of vaccine development. We will have read of the example of Portugal, when the argument was that it increased productivity so the pharmaceutical company said, “In that case, you can pay more for the vaccines given the wider societal impact”.
At the moment, vaccines are assessed in a more focused way. NICE and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation largely operate from what is known as a health sector perspective. Health technology assessments focus on the direct impacts on the healthcare system, with wider societal and economic effects considered only in exceptional cases. NICE’s economic evaluations usually look only at the cost to the NHS and care services. While savings within the health system, such as short hospital stays, can be counted, the wider impacts such as productivity or keeping people in work are explicitly left out. The case for capturing some of these wider benefits within health merits careful consideration, as my noble friend Lord Bethell laid out.
While recognising concerns about broadening the criteria and the unintended negative consequences, as in the Portuguese example, there is also a practical challenge. We simply do not have enough good-quality data on the wider social and economic impacts of vaccines. As an academic I know, and others will know, that the quality of data really matters. You can make whatever argument you want if you have data that is too subjective or if it is contested, but neither is that an argument not to contest the data or some of the theories that come out. This is hardly surprising, given that these impacts are not currently captured as part of the health technology assessment and there is no agreed way of measuring these wider effects. Estimating the socioeconomic impact is inherently difficult, particularly for complex areas such as the role that vaccines play in reducing AMR, for example, or even putting a value on unpaid work, such as caring for family members. Once again, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, mentioned this.
There are and will be debates over what should be included and how; whether and how different factors should be weighted; and how far across society and the economy we should go. On many of these points, scientific consensus would be difficult. In measuring these effects, there will also be a challenge in ensuring that the data collected is robust and reliable. Achieving data of sufficient quality and certainty is itself a challenge.
The Office of Health Economics pointed out the siloed nature of public sector budgets, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned. This leads to a focus on clinical outcomes and healthcare alone. NICE has asked why, if health technology assessments were expanded to take account of the impacts on other sectors, those other sectors should not also routinely assess the health impacts of their own policies. Without that wider responsibility, there is a risk of the burden all falling on NICE or on the health part of government, when it is actually a wider societal gain. Finally, considering the broader challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, we should recall that in 2022 the NICE review judged that expanding this work further
“would be disproportionate to any expected benefits to the quality of NICE decisions”
given the flexibility that already exists to take “relevant wider effects” into account.
It is clear that this debate is important but also on a balanced issue. It raises serious questions about the wider benefits of vaccination, not always considered by current health technology assessments, but also exposes some of the methodological and resource challenges. This should not be an excuse for a lack of action or for not investigating these ideas in more detail.
One crucial point should not be overlooked: the benefits debated today, economic, social and clinical, can be realised only if people actually get vaccinated in the first place. I was concerned, as I am sure the Minister was, to see that by the end of week 50 of 2025, only 36% of pregnant women and only 39% of under-65s in clinical risk groups had received the flu vaccine. Within the NHS, as of late October—I hope that the Minister has more up-to-date figures—fewer than three in 10 nurses working in secondary care had received the flu vaccine. This sends the wrong message to patients but also puts patients’ health, and even lives, at risk. Given the concerns over the flu outbreak this winter, we should consider why these vaccination rates are so low.
I really want to ask the Government about their strategy, so I shall end by asking some quick questions. Can the Minister explain why the vaccination rates are so low? What are the primary reasons? Is it about communications, access or convenience? What assessment has been made of each of these factors? What assessment has the Department of Health and Social Care made of the wider benefits of achieving high vaccination coverage, especially among school-age children? We know that this can be a sensitive topic at times, but has the department considered the broader societal and educational impacts?
Can the Minister also set out whether any work is under way within the department to ensure that the wider assessments we have debated today are carried out more regularly? Has it looked into that in more detail? Given that the NICE 2022 review concluded that the current system already has sufficient flexibility to consider wider impacts on an ad-hoc basis, is the Minister aware of whether such assessments have been used more regularly since then, and does the department judge them to be a helpful and effective part of decision-making? These are really important questions that I think we need answers to, but I close again by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and all noble Lords who contributed today. I also thank the Minister in advance for her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her thorough introduction and for securing this debate. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their considered contributions. The subject of today’s debate reflects my noble friend’s steadfast commitment to improving access to immunisation and her tireless efforts to ensure that vaccination matters continue to receive the attention that they undoubtedly deserve. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, this is a very important debate to have and I welcome the probing that it provides.
Let me say at the outset that I believe we in the UK can be proud that we have one of the most extensive vaccination programmes in the world. We protect people across their life course and it is underpinned by rigorous scientific evidence and a commitment to equitable access—a point made both by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Goudie.
The question of international comparators was raised. Our vaccination progress serves as a global benchmark for innovation and best practice, and many nations look to align their immunisation schedule with ours.
I will focus on the specifics as best I can in the time available. On the JCVI, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made a number of comments suggesting what I might say, and in a number of cases he will be entirely right, so I am grateful to him for shining a light on some of those points. Decisions on introducing or changing vaccination programmes are informed by advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It is an independent and expert committee and world leader in this field, as has been recognised in this debate. It bases its advice on high-quality data, disease burden, vaccine safety and efficacy, and the impact and cost-effectiveness of programmes, and it ensures that we maintain public confidence in our policies. I know that all these things are important to noble Lords.
On the current approach to evaluating vaccines, the cost effectiveness analysis used by the JCVI compares the cost of a vaccine relative to the health benefits it provides. I appreciate that this debate is about extending beyond that, but that is what it does. It looks at the health benefits provided for a vaccinated individual and others—this point was raised in the course of the debate—and it considers direct cost savings to the health and social care system resulting from immunisation, such as averting hospitalisation and the need for social care.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie suggested that the current approach somehow undervalues prevention, can delay innovation and does not take into account benefits beyond those to the individual patient. I would put this rather differently to my noble friend, because the methodology is entirely focused on prevention. As I mentioned, the positive benefits are not just for the person who has been vaccinated but for those around them. We look to reduce the incidence of infection, and we are also mindful about the transmission of conditions and infections to others.
My noble friend also asked about changes to thresholds. I can say to her that we are actively considering the impact of changes to thresholds in vaccination programmes. Perhaps I will only be a little cautious, but there is the potential that such a change would increase the costs of existing programmes, perhaps by incentivising higher prices from suppliers. But there is a recognition of the role that such a change could play in encouraging innovation, and I know that my noble friend is very keen to see that.
I am not sure this came up too much in the debate, but it is an important point. Our use of data to establish cost effectiveness has ensured that we get value for money from manufacturers, and that has allowed us to deliver a comprehensive programme. It is important that we continue to keep that value for money.
On wider societal and economic impacts, it is the case that wider benefits can be highlighted by officials or the JCVI when advising government on vaccination programmes, but it is also true that it does not account for the impact of vaccination that I have heard all noble Lords call for. A key reason for this—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pre-empted this—is that the wider benefits cannot be quantified consistently across all vaccination programmes. There is currently a lack of available high-quality data on socioeconomic benefits. As the noble Lord said, robust data may be available for very few programmes. Basing decisions on wider benefits would create disparities whereby vaccination programmes with high-quality data and wider benefits were considered more valuable. So we do not have the basic situation to achieve what we all want.
There are also many uncertainties when modelling socioeconomic benefits. Unpaid care was mentioned, for example; I think my noble friend Lady Goudie referred to it. Quantifying the impact on that would be extremely complicated, and there is no clarity on how estimating or modelling this or other impacts should be approached. That concern was echoed by NICE when it did an appraisal on this very topic in 2022, and it agreed to maintain the approach that it currently takes.
On the point about supply that I mentioned earlier, there can also be a risk that by adding wider benefits into formal evaluation methods we send a signal to suppliers that we could be open to paying higher costs for the same vaccines or medicines. I see noble Lords both nodding and shaking their heads, which is the purpose of a debate.
There are additional ethical concerns. As was mentioned, vaccination programmes for working populations, important though they are, could be preferred over programmes for those who are not economically active. That is not a basis on which we would want to proceed because it would exacerbate inequalities and undermine the equity of our approach.
I recognise that my noble friend Lady Ritchie has raised this Question as part of a focus to broaden vaccination access. That is a goal to which we are absolutely committed. We have been putting plans into action to provide new programmes—for example, launching programmes to protect infants and older adults against RSV. Just this month, we announced that a vaccine against chickenpox would go into the routine childhood immunisation schedule. That is expected to save the NHS some £15 million a year in costs for treating vaccinations.
The important matter of improving uptake has been raised. We are delivering vaccinations in new ways via community pharmacists, and pilots for administering vaccinations within health visits are starting this month. Through this targeted outreach, we offer an opportunity to increase uptake and reduce inequalities by providing vaccinations to those who might not otherwise access vaccinations. We are also working with healthcare professionals so that they can confidently discuss immunisation with concerned patients, because it is vital to tackle vaccine information. We are exploring innovative delivery models and delivering trusted messaging, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who spoke about other influences that we would not welcome.
A number of questions have been asked, and I will be glad to write to noble Lords to pick up their specific points. I realise that my remarks in general will not be the ones that my noble friend and other noble Lords will have hoped for, but I hope I have been able to outline some of the difficulties while appreciating the points that have been made.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Before my noble friend sits down, I ask that she and her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care give particular attention to establishing the independent committee to evaluate the existing vaccine health technology assessment process so that the impact of vaccines on the economy, education and wider society can be seen clearly.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand why my noble friend is raising that, but NICE is seen as a world leader in that regard and has processes in place to review its processes and methods to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. I am not entirely convinced, as my noble friend will see, that we need to establish an independent committee, but doubtless she will pick up this point, and I will be pleased to hear from her further on it.
Net Zero: Civil Society and Faith-based Organisations
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to include civil society and faith-based organisations in work to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
Our recently published Energising Britain plan sets out how we will work with communities so that everyone can benefit from our clean energy superpower mission. It highlights how we are already engaging people and local organisations to design and deliver climate and nature policies that reflect people’s needs and views. The plan also outlines new ways to collaborate, including an annual “Energising Britain” event and the Youth for Climate and Nature panel.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Gus Speth at Yale said that the real issue in reaching net zero is tackling “selfishness, greed and apathy”. Pope Francis called for an ecological “conversion”. Both civil society and faith-based organisations can provide thought leadership in this sphere. I wonder whether the Minister might share with us his thoughts on how we can build upon that in implementing the strategy that he has just outlined so that these groups can be more engaged in the ongoing dialogue about net zero.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Energising Britain plan, among many other things, sets out ways in which local communities and faith groups can play a central role not just in the clean energy superpower mission but on the road to net zero. In my experience, working with local communities, covenants and faith groups in various parts of Southampton has proven a tremendous moral driver to that mission. I hope that the Energising Britain plan will take full account of just how much moral and practical leadership can come about as a result of energising those communities and local faith groups.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as there is no scientific evidence that we can change the climate, the right reverend Prelate’s bishop friends are relying for their scientific information on supernatural powers?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will be pleased to know that I do not agree with anything that he has said this morning in this Chamber. It is absolutely clear that the science says that we have a severe problem as far as global warming is concerned, and we need to take action to deal with it. That is precisely what we are doing in government at the moment.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, there will be a number of civil society and faith-based organisations in the ex-mining areas of South Yorkshire. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that reaching out to them, perhaps through parish councils, would be an excellent way of explaining the benefits of net zero in creating local jobs? For example—he will not be surprised to hear this from me—Sheffield Forgemasters could play a role in manufacturing small modular reactors and other renewable equipment.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The question of how local communities, particularly those which have previously been involved in the high-carbon economy, can ensure that they are not left behind in the low-carbon economy is very important to us. The question of a just transition to net zero is also very important. My noble friend mentioned Sheffield Forgemasters, which is crucial to the local communities and the areas of Sheffield in which it resides. Ensuring that the content of future low-carbon energy projects is as high as possible within the UK, and preferably comes to those local industries, is an important part of that just transition.
Lord Bird (CB)
Does the Minister agree that getting rid of poverty would be one of the greatest ways of achieving net zero?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that getting to net zero is an ethical and—shall we say?—spiritual concept that involves justice in the process. Justice involves getting rid of poverty, among other things. But I remind the noble Lord that low-carbon activity—for example, cutting substantial money from people’s energy bills as a part of that process—is a substantial way of cutting poverty on the road to net zero.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, three in four of our young people are moderately or extremely concerned about the impact of climate change. What action are the Government taking to include young people much more in decision-making processes to make sure that their voices are heard? Specifically, I ask the Minister: what intention do the Government have to have citizens’ assemblies so that young people’s voices are included in policy-making?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl will be aware of the many actions that the Government are undertaking to ensure that young people are committed, involved and energised as far as climate change and net zero are concerned. That is among the reasons why we have developed the Youth for Climate and Nature panel, which is part of our Energising Britain plan. It is also the case that some of the highest commitment to the green transition to low-carbon energy is to be found among young people, and they therefore need to be fundamentally included at both the community and faith level in the work that we are doing.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s original Answer referencing the Government’s Energising Britain plan, the Government’s shortened clean energy objective is disfiguring huge swathes of the countryside and alienating local communities. A 180-kilometre transmission line is being built from Norwich to Tilbury; Carmarthenshire residents have been locked in a battle with authorities over pylons for over two years; and most recently a new 71-acre substation is being proposed in north Cumbria despite opposition from locals. Given that by the time many of these projects are completed undergrounding cables will have become far more affordable—already, comparative costs for undergrounding have plummeted from 10 to four times that of overgrounding—does the Minister believe that this approach is the best way to win the support of rural communities for net zero?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be well aware of the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done on the infrastructure changes to bring about net-zero energy for the future. Of course, that entails bringing forward new infrastructure—which, by the way, the previous Administration completely fell down on in terms of the green transition—but that needs to be done, in terms of the theme of our discussion today, with the involvement of local communities and local areas in getting that new infrastructure in place in a satisfactory way. The question of undergrounding or otherwise of cables for the future is something that clearly needs to be considered, as does the overall benefit of that new infrastructure for those communities in terms of bringing their bills down, bringing clean energy to their communities and making sure that the green transition is carried forward as best as possible at local level.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I commend the Minister for his favourable mention of government/publicly owned Sheffield Forgemasters and its role in the small modular reactor programme. Could he therefore reassure the House that the vessels for the first-in-class modular reactors, which we are funding through Rolls-Royce, will in fact be built at Sheffield Forgemasters and not shipped in from overseas?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As I think my noble friend will be aware, we are in the process of developing a first modular nuclear reactor with Rolls-Royce. Considerable progress has been made in that development but as yet no decisions have been taken about exactly where the components of that new modular reactor will be built, subject to the general commitment that the highest possible percentage of the components for small nuclear reactors, and other parts of the nuclear programme, will be sourced in the UK. Certainly, it will be the Government’s intention to make sure that that commitment is met to the greatest possible degree.
Buses: Safety and Security
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what work they are undertaking to ensure the safety and security of buses.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
This Government are committed to ensuring that buses are safe and secure for all passengers and road users, and we expect the bus sector to uphold the highest possible safety standards. The Bus Services Act 2025 helps to deliver safer, more reliable and more accessible bus networks, and we have just published the new Road Safety Strategy, setting out the Government’s plan to make our roads significantly safer for everyone.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that there are around 700 Yutong electric buses in operation across our country and that concerns have been raised internationally that these buses can be stopped or made inoperable through remote interference from China, will the Government issue clear guidance for procurement of such electric buses, including new security requirements, such as firewalls, to prevent our buses being hacked?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My department and other parts of government are looking into the media reports on this from Norway, and the Secretary of State has already committed to updating the Transport Select Committee on this work as soon as we can. We cannot legally mandate that funding given as subsidy is used to purchase British-built buses, but where local authorities are running their own procurement to buy buses directly, they can design these exercises in a way that maximises the wider economic benefits offered by domestic suppliers. We also launched last year the UK bus manufacturing expert panel to support UK bus manufacturing. Through that, we are actively encouraging mayoral combined authorities—many of which will shortly procure bus fleets to support their new bus franchising programmes—to embed best-practice social-value criteria within their procurement.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain how the roads can be made safer for buses? In the press today, there are reports of two accidents involving school buses and quite a few children injured. Is it not time that we had a system to make the roads safe for buses and for everyone, in the way that happens in many other countries?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I refer my noble friend to the Road Safety Strategy that has just been published—the first for many years—which sets out a whole variety of actions to be taken with vehicles, drivers, pedestrians, other road users and infrastructure, which he refers to, in order to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Nevertheless, travelling by bus is a very safe mode of travel.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, given the current weather conditions, buses on icy roads are obviously an issue. Does the Minister know whether we mandate bus companies to have winter tyres on buses? If we do not, should we do so?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have never heard of any mandate for winter tyres. The speed at which the weather changes, given the climate change just discussed in this Chamber, would make changing tyres overnight a seriously impractical activity. What is needed when the roads are frosty and temperatures are below freezing is adequate gritting and care by local transport authorities. Ministers in my department in the other place have this week been looking into the adequacy of gritting across the country.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, Covid had a big impact on the number of people using our buses. What is the Government’s latest assessment of take-up of bus use post Covid, and what are the Government doing to promote the use of buses to the public?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite correct: Covid had an effect on all public transport demand. The Government have taken a series of actions, including the Bus Services Act 2025, which changes the landscape to enable local transport authorities to provide services designed for the people who live and work in their communities. I refer the noble Lord to recent funding announcements, which include funding for every transport authority in England—unlike the previous Government’s selective funding—and we have now guaranteed funding over the next three years. Consistency of service will encourage the increase of passengers on buses, and we are determined to achieve that.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon? My understanding is that officials in his department, in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre, have already carried out an analysis of those Chinese-made buses and confirmed that there is a security flaw which enables them to be remotely dealt with, although there is no evidence that it has happened. Can he confirm that to your Lordships’ House and say what the Government are doing with not just buses but all transport technology to make sure that it is not vulnerable to attack by our enemies?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is clearly in possession of information that I do not have, because my department and other parts of government are still looking at this. But it is a fact of life that all modern vehicles, including buses, are using software to support safer driving, improve diagnostics and provide a host of other services, and updating this software remotely is an effective and efficient way of doing so. That has been the practice for years, but it is a concern and that is why we are looking at it. If something needs to be done, of course this Government will do it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, what will the Government provide to the UK electric bus industry to ensure competition in the bus sector and real choices for local authorities and transport authorities? What additional safety features will the Government require for bus fleets across the country to work towards Vision Zero, as initiatives in London and West Yorkshire are doing at present?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I already referred to the UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which has been set up by this Government precisely to support the UK bus manufacturing industry. I also said that we are actively encouraging those mayoral combined authorities which will procure bus fleets to embed best-practice social-value criteria so that they are more able to procure buses made in Britain. If the noble Lord looks at the Road Safety Strategy—I am not suggesting that he is remiss in not having done so, because it has been published only in the last few hours—he will see that it includes real commitments to the safe system, which is the rather less-interesting title of Vision Zero, devised in Sweden. It looks to embed that in every aspect of road safety in Britain, including the operation of buses. We had some discussion here about the safe system in the debates on what became the Bus Services Act. I think the noble Lord and others will be very pleased to read what is in the strategy when they are able to do so.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I must confess that, when I saw this Question on the Order Paper, I envisaged a discussion about safety in buses as much as the safety of buses, so I hope my noble friend will forgive me for asking an adjacent question to do with safety in buses. What can he tell us about the way that the training of drivers and the design of buses is now being taken forward to ensure the safety of young women in particular travelling in buses, especially at night?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Bus Services Act 2025 mandates training for all bus drivers, to make buses part of the safer streets initiative to deal with violence against women and girls. The department is actively producing guidance for bus operators and local authorities about how that is done so that every bus driver in Britain has the ability to spot what is going on and deal with it. Some 96% of buses in Britain now have CCTV, which is a means of providing both evidence and reassurance to passengers that their safety is being considered. I am looking forward, as I am sure my noble friend is, to this training being rolled out to every driver in Britain.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it remains the case that very large numbers of people are injured daily though accidents inside buses, especially elderly people, in large measure as a result of sharp braking. Nothing has been done to reduce this number over the years. The Minister is very aware of it. What can he say that this new strategy that we have the benefit of today is going to do to make a real difference to that number?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I would take issue with the noble Lord in saying that nothing has been done. There has been a lot of individual work. In particular, Transport for London, post his and my time there, has spent a lot of effort and activity in interior bus design and specification of vehicles themselves. But he, too, when he sees the Road Safety Strategy will see words in there about better driving and infrastructure, which was previously referred to, and about the use of Vision Zero, all of which must make a difference in how people drive and, consequently, the effects of braking. Of course, you want vehicles to stop when the vehicle in front of them stops, or there is some hazard, but sharp braking is, of course, as he says, particularly damaging to older people and vulnerable people. We want to avoid it, which is why the Road Safety Strategy has to affect all users of roads.
New Homes: Target
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in meeting their target of building 1.5 million new homes in England within this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
We have always been clear that building 1.5 million homes, which is vital given that we inherited the worst housing crisis in living memory, is an ambitious target. It will require a rate of housebuilding and infrastructure construction not seen for more than 50 years. We recognise the scale of the challenge, and we are driving progress through bold planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing. Our bold planning reforms will drive UK housebuilding to the highest rate in 40 years.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome many of the Government’s planning reforms, but the OBR made it clear in November that they would not be enough to hit the target. Recent completions were at a nine-year low. Many sites with planning permission are no longer viable because of escalating costs, and where sites are viable, builders are reluctant to build out because of weak consumer demand—the Treasury, rather than the Minister’s department, is partly to blame for both those things. If the Government want to get close to the target, will they not have to have a discussion with developers and in conjunction with them bring forward a successor to previous schemes to help first-time buyers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that I have been given the buying and selling process in my portfolio very recently. I have been looking at it in great detail, and I had a meeting with developers yesterday as part of the New Towns Network on how we improve the buying and selling process. A great deal of work is going on in my department and with financial institutions to make sure that we make this process work for first-time buyers and others in the housing market.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, there are more than 250,000 empty homes in this country, and that number is rising. What are the Government doing to tackle that scourge of empty properties, as surely it is the quickest way of tackling some of the housing crisis that we face?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to raise the issues around empty properties. Our Government have been working to make sure that we give councils the powers that they need to drive forward work on empty properties as quickly as possible. We will enable that with new powers for local councils through the planning process to make sure that they can add into the planning process dates for when completions are due.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, the area of our country where the housing crisis is most acute is where people are suffering in temporary accommodation. Many councils up and down the land are really in a bind about how to build their way out of this. What work is being done specifically to help councils to provide homes to move people out of temporary accommodation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have a target to eliminate the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families by the end of this Parliament, except in emergencies. I recognise the problems that it causes for families. We have funding of £969 million for temporary accommodation over the next three years and £950 million for local authority housing funds to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation, providing up to 5,000 homes. There will be increased support for children through a new duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors and GPs that a child is in temporary accommodation. We have to end this scourge of children living in temporary accommodation.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned her negotiations with housebuilders—I think it was just yesterday. We depend on those volume housebuilders to produce all the homes that we need. Can she reassure the House that in those negotiations she will not wish away any of the affordable housing that housebuilders are obliged to provide but so often fail to?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We are determined to make sure that, as we go through the process of building the 1.5 million homes, enough social and affordable housing is included in that target. He will know that I take particular care to not conflate the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing”; they are different things. We have to make sure that we do our best in that regard. From the £39 billion that we have allocated for affordable housing, 60% will be for social housing.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, local planning departments are often cited as a blockage to building more homes, yet fewer than 40% of those local authorities are operating with an adopted plan. As the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill moves through Parliament, what action are the Government taking to ensure that local government reorganisation, with its many new structures, planning powers and inevitable changes of political control, is not used as a delaying tactic to produce an up-to-date plan, which strong anecdotal evidence suggests is happening?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is essential that the local government reorganisation and devolution process does not hold up the production of local plans. My Government have made that absolutely clear and are following up with councils that have delayed local plans. Where the new strategic plans are being made, they can be made in spite of reorganisation, and the data used for them will be transferred as soon as the reorganisation arrangements are complete.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister about what the Government are doing, but we have a country with the number of planning permissions granted in the past 12 months at the lowest level since 2013 and construction costs rising by up to 40%. How are the Government now going to deliver the at least 1 million homes that the previous Tory Government did in their last term, let alone the promised 1.5 million in the next 3.5 years left in this Government?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On buildout rates—the number of planning permissions in place that are not built out—I think we can look to the previous Government for the answer to that question. We are changing incentives in the housing market, giving local authorities the tools that they need to speed up delivery, requiring developers to commit to delivery timeframes and giving councils the power to refuse to consider applications from developers that consistently fail to build out quickly enough, as well as exploring a delayed homes penalty. As well as all the positive-side and demand-side incentives that we are putting in place, I think that will make the biggest change to housing delivery that we have seen in many generations.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the answers that we have had, particularly around social rent and affordable rent. Does the Minister agree that we also need to make space for things such as community land trusts and other community-led social housing initiatives, which can often provide accommodation in particular niches and communities that is much more sensitive to the needs of local communities? They may not be volume builders, but I would urge that they have a vital part to play.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We need to take particular care to make sure that we use all the mechanisms to deliver some of the very specialised housing that the right reverend Prelate refers to. Some of those local trusts know exactly what is needed for their local communities. They do a fantastic job, and my Government want to support them through the funding that we are providing, as well as through any supporting measures in the planning reforms that we are bringing forward.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is not a fundamental constraint on achieving construction output the depleted and ageing workforce in the building industry? Does that not therefore necessitate an expansion of off-site fabrication? That requires long-term planning, long-term financing and a regular flow of orders to be efficient. Will that not ultimately lead to a major council house building programme?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The funding in the £39 billion programme will see a great increase in the building of council homes, as will the ability of councils to use that funding as top-up funding for the 100% of receipts they can now keep from right-to-buy sales. My noble friend makes a good point on modern methods of construction. We need to boost their use. They are critical to improving productivity in the construction sector, delivering high-quality, energy-efficient homes more quickly, and creating new and diverse jobs in the sector.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, according to Historic England, up to 670,000 additional homes could be created through the repair and repurposing of existing historic buildings. Have the Government had any conversations with Historic England about this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord has yet had a chance to look at the new National Planning Policy Framework. We are, rightly, focusing attention on how we use the resource of historic and heritage buildings to deliver the kind of homes that we need. The National Planning Policy Framework is undergoing consultation; it is there for people to comment on, and if the noble Lord would like to put his comments into that, I would welcome them. Historic and heritage buildings are clearly an area that we need to examine in great detail to get towards the provision of 1.5 million homes that we know we need.
Greenland
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the objectives of the administration of the United States in relation to the status of Greenland.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and that the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The collective threat that we face in the Arctic is from Russia. That is why NATO has stepped up, including by increasing our collective defence spending, to ensure that we defend the region from increasing Russian threats.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister’s comments. However, does she agree that an annexation of Greenland by the United States—the President of the United States has given a timetable for this happening by the end of his current term—would be one of the most dangerous pivotal points for UK and European security into the future since 1945? Does she also agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that we should have been far more assertive much earlier with our European allies around our view on that annexation? Perhaps a little bit more notice would have been taken if we had not just wished that the subject would go away and evaporate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely clear in the position that we take, as are our allies and partners, and the noble Lord will have seen that in the statement that was made a few days ago. Yesterday, the noble Lord reminded me that we travelled to the Arctic together at about this time last year or two years ago. I know how much interest he takes in the importance of the security of the Arctic region, and I can assure him that the Government share his views.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
We will hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
Are Ministers seeking to persuade President Trump that he can achieve all US security objectives in and around Greenland by working with Denmark through NATO and using the existing treaty it has with Denmark? Also, to show that Arctic security is a genuine NATO priority, is the UK considering deploying at least some military capability of our own to that collective endeavour?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We keep in constant and close contact with our friends and allies in the United States, on this and many other issues. Noble Lords will be aware of the phone call that took place between the Prime Minister and President Trump last night, where these issues were discussed. Obviously, I am not going to respond to what may be several hypothetical positions that get put to me today, but I note what the noble Lord says, and I interpret it broadly as support for the very clear position that the United Kingdom is taking on the need for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark to be the people who decide what happens to Greenland.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as being half-Danish and having studied at the University of Aarhus. Since 1951, it has been perfectly open to the United States to establish more military bases and a bigger military presence in Greenland. If the issue is not military but to extract minerals, it is perfectly possible for the United States to negotiate agreements to mine the minerals, as Chinese companies have done. Is the Minister aware of the position of Members of Congress? Are they likely to support this very aggressive stance taken by the US President?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I should imagine that, as in this Parliament, there will be a range of views on any issue on any given day. The key principle and guiding point that will shape the UK’s position on that question, and on any others concerning the territory of Greenland, is that those decisions should be taken by Greenlanders and, on the issue of sovereignty, by the Kingdom of Denmark together with the people of Greenland.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we are talking about the security of the Arctic. The United States of course has legitimate interests, but so does Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, more recently, the United Kingdom. Following my noble friend’s Question, the reality is that, if the US takes a unilateral action against the NATO alliance, it will not increase security but damage it and open the door for Russia and China to make more incursions into our space. Can the Americans understand that they are going down the wrong path?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any question that starts with “if” is, by definition, a hypothetical—to which I am not in a position to give a concrete response. All I would say is that, clearly, anything that causes dispute between NATO allies would be very pleasing for Vladimir Putin to see, and that is not something that we want to bring about.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has been entirely consistent. On Tuesday, she told the House that, should Denmark wish to enter into a negotiation about the future of Greenland, it is free to do so, with the consent of the people of Greenland. She said it again today and I agree with her; she is right. However, can she explain to the House why that impeccable logic does not apply to the people of the Chagos Islands, who were not even consulted before their homeland was surrendered to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have explained to the noble Lord the issue of the right to self-determination countless times, and I refer the noble Lord to my previous seven or eight answers.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is it not time that the Royal Marines and other European allies moved their Arctic training from Norway to Greenland?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Having visited the training facilities in Norway, I think that they are first class. Operational decisions, such as the one that the noble Lord has put to me, are not things that I will be commenting on or giving opinions on today.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I think the whole House agrees with everything that the Minister has said today. Could she just clarify whether any of the protocols that cover the stationing of US bases in the United Kingdom would preclude the use of those forces in the event of an invasion of, or military action in, Greenland? I realise that is yet another hypothetical question: none the less, I think the Minister began by saying that she did at least recognise that she would get several.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no world in which I am answering that question. There is always negotiation and discussion about the appropriate use of bases in this country. I just remind noble Lords—I do not think they need to be reminded—that the very close military, security and intelligence co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States is decades old. It has kept us safe. It is the world’s closest such relationship and it will continue.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note the reference that the Minister made to increasing dangers in the seas around the United Kingdom. I also note that the Navy managed to provide a fleet auxiliary vessel as our contribution to the taking of this stateless vessel. We are desperately short of coastal and near-sea patrol boats in this country, given the rising threats that we face, both hybrid and direct. Is it not an urgent matter to ensure that we procure and put into service more vessels to manage the safety and security of our surrounding waters and undersea cables?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is why there are now contracts out for more such vessels. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we made some difficult decisions last year about spending. The purpose of that was to increase our spending on defence, which I think is being shown this year to have been the right decision.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
Given the darkening geopolitical situation and the reality behind the pace at which more money is being spent—frankly, there is this faffing around with the defence investment plan, which is really an exercise in “How can we present to the public something that is shambolic but at least reassuring?”—is there no murmur at all in government that they should take a strategic decision to rapidly change the pace and scale of our own national rearmament? Frankly, without that, all the noise that we generate in this place and in government is frankly laughable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord characterises as “faffing” a new defence industrial strategy, an increase in funding and clear, effective leadership when we inherited the smallest Army since the time of Napoleon.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Might it be helpful to pass to President Trump and the Washington team the useful advice of the late Professor Joe Nye of Harvard, who was a good friend of this country? His message was of course that, in modern conditions, you gain much more in terms of influence, security and getting things to move in the right way by being attractive, helpful and friendly to a country than you do by being plain nasty.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s admiration for Professor Nye. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but I think he was somebody whose words we should always bear in mind. You need to do both, and that is what we do. We have a much better co-ordinated approach to our use of what Joe would call soft power, but that needs to go hand in hand with our investment in defence. Given the precarious nature of many parts of the world right now, the idea that we need to do both is I think the correct one.
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Thursday 8th January 2026
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberLicensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 View all Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Broadcasting: Recent Developments
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
That this House takes note of recent developments in relation to broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, when I first put down this Motion, it was really to draw the contrast between the amount of attention we are able to give to media issues in the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons. I do not think we have come out well out of that, but you only have to look at the Order Paper today to see the mass of experience we have in this House in media affairs.
In the time since I put down the Motion, the world has changed profoundly, not least in the change now facing broadcasting and reporting. The old rules and assumptions have been challenged, and a new world seems to be emerging where it looks as if it is the will of the strongest, rather than the demands for justice, that comes first. The result is that the need for impartial editors and reporters, unbiased and concerned only about the truth, has never been so clear. Otherwise, conflicts disappear in a fog of war. You need only name just some of the conflicts still raging to make the point: Ukraine and Gaza are well established, but imagine what could happen if new conflicts were to break out in, for example, Cuba or Greenland.
I should first declare my interest. I was a journalist at the Times for six or seven years. My editor was William Haley, who before that was director-general of the BBC. Later, I myself became chairman of two regional newspapers, including the Yorkshire Post. My views have obviously been influenced by those years, and I have a firm regard for working journalists as well as a firm belief in what their duty should be. Broadcasters should tell the public what is happening as best they can judge from their investigations, and report, above all, honestly.
I doubt whether there has ever been a period when broadcasting has been under more scrutiny and attack. There is scrutiny of the broadcasting organisations themselves, of the policies they pursue and of the people running those organisations and working for them. All of them are caught in the spotlight. The BBC programme “Panorama” is symbolic of what has been happening over the past few months. “Panorama” has rightly been criticised for splicing together some of President Trump’s comments to give the impression that he had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol Building. The error was to put the comments together, rather than leaving any space between them. Tim Davie paid a heavy price for that, because he was forced to resign, as was the head of news. Of course, it also led to the $10 billion claim made by Mr Trump against the BBC. It became an opportunity for a rich man to challenge the whole basis of BBC reporting. It is one example of the new world that we have entered.
I hope, incidentally, that the BBC will continue to resist any legal action. What is being claimed is entirely out of proportion to any damage that might have been caused. It certainly does not provide a general condemnation of broadcasting, any more than phone hacking by some of the press provided a general condemnation of all newspapers.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on around the world. My firm view is that broadcasters should be independent, honest in their reports and not constrained by outside influences, either political or commercial. Broadcasting today is being used as a weapon of war and the danger is that the whole truth scarcely emerges. Those comments are obvious enough when it comes to Russia and China, where no pretence is made of providing a balanced account of what is happening in the world and how balance can be maintained. But elsewhere, the position is more difficult and more complicated.
One of the greatest scandals is not what is being reported; the scandal is what is being prevented from being reported. Take Gaza as an example. We have here an area that has been reduced to rubble, but with no journalists there to record this destruction and its impact on human lives. It is not just the broadcasters that should be under scrutiny; it is the organisations and nations that are preventing honest journalism from taking place and depriving the public of knowledge.
The BBC is an organisation whose reports are relied on in this country and around the globe. We should not allow ideological prejudice to get in the way of judgment. We should remember that the BBC continues to be used more than any other media provider in the United Kingdom, with 94% of adults using at least one of its services during an average month. I say this not because of some nationalist pride but because any attempt to make one mistake a general denunciation of the whole organisation is simply wrong.
It should be remembered that the BBC often gets it right when others are still at sea. When I was reporting for the Times from Beirut, at the time of the Middle East war in 1967, there was total confusion in the press corps about what was happening. Two American reporters showed the way forward by ignoring Voice of America, or some such station, and turning instead to BBC Overseas for their information. I do not know if that would be the case today, although it seems to me unlikely that even American reporters overseas are going to flock to Fox News. What I do know is that, globally, BBC services reach 450 million people each week, which shows some of the international reach that the corporation has. I believe that, in our uncertain world, it is surely important that there are some services that the public can rely on. We can take pride in what we have achieved.
Attacking the BBC has become something of a national sport. Strangely enough, I do not object to that, as it keeps the BBC competitive and on its toes. What is also keeping it looking forward is the competition that it receives from other broadcasters—for example, the new competition from broadcasters such as Times Radio, or the importance of “Channel 4 News”, which must have won more viewers in its reporting of the Middle East in the last few months.
It makes the point that British broadcasting is not just the BBC; it is also its strength. It has the long-term competition of ITV and the new services. It has the competition of the streamers, which pick up large audiences. The BBC and ITV have established large home audiences. The streamers have many excellent programmes, but they do not have what I would call the local characteristic. They are, by nature, international providers, operating for an international market. We are fortunate in having, for example, independent production companies based in this country. It adds to the very strength of British broadcasting.
This is a short debate, and I make it clear that, although I have talked mainly about news, which is what I know most about, there are independent British companies providing first-class music, both classical and popular, and excellent drama programmes, all in line with the whole purpose of the BBC charter to inform, educate and entertain.
Inevitably, then, I come back at the end to the BBC. In the months ahead, we will see fierce debates on the charter and the licence fee. Doubtless, the BBC will receive many suggestions of how to modernise for the future. But for all that, we should remember that we have a unique organisation in this country, which has stood the test of time. It provides an excellent service to the British public and it attracts a big overseas following. It is independent, non-partisan and it has qualities that we respect. My view, quite simply, is that we should be prepared to defend the values in British broadcasting that have sustained us over the last 100 years. I believe, above all, that they have served us very well.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on introducing this debate with great erudition and wisdom. I will concentrate on some very important issues. The recent Israel-Palestine war and the American takeover of Venezuela have raised all kinds of issues about the relevance and limitations of the public service media. Some of these issues are old and familiar, and we have learned to live with them; other issues are relatively new. Some, we have not faced before, and it is important to concentrate on those issues and work out a radical response.
The first issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler said, has to do with the BBC. The whole thing began when the BBC attributed certain remarks to President Trump. Obviously, this was not properly researched, and the BBC was wrong to do so. But the question is this: was it wrong that the President was presented in such a manner? The remarks attributed to him were totally in character with what he had been saying elsewhere. Therefore, attributing to him the remarks was simply a mistake of a procedural, administrative kind and not a substantial, malignant kind.
The second issue is that we are told that the BBC has an institutional bias. It is bound to have an institutional bias—every institution has a bias. The House of Lords has a bias in favour of the peaceful, moderate resolution of conflict and against terrorism. Universities have a bias. What does it mean? An institution exists to promote certain values, and these values inform and inspire its actions, and therefore bias is inevitable. We can accept the bias, learn to discount it from what we hear or see, and move on. That is what we do all the time. I watched a BBC programme on India. I found it disturbing and not particularly accurate, but I know that, whatever line it takes, it is bound to be unsatisfactory to somebody. You discount it—what is the big deal?
My point is that we ought to learn to appreciate the limitations of human intelligence and ingenuity. Nothing can be perfectly free of bias of any kind. Every institution has bias. The third thing is the necessity of educating citizens. The BBC and other media exist to promote their programmes and identity. Therefore, they make sure that their audience is manipulated in a certain way. The question is how an audience can resist this kind of manipulation and make sure that it is not taken for a ride. Therefore, public service media have a responsibility to make sure that people are properly able to engage critically with issues and the reporting of them.
My last point to make, in the four minutes, I have is that media in any society have an extremely important role in keeping society going. Social cohesion means that no group should be left out. How do we make programmes that are open to diversity? You cannot leave out certain groups; you have to make them visible and audible. The media have not tended to do that. The BBC has, to my knowledge, failed in educating the citizenry and local groups. I have not seen programmes where an individual has sat down and gone through the way the programme was reported, showing the audience of millions how to read a programme.
I very much hope that we shall resist any false, malignant pressure on our public service media, from whatever quarter it comes.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, running a media business is not easy. In today’s world, traditional broadcasters face two serious threats: competition from big tech, both economically and for people’s attention; and falling levels of public trust, especially in broadcast news. I will focus on the latter, but I will come back to it in a moment.
Traditional broadcasters’ survival calls for consolidation. We are starting to see that happen with Sky’s planned acquisition of ITV’s channels and digital platform. In my view, the BBC and Channel 4 joining forces in some form or another is a likely next step. It is unclear what Channel 5’s American owners might do but it is worth saying that, even though the channel is American owned, it does a brilliant job of serving rural audiences and those in post-industrial and seaside towns, who frequently raise concerns about representation in programming on other PSBs. Although ownership is important and I am against foreign Governments owning any of our broadcasters, if there is to be a future for public service broadcasting in the UK then that is not where we need to start.
First, we need to be clear why public service broadcasting matters and ensure that its failings, as seen through the eyes of the public, who pay for it and for whose benefit its special status exists, are properly addressed. I think we are all clear that the purpose of public service broadcasting is to promote Britishness—not just British talent, but British values and all aspects of British life. Broadcasters seem to find that last bit most difficult, because they tend to want to change those bits of Britishness they do not like so much. If big tech is an external threat to PSB, this is a threat to its future from within.
This is why some adults have become increasingly distrustful of broadcast news over the last 10 years and are turning away in particular from the BBC. For these audiences, the fact that they are going now is enabled by choice; the choice is not pulling them away, as too many who work in the media want to believe. We have to understand that, in today’s world of endless choice—much of it high quality—public service broadcasting is of value only if it strengthens our nation and communities by promoting British values and reflecting the different facets of British life with respect. This is magnified when it comes to the BBC and will become even more so if American owners of commercial PSBs cannot see sufficient financial benefits to justify the regulatory costs and choose another path.
There is much that is great about the BBC and I want it to be part of our future, but as things stand—this is a big “but”—we and BBC bosses are kidding ourselves if we believe the BBC is the solution to a divided society. It cannot be, unless and until those running the organisation accept publicly that they understand and will address the systemic weaknesses exposed by Michael Prescott’s report that have made the BBC part of the problem and are driving some people away. Up until now, the BBC has appeared to think that if it recognises that it has a problem, it will lose its moral authority. Yet it is losing its moral authority because it is denying that it has a problem. Not changing will threaten its future, and possibly the future of PSB. That is why its strongest supporters must demand that it changes.
Lord Razzall (LD)
Noble Lords will note that I am not my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter. It is customary on these occasions to thank the proposer of the Motion. I would very much like to do so for the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I go further and say that, over the years, he has been a much more vigorous defender of the BBC and other public service broadcasters than many of his colleagues in his former party.
The irony in this debate is that politicians are normally not to be trusted, because we are all obsessed with news and current affairs, unlike the public. Over 20 years ago, 20 million people used to watch BBC News; now it is lucky to get 4 million. However, we need to remember that 12 million people watched “The Celebrity Traitors”, millions are regular followers of “EastEnders” and “Coronation Street”, and more people listen to “The Archers” than watch BBC News. We must never forget that, despite our regional and national differences, UK broadcasters provide much of the glue that binds us all together in our common watching and listening practices. The public service broadcasters are entitled to much of the credit for this.
However, 2026 brings a number of problems, particularly for the public service broadcasters. Will the reduction in TV advertising threaten the viability of Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5? Will Sky be allowed to buy ITV, and what would be the protections for impartiality in that event? As a side issue, will Netflix or Paramount be allowed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery? As a personal interest, will more sport be shown free to air? Will the digital-terrestrial transition to internet protocol delivery be implemented without damaging the ability of people without internet service to watch TV? Will the decline in watching and listening by the under-30s be arrested?
As previous speakers have said, there is then the issue of the BBC. Its immediate problem is to find a new director-general, especially as all the suggested candidates in the press would appear to have to take significant pay cuts to accept the job, even if they wanted it. We must move towards a new charter and funding arrangements in 2026, to be implemented in 2027. The Government have recently published a Green Paper and I have no doubt that many noble Lords will suggest solutions in this debate, but it must be remembered that, on Christmas Day, nine out of the top 10 programmes were BBC programmes. A major issue in this debate which has seemed to be ignored so far is what to do about non-payment, which is now a significant problem for BBC budgets and is rising to an unsustainable level.
Whatever mistakes it makes, these Benches are supporters of the BBC. We share Lisa Nandy’s view of the BBC as a “light on the hill” and we have every hope that it will be safe in her hands as a result.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am regularly commissioned to present “Thought for the Day” on the BBC, as well as weekday and Sunday services. I also occasionally work with a range of other UK and global broadcasters, from GB News to Times Radio and LBC, providing comment on religious and ethical news stories.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has reminded us, broadcasting operates in an international context of increasing polarisation against a background where the greatest global political powers are retreating rapidly into levels of imperialist control and expansionism not previously seen in most of our lifetimes. It is a context in which truth is subservient to expediency and honesty is sacrificed to personal or political advantage. Many broadcasting organisations, especially those which are politically aligned, have little interest or incentive, except where regulators require it, to do other than collude with the political masters of the age. In such a world, the place of broadcasters who seek to offer a balanced range of perspectives and prioritise facts over partisanship has never been more vital. Public service broadcasting—and in the UK that does mean particularly the BBC—with a funding mechanism not wholly dependent on courting advertisers or placating the government of the day, enables a level of impartiality, and thereby public trust, that exists both here and beyond these shores. Moreover, the BBC, uniquely among mainstream broadcasters, continues to afford a place for the religious and ethical input necessary to support our British values.
Moreover, the value of such a public service broadcaster goes far beyond its own output. Let me offer a brief analogy from another sector. Some 26 years ago, when the then Labour Government introduced the asylum seeker dispersal scheme, I worked with a couple of friends to set up a not-for-profit accommodation provider. We bid for, and won, the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber. We did that not only because we thought we could run a good service for our region, but to offer a comparator against which the standards of service to be provided by the commercial organisations operating in other regions could be judged. In the same way, I would argue that public sector broadcasting sets a vital standard against which we both can and must judge the performance of all our broadcasters.
Turning to radio, I remember in my childhood hearing reports that TV would be the death of it. Nothing could have been further from the truth—but why? Let me offer an interpretation. TV, like film or theatre, invites us to look in from outside, through the screen or proscenium arch. We are observing events that are taking place elsewhere. Radio, by contrast, is immersive. The sound is all around us. When I do my “Thought for the Day” broadcasts, I am in the car or kitchen, train or bedroom, with my listeners. I have apologised at times to my clergy who, some mornings, find themselves hearing me speak to them through the shower curtain. Radio brings a level of immersive intimacy that even 3D movies fail to achieve. Radio needs to be cherished, not marginalised. Its role in broadcasting in the future will be just as vital, if not more so.
Analyses that cross-tabulate trust levels with voting intention continue to demonstrate that the BBC, across all its output, remains a stand-out performer. As we move towards the next charter renewal process, we need to ensure we retain a strong BBC, one with transparent operational independence from government.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, I also join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for inspiring this debate at what is a crucial time for broadcasting.
The Green Paper the Government published on the BBC starts off with a reminder of what, despite all its travails, the BBC delivers for this country:
“It is not just a broadcaster—it is a national institution”,
and
“If it did not already exist, we would have to invent it”.
Those are my sentiments entirely. The Secretary of State also singled out the BBC, along with the NHS, as the two most important institutions in our country. She said that:
“While one is fundamental to the health of our people, the other is fundamental to the health of our democracy”.
Seeing the BBC not only as another media organisation but as a cultural organisation, and part our social infrastructure, is crucial.
The BBC is central to our democracy as the nation’s most widely used and trusted source of news, national and local. Of course, we all benefit from the BBC’s global news services, now reaching around 453 million people each week, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us. This example shows that this country’s soft power needs to be built on and enhanced, and not, as at present, diminished.
The BBC is also the nation’s storyteller. The truth is that the streamers like Netflix, Apple and Amazon are commissioning content that will work on an international scale. Of course, we all value and love that. However, the total number of hours they make about the UK is in the thousands, not the tens of thousands that the public service broadcasters produce. I watched the immensely powerful documentary “Our Girls: The Southport Families” on BBC1, about the families of the three girls murdered in that dreadful attack last year. I do not believe that would have been commissioned or made by a streamer. James Graham, the illustrious playwright and screenwriter who, in my time, wrote the BBC1 series “Sherwood”, said that:
“The BBC and the public service broadcasters have a role to train, find and amplify voices that, on paper, may not have an easy, wide audience yet”.
He also said:
“Speak to any American screenwriter or programme-makers, and they are bewildered at our complacency over our PSBs. They wish they had a BBC”.
When I was working at the BBC, we would shy away from the argument that the organisation was also a defence against market failure. Nowadays, that should be part of the reason—not by any means the whole reason—why the BBC exists. For example, programmes about religion, the arts or music are rarely going to be internationally successful. As DG, I lost count of the number of parents who told me how much they valued British content for their children, either as toddlers or later as teenagers using “Bitesize”.
The BBC also gives cultural definition to communities. These services, whether they are in small local areas or serving the nations of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, are needed to report the stories and things that matter to their audience, and to celebrate the characteristics that make them what they are. Taking this forward is vital.
In my view, the BBC deserves a lot of credit for rethinking its programmes and services for the world we are now in. Audiences continue to spend more time watching the BBC TV iPlayer on average, per week, per person, than they spend on Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime combined.
Obviously, one of the big questions for the next year is how we fund all this in a way that allows the BBC properly to be what we want it to be. Can the licence fee, a charge for universal services, be reformed to be fairer and easier to pay, and more broadly based? Could the quantum of the licence fee be assessed by an independent body that could help inform the debate about what we, as citizens, think we should fund? There has been a 30% reduction in real terms in licensing income since 2010, done with little or no public debate about the consequences.
The BBC is the largest single investor in UK-made programming, contributing nearly £5 billion to the UK economy each year, half of which is spent outside London. That is important. However, an even bigger question is where and how should we have our culture defined. Let us make sure we have a properly funded BBC that reflects and celebrates who we are in all our rich diversity.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his thoughtful introduction. My remarks will be confined to public service broadcasting and the BBC.
As we have heard, we are operating in a very challenging media environment in which the case for public service broadcasting does not weaken but sharpens. The need to reinforce its values and purpose, and to reassert its role and the BBC’s mission in particular, matters more rather than less today. What is at stake is not simply the future shape of a broadcaster but the BBC’s continuing ability to help hold together the social fabric of our society and evade the dangers of fragmentation.
The BBC was established to serve the whole of society. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain was conceived as a durable public settlement, built on universality, editorial independence, impartiality and responsibility to public interest. The question before us not whether the BBC should evolve—it must—but whether the changes under consideration strengthen or weaken this ability to discharge its founding principles and duties to the public.
Some proposals in the current consultation would, if pursued without care, place real pressure on the BBC’s capacity to provide a universal service. If we are serious about the BBC as a public service broadcaster, then reform must be judged against its mission and purpose and not just against market pressures.
In a crowded market, attention is treated as a commodity to be harvested. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be enabled to stand apart as a public service resource which manages attention with care. This distinction matters.
That is why universality matters—which is not, in my view, a relic of the analogue age; it is a design principle for the digital one. Without universality, we do not share public conversations, and we fragment into parallel areas. Then there is of course the global dimension, but that global credibility rests on the trust built at home. The authority with which the BBC speaks abroad depends on the integrity, independence and accountability of the system here in the UK. Weaken that settlement and the global voice will weaken.
The standing of the BBC rests on the essential principle of impartiality. Impartiality is not about mechanically balancing opinions; it is a disciplined commitment to evidence, context and truth, applied without fear or favour—even under pressure. The BBC, at times, has taken a very narrow and procedural view of impartiality, and it is right to acknowledge that mistakes have been made. But what is needed now is a renewed commitment to impartiality as a professional and ethical standard. Properly understood, impartiality is not a constraint; it is what matters and what makes the BBC trustworthy.
Any reform that compromises universality, editorial independence and impartiality, and the BBC’s ability to remain a significant engine for the creative industries, would diminish the very role it exists to perform. In my view, the charter renewal is an opportunity to refresh the BBC’s original mission and to ensure that any updated framework strengthens rather than undermines the purpose and the ethos of the BBC and that of public service broadcasting. That is the responsibility before us, and it is one which we should approach with care and a clear sense of purpose, and be guided by the principles and values, not just by the market and commercial pressures. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I briefly declare that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Group on Creators, which means I meet a lot of YouTube influencers. I am also a broadcaster on Times Radio. In fact, I should be plugging my show right now on Times Radio—it is on Fridays at 10 am—but I have chosen instead to listen to some excellent speeches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate, and also say how thrilling it was to see the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, appearing as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. I know it is something he has wanted to do for years, although I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, will later be appearing as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I feel like I am in the middle of a pilot for a new BBC comedy series.
Back in 2009, when I was still the opposition spokesman, I suggested to a media analyst that the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 should merge. She told me I was a complete idiot—but I was obviously making a point about scale. Although we are still a large, medium-sized country, we know we need scale in broadcasting. The BBC cannot compete—that ship has sailed—against the global streamers such as Netflix, Apple, Amazon Prime and, of course, YouTube, which we never talk about, but which has become the absolute Goliath in terms of media broadcasting. So, what we are really debating here is how we secure the future of the BBC in this new ecosystem.
Of course, the BBC is not the only game in town when it comes to producing high-quality British content. It is also worth pointing out that it is not just the licence fee that funds high-quality content. The tax credits for film and television, which the last Government introduced but which have been secured by this Government, are also vital in securing good quality British content. But the BBC really is, as far as domestic broadcasting is concerned, the only game in town.
It is incumbent on all of us to support the BBC. We can be critical friends of the BBC, but we should be careful what we would lose without it. I really react with astonishment and a bit of horror when I see people supporting the move by President Trump, for example, to sue the BBC because they happened to have watched BBC News the night before and disagreed with its tone or supposed bias. The BBC is an incredibly important institution.
When I did charter review with John Whittingdale, we had a very easy time of it. There was not really much we needed to change. We changed the regulation from the BBC Trust to Ofcom, but otherwise we effectively kicked the challenges the BBC faces into the long grass. These challenges are now more real today than they have ever been.
I will make three or four suggestions of areas we should look at. We seriously need to look at a structural separation of BBC News and a merger with the World Service, with its own board, charter and chief executive. I, for one, would welcome the BBC investing properly in local news, which is so important with the death of local newspapers. The BBC has to accept that, realistically, there is no more money. It has to cut its cloth. I was always a bit sceptical of people who said that, because everyone pays the licence fee, the BBC must do everything—and I accept that, by doing a lot, it actually raises the quality of what the BBC produces. However, the BBC seriously needs to look at the breadth of services it provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned the importance of religious programming and children’s programming. We introduced the content fund, which had a short shelf life but was apparently quite successful. It may be that part of what the BBC does is provide content for other programmers, focused on where the market has failed, such as children’s programming. We need to have a debate about how much of the IP the BBC now keeps. We had a trend of pushing it out to independent producers. If we want the BBC to be more commercially successful, let us look at that.
We need to be more open-minded about subscription—I know that I have to wind up, but I will need to speak for another 15 seconds—but in my view that opportunity should be put forward by the BBC, not by the Government. I would counsel against changing the licence fee. It is very tempting, but the public will see any change as a new tax, not an alternative tax.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those who have given theirs to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate. He has been a seasoned journalist, a campaigner on issues such as AIDS and has now taken up the cudgels on behalf of the really important issue of broadcasting. I am also delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, or, as those who have listened to Times Radio occasionally must have learned to call him in the morning, “our Ed”. I know a lot more about “our Ed” in the morning now than I might have chosen to, having been a regular listener—speak to me later.
The time has come when we now have a wide choice of what to watch and listen to. Clearly, some producers allow their presenters rather more leeway, which is why they run over time. Others keep them more to the minute, which is why the BBC has such a reputation.
We have a responsibility in this House to look after the BBC. It is a repository of trust and values that simply does not exist anywhere else. It used to be the case, when I started in journalism, that the first-person pronoun never appeared. There was a firm dividing line between news and comment—but that barely exists now. The BBC at least tries to preserve it in a way that other news organisations simply do not.
Indeed, in some of our broadcasters now, we have politicians not only as presenters but who also try to be newsreaders. Ofcom drew the line at that, quite rightly, but the High Court intervened and said that, even if they were not allowed to do newscasting, they could do current affairs programmes. It is a very fine line. Ofcom had been minded to ban politicians from presenting current affairs programmes; following the ruling in the High Court, it had to give way on that. I now challenge noble Lords to find a politician who is not presenting current affairs as news on certain channels. This is not the way that broadcasting should operate.
On the other hand, I find myself listening to various broadcasts and podcasts where respected journalists suddenly turn into advertisers. There is a seamless progression from them presenting a programme to them promoting the promoter of the programme. They obviously see the difference, but some listeners may find it hard to spot the dividing line. That makes me feel uncomfortable, and I hope that media training in schools will alert people to where that difference should lie.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of local media coverage, and support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his calls for more funding, if possible, for local news and more support for BBC local news. People are getting terribly worried about the lack of jury trials that is now being discussed. I worry about the lack of coverage of local court proceedings and local politics. Who knows what is going on in their local area now? That is a true deficit in democracy, which should cause us all to think hard.
In the end, this debate is clearly centred on the BBC, and there is no getting away from the importance of that organisation. We have heard from former directors-general of the BBC, who certainly know its value. While it is easy to pick up on the problems there, it is a wonderful organisation. Before I sit down, I remind noble Lords that the BBC spends £358 million on the World Service, while China and Russia combined spend between £6 billion and £8 billion on promoting their ideas across the world.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as having worked for all five public service broadcasters, and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for procuring this debate.
I will concentrate in my speech on the future of the BBC in developing technology in the public interest. I found the Green Paper’s declaration that the charter should include empowering the BBC as
“a leader in new digital technologies with strategies to maintain its relevance to modern audiences”
to be a central tenet for the future role of the corporation. I have spent so much time in this Chamber and in the Communications and Digital Select Committee listening to the harms created by digital technology. We have all received warnings about the role of AI in destroying our creative industries and much of our workforce. Surely we should harness our world-class broadcaster as a beacon of public service to shape and develop these new technologies in the public interest and not just in the private interest of US tech billionaires.
It is unbelievable that the current charter has removed the BBC’s public purpose to deliver technologies for the benefit of the nation. This has been compounded by the 30% reduction in licence fee income over the past decade, leading to a big decline in the organisation’s spend on research and development. As a result, Sky’s R&D department is massively outspending the BBC. As a listed company that needs to focus on its own interests, Sky’s research has been mainly used to enhance its own customer interaction and improve the technology of Sky Glass TV.
Now, we have a chance to develop digital technology imbued with ethical public service values. The BBC already has a set of AI principles, which are a useful guide to the priorities: namely, to act in the best interests of the public, to prioritise talent, and—one that particularly interests me in the light of the AI copyright debate—to promote transparency. Already, the BBC’s R&D department has rolled out for its own journalists a deepfake identification tool. The corporation is working with Sony as part of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, to establish provenance standards to be integrated into platforms and devices. These will allow users to establish details of content creation and manipulation. They can be made available to help users weave their way through the thicket of fake images on the internet. Reassuringly, at the centre of these tools there is always a human being supervising them.
Public-interest AI could be rolled out across the country to build trust in other services, such as secure age verification, and even as a way to stream government services. We have heard much talk in the last few months about the development of a British sovereign AI, along the lines of that being set up in Switzerland. The BBC could team up with platforms such as Anthropic AI, whose principles embody the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to set up a BBC large language model training session. The need for this research could be fed into the UKRI AI research and innovation programme, as part of the Government’s UK AI strategy.
Imagine a British AI large language model that had at its heart services powered by the BBC’s public service ethos and an ethical source of data training, and that would generate safe information and deliver AI in the public interest. I say to the Minister that surely this would be an amazing riposte from our country to the big US tech firms driven by the attention economy, which are prepared to address harms only when forced by law to do so. Users in this country and across the world would avail themselves of such services, secure in the knowledge that they would not create further harms. This might be a fantasy, but unless action is taken to ensure that the BBC is at the centre of the new AI and digital technological revolution in this country, it will become irrelevant.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, earlier in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, described the BBC as a “unique organisation”. Later, the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, described the BBC as a “national institution”. I agree wholly with both noble Lords. I speak only of the radio, but this does go back a long way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I started listening to the BBC radio with the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme, but we need to focus upon what the BBC is now delivering to us.
I refer to two of its prime programmes, “Mastermind” and “From Our Own Correspondent”. “Mastermind” is a fascinating programme in which the participants display encyclopaedic knowledge. Very occasionally, I have known the answer to a question, but that is very rare. “From Our Own Correspondent”, compered so ably by Kate Adie, calls on us to listen to a correspondent talking about the floods in Bangladesh, another correspondent talking about drought in Sudan, and perhaps a correspondent describing the way of life in some distant part of the world.
Then there are the regional programmes. I cite “Gardeners’ Question Time” and “Any Questions?”, which was chaired for many years by Jonathan Dimbleby—I think his father, Richard Dimbleby, launched the programme in the 1940s. Both these programmes are regional and are broadcast from throughout the United Kingdom.
I cite three programmes from this week’s programming by the BBC: first, “Just One Thing”, the programme developed by the late Michael Mosley; secondly, “Great Lives”, whose presenter until now has been Matthew Parris; thirdly, the fascinating statistical programme, “More or Less”. All three of those programmes are in this week’s list—and I can cite one more, “Moral Maze”, another absolutely fascinating programme. We are very well served by the BBC. It is the jewel in our crown and it should so be preserved.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I join the multitude thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his constant, passionate advocacy of public service broadcasting.
At the moment there is a great debate taking place, some of which is unnecessary. We go round in circles and come back to the same solution, decade after decade. As broadcasting becomes more dynamic and diverse, because there are more platforms, options and ways to view, we in this House and those in the other place need to rustle up the energy to affirm what we know to be true, about the BBC in particular. It is and must remain the beacon of brilliance. It must be the benchmark of tenacity and truth in news and analysis. It must be the holder of intelligent first-source global and national perspectives. It must tell the story of a complex and compelling world, from the natural environment to surging technology to the stories of history and human experience.
All this requires investment. The truth is that the licence fee is a paltry 48p a day per household, yet we engage in a 10-year scrap about whether it should be 50p, 55p or 40p. This is foolishness. We need to give an essential public guarantee of exceptionalism for the BBC. It has gripping sport and gripping drama. I particularly thank this House for its support in 1996, when I was the BBC’s head of public affairs and, as a lobbyist, brought the case for listed events to this Chamber. This House, in particular with its hereditary Peers on the Conservative side, supported Liberal Democrat and Labour Peers against the Conservative Government to protect the listed events we have now. There are great moments in our national life, such as Remembrance Weekend, times of political transformation and moments of decision and impact. They all come to us through the BBC in a rush that we do not get anywhere else.
As the broadcasting landscape is changing and its provision becomes ever greater, there is no shortage of programming and there are endless options. Most of them are American and that is not our culture. We need the BBC. We need it despite a painful two years of mishaps and scandals. That is not the norm. Anyone who has worked as well and long with the BBC as I and many others in this House did knows that that is not the standard. It is an exception. The Government need to be bold and, thankfully, the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House have already declared affirming commitment to the BBC’s future.
But, in the fight that lies ahead in the next two years in particular, both Houses need to be consistent that we are not driven by commercial pressure bending our knee; instead, we are stating that the BBC is a vital public institution and that charter renewal allows us only to affirm the value of that institution ever more. We do not debate other institutions ridiculously like we do the BBC. We do not debate the armed services, highway maintenance, Chevening scholarships, the NHS or investment in Olympic sports development, because they are public assets. The BBC is a public asset for the UK and for the world and, for that, we must maintain its strength and the licence fee.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I suppose the usual sources will say, “Well, this is the House of Lords typically mumbling out its old prejudices”, but it has been very encouraging for me, as a long-time supporter of the BBC, to listen to those who have far more experience of it than I speaking with such passion today. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who led us into this debate.
An old military adage is that you do not fight at the bottom of a hill where two maps join, but it seems that this particular charter debate is taking place in exactly that kind of position, because we are facing two challenges, both of which impact on the kind of public service broadcaster we require. One is a rather belated espousal by Ofcom of the need for media literacy, which certainly is necessary. It brings to mind the old Victorian comment, when education was expanded, that we must educate our masters. Faced with the revolution taking place in our media, there is a real need for an effective programme to enable all generations, particularly the younger generation, to have the equipment to deal with the media that is coming forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was the first today to talk about the other revolution that is about to engulf us with artificial intelligence. Almost no news programme now takes place without one of the two sides of this story: either an amazing new breakthrough in medicine that will be enabled by artificial intelligence or some frightening interference in personal liberty or distortion of the news by the use of artificial intelligence. As a society, we will have to handle this, as has been indicated by a number of speakers. We will need the BBC and what it stands for more than ever in both managing media literacy and bringing artificial intelligence within the control of liberal democracies. When I started out in politics, we would have been sure that we could have got some UN charter to cover this generally, but now there will be competing legislation on AI, some of which will be very dangerous to the workings and functions of liberal democracies.
The future of the BBC is at more risk now than at any time in its 100-year history. It is under threat from commercial rivals that are jealous of its ongoing capacity to fulfil the first part of the original mantra, to entertain, and from authoritarians in both the government and private sectors who resent its capacity to educate and inform to standards that will underpin and strengthen our democracy.
I have one last thought for those who plan our business. Today’s debate shows both the capacity of this House to discuss these issues and the need for more time to discuss them. I offer this final thought. When the Reagan Administration carried out their deregulation of American broadcasting in the 1980s, one of the most famous broadcasters—not Ed Murrow—said, “We’ll only realise what we’ve lost when it’s gone”. I sincerely hope that will not be the case in future for the BBC.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on a thoughtful opening speech.
The phrase I became heartily fed up with was “punching above our weight”, usually uttered by Ministers whose Government continued to wield the axe for further cuts to the arts. According to Voice of the Listener & Viewer, from 2010 to 2024 the BBC suffered 38% in funding cuts—a horrendous statistic—invariably affecting every area of programming, including the arts. We do not punch above our weight. There is reduced output and the added danger that mistakes may be made, as we have heard.
What the BBC is surviving on to a significant extent is a huge residual feeling of good will across the world, its dogged impartiality in terms of news reporting, and, for what survives of the World Service, still a considerable reach. Remarkably, the BBC is still considered a beacon of democratic values, but without the necessary investment and, more importantly, a belief in those values beyond seeing the BBC as a money-spinner for the growth agenda, that good will will dissipate—a major reason why the World Service, a necessary aspect of foreign policy, needs again to be properly funded by the Foreign Office.
In the early 1960s a young, unknown playwright was given not one but three slots for plays on BBC radio years before “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” made Tom Stoppard’s name. It was the first play I ever saw at the theatre, courtesy of a school trip. Famously, Stoppard turned down the opportunity to write the screenplay for Steven Spielberg’s film “Jaws” because at the time he was working on a play for the BBC—for radio. It is difficult to imagine such a thing happening now. What remains in terms of the arts is still great but needs to be built on, including restaffing. Music is still well served, with five orchestras, although in-house drama and coverage of the visual arts are diminished. I miss drama on Radio 3, which was such a good fit.
The BBC urgently needs to be future-proofed, particularly against structural threats, which could be worse even than the loss of funding, bad as that has been. I agree with the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Arts Unions’ plea that the BBC should not be compelled to commercialise because of funding restraints. There has to be certainty—a forever charter without the nail-biting review. The BBC needs to be properly independent in terms of government appointments. That independence should be extended in certain ways to other channels, and the Ofcom code strengthened, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has said. As an instance, for obvious historical reasons, participation by German politicians in their media is strictly controlled. They cannot present programmes except in rare circumstances. That policy should be enforced here. We have seen what is happening in America in terms of the destructive interference of government in its institutions and media outlets. Unless measures are taken now, it is not inconceivable that with a Farage Government GB News becomes, in effect, a state broadcaster.
Beyond streaming, and certainly in the face of mis- and disinformation, there remains a strong moral case for a substantial public service broadcaster for the good of society, which is why a universal funding model needs to be adopted—less liable to be undone than the licence fee, which I fear could too easily be turned into a subscription.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate and for his passionate commitment to UK broadcasting. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group and co-chairman of the ITV APPG. I have three points.
The first concerns BBC charter renewal. Like many noble Lords, I have a profound commitment to the BBC and its values, but I have long been concerned about the impact of its online activities on the UK’s commercial media sector and, in particular, independent local media. Only recently Ofcom made clear its own concerns that the BBC’s largely unchecked expansion into digital local news is harming the commercial sector, with profound consequences for media plurality. Its free-to-access online service is deeply damaging to independent local news provision and in the worst-case scenario threatens to extinguish it altogether as print sales decline to unviable levels. We cannot let that happen. The charter renewal process must set new boundaries of activity to rein back the BBC’s online news provision to sustain local and national news diversity and quality journalism.
Secondly, we need action to protect the position of our PSBs, which are the bedrock of our creative economy, by ensuring that they can stand up to the competition from global online platforms. I agree with Ofcom:
“If no action is taken, the very existence of the PSBs … will be threatened. Time is running out to save this pillar of UK culture”.
We need decisive action in a number of areas; first, on prominence, where we must robustly implement the Media Act 2024 to ensure that PSBs are prominent on equitable terms on TV screens and all major devices, including gaming consoles, and create specific rules to ensure that PSB content is prominent on all major video-sharing and social media platforms, including YouTube, without having to share revenues. Secondly, the PSBs are a source of trusted, quality news, which is more important now than ever. This is particularly true for young people, and we need to ensure that PSB content is actively promoted on the platforms they use. Thirdly, we need to recognise the importance of tax incentives for safeguarding UK content, which means tax credits for UK stories and at-risk genres.
My third point concerns the potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Netflix, which I believe would have deeply damaging consequences for UK broadcasting. Netflix is already dominant in the subscription video on demand market. Present in almost six in 10 UK households, it accounted for nearly half of SVOD viewing in 2024. Were Netflix to be allowed to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery, the combined company’s revenue share of the market would be around three times higher than that of its nearest competitor. That is a virtual monopoly which would be potentially disastrous for our creative economy and for our consumers.
It would make it enormously difficult for other streamers to compete, something of great concern for our domestic streaming services, especially with the launch of Netflix’s advertising tier, meaning even more UK ad spend ending up in Silicon Valley. It would damage British talent and our leading independent production sector, as Netflix would have unprecedented market power in terms of both pricing and which projects to greenlight. And it would present a real danger to our cinemas because Netflix has never operated a traditional theatrical release model. I am particularly worried about Netflix’s clear desire to reduce the windowing times of releases. For consumers, a virtual monopoly means what virtual monopolies always mean: higher prices and less choice.
For all these reasons, it is clear to me that the CMA must conduct a full and thorough investigation into a merger, which, by cementing Netflix as a monopoly player, is clearly anti-competitive, with chilling implications for UK consumers and for the whole of our creative economy. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that this issue is being carefully scrutinised and that the Government will ensure that the CMA conducts a full review of this transaction.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has done this House a major favour by sponsoring today’s debate. I will concentrate my own remarks on the aspects of broadcasting which are closest to my professional experience as a working diplomat for more than 40 years: the BBC’s World Service and its foreign language programmes.
I confess that when I first heard of the BBC’s major editorial blunder in its “Panorama” programme about the 6 January attack on Congress following the 2020 presidential elections, I was not totally surprised. How could a broadcaster with the scope of the BBC’s coverage not make errors from time to time? What saddened me was the way in which the cacophony of denunciation which followed overlooked the benefits in soft power and global influence which the BBC’s work brought to the UK and to its western allies in the 100 years since it was founded.
No thought was given to the BBC’s work during World War II to keep hope alive in the countries of continental Europe and worldwide which were under foreign occupation. No thought was given either to the similar work it did during the Cold War in the countries of central and eastern Europe under communist domination. There was nothing about my own direct experience as the UK’s UN ambassador of the benign influence when the BBC was first to report the coup against President Gorbachev in 1991, which then rapidly collapsed. The UK’s soft power influence had never stood higher than that moment. Did none of these other considerations merit weighing in the balance when it made a mistake?
Very relevant to the current charter review was the decision by George Osborne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to load the cost of the World Service and foreign language programmes on to the BBC and its licence fee payers when previously those costs were borne by the taxpayer—a clever, opportunistic move, perhaps, from a narrow Treasury viewpoint, but in retrospect a massive and long-lastingly damaging one. Does it really make sense to impose on the director-general the choice between financing the BBC’s domestic programmes and its overseas ones? Does it really make sense to finance the World Service and foreign language programmes, a clear foreign policy decision, on a regressive tax base when it was previously financed by progressive general taxation? Did that earlier method of financing damage the BBC’s reputation for broad impartiality?
The answer to all three of those questions is, I suggest, negative. I hope the Minister replying to this debate will confirm that the regime for financing the World Service and the foreign language programmes of the BBC is on the table for consideration in the charter review.
In conclusion, I shall just say a few words about the litigation recently unleashed by the President of the United States against the BBC. I will not comment on the legal arguments of the case or on the possible outcomes of such litigation—I am not a lawyer—but what I will say about the decision to launch this litigation is that it represents a substantial error of political judgment all too likely to damage seriously all those concerned, apart from those earning legal fees. Would any other President of the United States since we became close allies in 1941 have been expected to take such a course of action? I think not.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this important debate. I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to an important decision now affecting broadcasting generally and the stakeholder forum that has been established by DCMS regarding the future of the UK’s digital terrestrial television service. This is the system, as your Lordships know, by which most households receive television, providing free-to-air public service broadcasting to almost 99% of homes in the UK. It plays a vital role in how people access news and information in this country. It remains especially important for older viewers, people on low incomes and those living in rural and remote communities. For millions of people, it is not a secondary service or some kind of legacy platform; it is their main way of watching television, whether the BBC, ITV or whatever. It is familiar and generally universal.
The current policy commitment to terrestrial digital extends only to 2034. Calls for switch-off and a forced move to an entirely internet-based model of television are increasing. Yet while surveys show that there is overwhelming support for the continuation of digital terrestrial television, the vast majority of people affected in the UK are unaware of the potential uncertainty that is arising. In my view, forcing households to get a high-speed fixed broadband connection simply to continue watching television is wrong. For many people such as those whom I have mentioned—older viewers and people on lower incomes—there will be an increase in their cost of living with monthly broadband costs, installation charges and exposure to price rises. Many households manage by relying on mobile data for essential online tasks while continuing to use digital terrestrial for television. Removing that option would place additional costs on them.
I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to the regional impact of any switch-off. In Northern Ireland, for instance, 42% of homes rely on terrestrial television, nine percentage points higher than the UK average. We have the highest level of live broadcast viewing of any UK nation. The same challenges exist in Scotland and Wales and in parts of England where connectivity remains inconsistent and broadband take-up is forecast to lag well behind urban areas. I found the work of the Broadcast 2040+ campaign helpful in setting out the evidence, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. I want to make a plea to the Minister to address this issue when she replies. It has not been raised thus far in this debate, but it is important not only for the reasons I have set out; this is also a critical part of our national resilience so that emergency services, utilities and transport, and government and security systems continue to function when broadband and mobile networks are overloaded or fail. We have seen that happen too often. I plead with the Minister to bring some clarity on when a decision will be taken on the future of digital terrestrial television. I hope that the decision will be positive, providing certainty and protecting free-to-air terrestrial television.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Fowler for his powerful introduction and declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
When talking about broadcasting, there is a tendency to look back at a pre-internet, pre-satellite halcyon time: a golden age of TV with three channels and wholesome radio. Our TV was black and white because my mother did not like the blood in medical programmes. There was no TV in the daytime, except for the Open University and some remarkably boring output. If you did not like it, you could go out into the rain and stare at the cows. If you missed something on TV, you would probably never see it again. But also, broadcasts could be genuinely national events, such as finding out who was number one on Radio 1, the FA Cup final and, rather bizarrely, the boat race. That is when most of us fell in love with test cricket, because in 1970s south Worcestershire, there was absolutely nothing else to do.
When we talk about broadcasting, we talk about the BBC. I am a great fan of the BBC. In fact, my maiden speech was on the subject of the BBC World Service, and I listen to 6 Music and Radio 5 in the mornings and the evenings. In fact, I prefer to listen to sport on the radio, as I can do something else at the same time, and when England inevitably lose, at least I have been doing something useful as well. I can always catch up on wickets, tries or goals on a variety of excellent websites.
I argue that for the viewer, the golden age of broadcasting is right now. We still have a strong BBC and other public service broadcasters; Netflix; Amazon Prime Video, which my wife works for; the internet; YouTube for music and old TV programmes that I missed in the 70s; pause and rewind—the list goes on, and it is in colour. I just avoid the medical programmes. However, we know that there are issues. Obviously, the BBC charter review is a huge one. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that the BBC is just doing too much. Its mission to inform, educate and entertain the public was coined in 1922, when there was no other radio service and certainly no television. As we have seen, there is no shortage of entertainment out there today. Public service broadcasters have been asking for freedom to collaborate more, and I hope that comes with a promise to simplify their delivery. Do we need iPlayer and More4 and ITVX? Does Red Button still exist? I am not exactly sure Freely is the answer.
And there is a real problem. In an incredibly controlled scientific experiment, I asked my children, aged 14 and 20, what parts of the BBC they interact with. “None” came the answer. On further questioning, there was a grudging admission that they used to watch CBBC and they were made to watch “Newsround” at school, but they do not use the BBC like we do. They consume television the same way they consume all other media—via a device—and they certainly do not listen to live radio or watch linear TV, even if they know what it is. Obviously, the BBC is aware that its role has had to change, and I am grateful to Laura Anderson, who took me through some of the ways it is evolving. “Newsround” is still a staple in schools, and now, Other Side of the Story and Solve the Story are helping young people navigate the world of AI and fake news. UNBOXD is a campaign for 16 to 24 year-olds. This is where the BBC, with its high level of public trust, still has a role to play.
PSBs have asked for further tax incentives. I wonder whether the Minister will comment on schemes that incentivise homegrown content and talent, particularly low-budget material made by small companies. The future of broadcast looks fragmented, fractious and fragile. We must take care so that this is the start, not the end, of the golden age of broadcasting.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to those of other Lords, with the added reason that I have spent the past 12 years trying to fill the noble Lord’s giant shoes as chair of the Thomson Foundation, which trains journalists and promotes sustainable media throughout the world. In declaring that interest, I should add that I am also a director of the audience measurement company, RSMB, the rights management company, the Theseus Agency, and Digbeth Loc. Studios in Birmingham. My elder son is a film and television screenwriter.
I will not try to list the recent developments in relation to broadcasting, as other noble Lords have already comprehensively outlined those. I would comment only that, in considering regulatory and other decisions, we should be careful to learn from the past. The UK creative industries would be even stronger than they now are if, historically, regulation had been more forward-looking and less parochial, going as far back as the IBA’s supervision of the ITV network in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Competition Commission’s blocking in 2009 of Kangaroo, the streaming initiative intended to unite all the major PSBs.
I should like to use my remaining time to talk about the implication of these developments in two areas—news and drama—at opposite ends of the creative spectrum, requiring very different but qualitatively similar skills and discipline. However much the means of consuming news has changed for all of us—and all the more for younger generations—television and radio remain at the heart of quality news. Media have converged, and young journalists are trained, for instance, to use smartphone-based video to enhance their print or online reporting. The BBC’s continuing leadership, for all its mishaps, in trusted news provision is a result of the melding of its TV, radio and online operations. I would suggest that the challenge for the BBC’s news provision is about the maintenance of journalistic editorial standards broadly rather than being exclusively or predominantly an issue of impartiality, however important that undeniably is.
For the wider broadcast news environment, the decisions faced by Ofcom and the CMA in relation to the prospective acquisition of ITV by Comcast are critical and must protect the funding, diversity and quality of public service news—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grade, has been listening to the debate. The boom in television drama production driven by the growth of streamers came to an end, or at least a pause, three years ago, as all booms do. The inflation in costs that resulted from this and the financial pressures on the PSBs have created an acute problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Hall, has already said, for British and British-focused drama. Elisabeth Murdoch, whose production companies have been globally successful, has also spoken powerfully about this same issue. This threatens not just the idiosyncratic British voice—and within that, even more those of the nations and regions—but the whole system for the development of talent. We would not have in the Premier League the most successful men’s football league in the world without the other junior leagues. There is no time to be lost in taking action to stimulate and support British drama.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on introducing this debate. It is a great pleasure that both at the end and the beginning of my career in your Lordships’ House I can call him “my noble friend.” I declare that I am a trustee of the fact-checking charity Full Fact.
When the Broadcasting Bill of 1996 was given its Second Reading, the then Minister concentrated more on the future it was opening up than on the nuts and bolts of the text under discussion in his opening speech. What the House did not know then was that I had metaphorically torn up the first draft, because the Bill was clearly presaging a technological revolution. It is revolutions like this that change the world we live in, not legislation giving them effect, and it is the changes that matter. That revolution is still going on.
I would like to touch on a number of points that I think are important about the current state of broadcasting in this country. First, public service broadcasting matters in a world of disinformation. The question posed by Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?”, is ever more important. For a free democratic society to function, truth and facts are the essential element that our fellow citizens need to form judgments for themselves, their families and society more widely—it is no accident that in the old days when there was a revolution the first thing the revolutionaries did was capture the radio station or television station. A public service stream of news and appropriate investigative journalism matters, and since there are sometimes criticisms, we need at least two separate elements to this in the interests of pluralism. Secondly, all this must be kept at arm’s length from government, factional politics and proselytising pressure groups of all kinds.
Realistically, the age in which we live is one where the influence and great overarching presence of Lord Reith has gone, and the importance of the wider media industry has evolved commercially, economically, socially and societally. We are now moving into a new era where territorial jurisdiction is seen and treated differently from the past. All broadcasters, both at home or abroad, are recognising this, and the obligations, opportunities and activities both of international services and domestic services, and content suppliers and all involved, need to recognise that.
Against this background, in a rapidly changing Britain, public service broadcasting must be thought through again carefully. I do not think it is any more necessary to begin from a position of a hybrid of Lord Reith’s high-mindedness and my noble friend Lord Hennessy’s “good chaps” theory of government. Britishness is contentious and is the subject of widespread discussion, but it is essential—indeed existential—to public service broadcasting. It must command popular acceptance, but not be populist, and material within a range of public service broadcasting programmes must remain available free-to-air to UK listeners and viewers. As I said earlier, technology and, in particular, delivery systems will determine all this; content follows. It is what the public receive and not how they get it that matters.
Finally, I have a few comments about the BBC’s current legal action brought against it by Donald Trump, which, as my noble friend Lord Fowler has pointed out, was clearly initiated by poor editorial control on the part of the corporation. We ought not to forget that public life is, on occasions, a rough-and-tumble business. It is not, in the words of Ernest Borgnine in the film “The Wild Bunch”, a church social. Some years ago, when I chaired a regional newspaper company, I went through a series of circumstances which, while very much in microcosm compared to this, shared many close similarities with this current litigation and the way it is playing out. It was not a pleasurable experience, but I am clear. First, if you make mistakes, admit it and apologise. Secondly, decide with your advisers whether you have any legal liability. If the answer is yes, admit it and face the financial and other consequences. If the answer is no, explain it, defend your case, and hold your ground and do not be bullied.
Whether any individual likes or hates the BBC, it is one of our defining global attributes, and it is a symbol of a lot of our best national characteristics. We did not achieve global respect and give hopes to the oppressed in the period 1939 to 1945 when the BBC broadcast under the strap line, “This is London calling, this is London calling”, with messages that were craven. Once a broadcaster or journalist loses his, her or their journalistic integrity, they lose everything. It is not a matter of triangulation or negotiating deals.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add a little challenge and contrast to what is going on in this debate; it reminds me of the first debate that we had in your Lordships’ House about the state of the BBC, its behaviour and its relevance. As always, I speak to people from diverse communities, poorer communities and younger communities, and the message they want me to send to noble Lords, I believe, is one of challenge. It coalesces around these few points that I am going to give.
The first is relevance. It is certain—if this debate is taken as a measuring stick—that people of a certain vintage have great reverence for the BBC, and we hear an awful lot about what went on in the Second World War, and the message of hope that this country rightly gave to the rest of Europe and to the world. But, of course, if you are a 16 year-old girl from Ladbroke Grove, that has absolutely no relevance to you, and the BBC has questions to answer around relevance. The group of young people I spoke to pointed out that, for those between 16 and 24 years old, less than 50% watch terrestrial TV, or even catch-up TV, yet that is a lot of what the BBC is focused on putting out. When I spoke to these young people of university age, they said they resented paying for a service that they do not watch and that has very little relevant content for them. So, while you are all in here celebrating how great the BBC is, ask yourselves how relevant it is to people who do not come from your background and do not share your very high level of success and education.
On the question of bias, 50% of all Britons feel that the BBC is biased. Even if you do not, there are two questions to ask. Is it because they support your view, or do you think that the 50% of people who think the BBC is biased are wrong? Because it is a deeply held view by those 50%. Some think the BBC is biased to the left and some think it is biased to the right, but they are all agreed that the BBC is biased. When it comes to why they believe that to be true, it is not just about political output: left/right, trans issues or Donald Trump. They think it is a class issue. They see the BBC as having a white, middle-class, London-based view of the world. A young black man by the name of Raymond said to me:
“It is patronising to young people, and particularly patronising to young black people. It is a very middle-class view of what black people think”.
I thought that was a very interesting view, coming from a young man who had absolutely no reverence for the BBC and believed that he should get his money back—despite the fact that he is not paying for a TV licence because he is only 16.
The point has to be made: what is the BBC going to do in the future? I have some warm feelings for it. They may not be as warm as those of many in the Chamber, but I do have some warm feelings for it and I believe that this question of relevance is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked a lot about what the BBC could be doing around technical development and AI, and I think that that is something it really should pursue. It could be of great use to this country, and particularly to its young people going forward in the future.
The international BBC service is obviously of great quality and very meaningful. My parents are Jamaican and will tell you what a profound impact it had in the Jamaican community and continues to have to this day. But, unless we in this Chamber challenge the view that all noble Lords seem to hold—that the BBC is beyond blame—I think the BBC will fade and die away. You might get away with it for the next 10 years, but in 10 years’ time Raymond will be 26. He will be paying for his licence and he will “come for his money”—those are his words, by the way.
So, when we talk about the BBC, let us do it with some balance; let us challenge it to improve itself. And, if you do not believe it is biased, remember that 50% of Britons do. We are talking about the BBC as it used to be, not as it is today.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on the BBC from a commercial and international perspective, and should declare an interest up front. In my years as a journalist and foreign correspondent in Latin America and the Middle East, and then as a CEO of a British online information service on emerging markets, I must admit to benefiting hugely from the BBC’s reflected reputation for balance, independence and trusted news. In my experience, the BBC’s brand is actually stronger outside the UK than within, in almost all regions of the world, bar perhaps certain elements in the US.
Looking at the BBC’s global, rather than domestic audience, it is here that the greatest opportunities lie, which in turn raises fundamental questions about the business model of a public service broadcaster. I should declare a second interest, and a rather less positive one: my application for a place on the BBC’s 1982 graduate trainee scheme was brutally rejected without even the offer of an interview. Some 40 years on, I will try not to let this affect my own impartiality; instead, I will focus on two key metrics from last year’s BBC annual report.
The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, told us, is that the BBC’s global weekly audience sits at 453 million. That is, in fact, down from its highest ever global audience of 486 million back in 2020, but still an impressive reach in an increasingly crowded and partial market. Secondly, if we dig deeper, we see that, despite all the cuts, BBC News accounts for 418 million—that is over 90% of the corporation’s global audience—and of that, the World Service delivers 313 million. This global reach is vital for the UK’s soft power and influence, as we have heard. It is hugely helpful to our Foreign Office, to diplomatic relations and to our trade and investment. What is often less understood is that it is also helpful to UK multinationals and indeed SME exporters, as I discovered in my days as a publisher. You could argue that that alone represents good value for money for the £3.8 billion a year we pay in licence fees, before we look at all the domestic benefits of information, education and entertainment.
It is therefore encouraging to see that the BBC’s commercial revenues, which have not been mentioned today, have grown to over £2 billion annually from around £1.2 billion five years ago, despite its current trading restrictions. Yet, with that global audience of 450 million, it represents just 40p per viewer per month—so there is significant scope for growth.
We need to allow the BBC to harness this global opportunity for changes to its business model, particularly in the area of partnerships, tiered subscriptions, paywalls and content licensing. Does the Minister agree that that requires greater investment, and not cost-cutting, in its news and factual departments, particularly for the World Service?
A coherent business strategy to grow commercial revenues to what I believe could be £5 billion per annum would enable a reduction in the TV licence over time to below £100 per household, which would be a good thing. Crucially, this could be done without over-reliance on advertising and sponsorship, which would threaten the very thing that the BBC is still most valued for: independence and impartiality.
Lord Young of Old Windsor (CB)
My Lords, I have three connections with broadcasting. First, in my 20s, as a budding scriptwriter with the BBC, I wrote an audio drama for “Doctor Who”—it is still available online, although mercifully few people have found it. Secondly, in my 30s, as a suit at ITV in the early 2000s, I worked on the merger of Granada and Carlton to form ITV plc. Thirdly, during my 20 years at Buckingham Palace, I dealt closely with, among others, my noble friend Lord Hall, who spoke so wisely, and the outgoing Director-General, Tim Davie, who will be much missed at the BBC. Those experiences taught me that British broadcasting has the best creative ecosystem in the world, one that is strengthened by a public service ethos at its heart. ITV drama is stronger because it competes with BBC drama; Times Radio is stronger because it competes with BBC radio; Britain is stronger because it has the BBC.
When the late Queen addressed the nation at the start of Covid, telling the country, “We will meet again”, Buckingham Palace did not call Netflix; we called the BBC, and 24 million people tuned in. The same was true of the globally popular James Bond Olympic sketch in 2012 and her tea with Paddington Bear in 2022. With the late Queen’s funeral and the King’s Coronation, part of the reason the world looked on so admiringly was because of the way they were broadcast. Yes, it was commercial broadcasters too, but the point stands: their coverage was stronger because they were up against the BBC. It is an incredibly expensive and sophisticated business doing live event broadcasting. Where are the likes of Netflix or Apple TV in these moments of national togetherness? The answer is that they just do not do that sort of thing.
I am not saying that the BBC is perfect—far from it. Like the Gruffalo, the BBC can look fearsome and lumbering, but strip away the mythology and there is something more vulnerable underneath. Its cultural antennae can sometimes seem too poorly tuned, too metropolitan and self-satisfied. It should concentrate more on reporting straight news and leave the investigative stuff to others; these ventures too often end in tears. But the BBC’s biggest challenge is greater still: increasingly, younger people just do not watch it. Old-fashioned multichannel scheduling is looking dated. One in eight households are now not paying the licence fee—one in eight. In five years, it could be one in four. The stakes are high, because when the next crisis comes—and it will—we will want something to turn to; something we trust, something that makes Britain stronger. Let us make sure that it is still there.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have had the nod to speak in what is called the gap—I hope that meets with your Lordships’ approval. As a declaration of interest, I am currently chairman of Ofcom, and I have had a long career in various bits of British public service broadcasting which would take too long to recite here. I join all those who welcomed the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the sustained interest that he has shown in our public service broadcasting. This has been a terrific debate.
The debate has, not surprisingly, concentrated on the BBC. We are at base camp of the next great charter review, and there will be plenty of opportunities to rehearse all the arguments. As a veteran of one charter review, when I was chairman some years ago, with the late and much-lamented Tessa Jowell at the DCMS, I would caution that charter review always starts at the wrong point. I hope we will not do it this time. That point is governance and funding. Those are two important questions, but they are absolutely subsidiary to the biggest question of all: what do we want from the BBC in this very changed environment? When I came into broadcasting in 1973 at London Weekend Television, we had a monopoly of advertising revenue, and there were three channels. The advertising sales director never came in on a Wednesday because it messed up both weekends. Those were the days.
I therefore beg that the question about the future of the BBC is focused on what we want from it in this changed world. At Ofcom last year, we published our public sector media review, which did not deal with BBC charter review but with a much more challenged sector over which legislators have very little control—namely, the private sector of public service broadcasting. Our report, which I know the Government have welcomed and are taking seriously, is a canary in the mine. There are serious challenges in the private sector.
All the policy initiatives and Ofcom’s regulatory processes going forward must focus on the objectives of public service broadcasting, by finding ways either to legislate or to deregulate in a way that enables the sustained investment in British productions made by British producers for British audiences. That is at the heart of the creative industries in this country. The most successful growth sector of any sector of business in the UK has been the creative industries, and at the heart of that are the PSBs.
The PSBs themselves are going to have to work a lot harder to get the attention of viewers. It is not simply a matter of “Keep doing what you are doing, and we are going to drown in the face of the competition”; they will have to work a lot harder. Parliament and the regulators have to create the conditions to help them to sustain their investment. Part of that will be serving all parts of the nations and regions, and part of that will be to preserve a plurality of trusted news and current affairs throughout the nations and regions. That is crucial, and all of policy must be directed at that. I look forward to the charter review, but that is all I will say about the BBC for now.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, a truly great man and great politician. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, he led on the cause of AIDS and has always championed our PSBs. I believe he was the chair of the first committee I sat on when I came here; I think the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the previous Bishop of Manchester were also on that committee, and the subject was—guess what—BBC charter renewal. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has characteristically initiated a debate of crucial importance. In the times we live in, our UK broadcasters are essential not just to the UK but in their role across the world.
It all started with the BBC in 1922, when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, it was audio only, and the only choice for listeners appears to have been in the sole gift of a Captain Eckersley, who would,
“trundle his piano from his local pub to an equally local army hut from which he would perform to the nation”.
The days when choice for listeners was confined to one man’s piano repertoire are long, long gone.
As the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Vaizey, have mentioned, we are now fortunate to have a variety of other vibrant and diverse public service broadcasters. ITV, Channel 4, Sky and Channel 5 all make brilliant programmes, setting the standard for accurate and responsible news coverage. In return for privileges such as free spectrum use and top positions on EPGs, these commercial channels have public interest obligations, which has resulted in high-quality competition for the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, mentioned.
Collectively, the PSBs invest in talent across the UK and in stories which are important to us as a nation, such as, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, “It’s a Sin”, “Patrick Melrose”, “Milkshake!” and huge international successes such as “Downton Abbey” and “Peaky Blinders”. I have not even mentioned the unscripted category. They are central, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, to our hugely successful creative industries and creative workforce, which has drawn the American streamers to our shores, while making UK-centred alternatives to the programmes of the said streamers.
However, as viewers increasingly move towards streamers and on-demand and online TV viewing, those privileges become less valuable, and we need to find new ways of helping and incentivising those broadcasters. I think the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned this. Does the Minister agree that that is why it has become ever more important that the provisions of the Media Act around prominence and discoverability are both properly enforced and strengthened?
Still central to broadcasting in the UK, as everyone has said, is the BBC. The highly respected Reuters Institute updated its data on news and trust in November. The BBC remains the most trusted source, not just for the UK but for the world where news is concerned. In an era of disinformation and social media silos, the BBC stands as a beacon of accuracy and impartiality.
A lot of what I am about to say noble Lords will already have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but I want to repeat it. The BBC is not just the news—and it is important to remind people of this, as my noble friend Lord Razzall said, particularly politicians—but radio stations, podcasts, orchestras, BBC Bitesize, BBC online, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the World Service. I hope that might, in a way, respond a little to what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said. It develops and invests in talent and in local creative hubs across the UK, not to mention a network of local radio and TV. Through its mission to educate, inform and entertain, it has made culture, news, and other people’s experiences and lives available to all.
It also plays a hugely important role in promoting the UK around the world—soft power—through both the programmes it exports and the World Service, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord Hall, Lord Hannay and Lord Bailey. That is ever more important now that President Trump has cut off funds to Voice of America. That is not all he has done. The erosion and destruction of public service broadcasting in the USA extends to all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS being terminated. Having had its funding withdrawn, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lifeline to hundreds of radio and TV stations that serve their local communities, decided this week to close down. That is a cautionary tale; this cannot be allowed to happen in the UK, but Donald Trump’s disciple Nigel Farage has repeatedly vowed to “defund” a “slimmed-down” BBC.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grade, mentioned, the charter renewal process is upon us and we on these Benches welcome the Green Paper as the starting point in this process, in particular the Secretary of State’s vision for the BBC:
“Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hall, mentioned, she sees the BBC as having the same level of importance as the NHS; I could not agree more. But this 10-year event, charter renewal—why do we not just start by getting rid of it, ending the straitjacket in which the BBC, unlike other organisations established by royal charter, is in a never-ending cycle of having to make the case for its own existence? Does the Minister not agree that we should give the BBC a forever charter? Without that, and in the wrong hands—Trump-like hands—the charter can simply be terminated on its last day: no negotiations, no BBC.
We on these Benches believe that all non-executives of the BBC board should be independently appointed—no government appointees. We do not think this is appropriate for a body which oversees the BBC’s day-to-day editorial and strategic decisions.
The Government should maintain stable, secure and long-term funding for the BBC through the continuation of the licence fee until the end of the current charter period, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that; crucially, protecting the principle of universality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said.
Does the Minister not agree that future decisions about funding must be made transparently by an independent body? George Osborne now admits that when Chancellor he was “somewhat shocked” to discover the power that the Government, specifically the Treasury, had over the BBC. He said:
“You think of the BBC as being this big, independent organisation with lots of protection against the government … but the chancellor can basically boss the BBC around on its finances because the government sets the licence fee in the charter”—
and boss it around he did, into paying for the over-75s. That was wrong, as it is a social cost and is disastrous for BBC finances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, we need a sufficient and durable funding settlement for the World Service. We on these Benches would increase FCDO funding by an additional £100 million per year. What are the Government’s intentions?
Finally, Ofcom’s record in upholding standards of impartiality is a cornerstone of our broadcasting system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned, it recently seems to have concluded that politicians can present news programmes—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—via a clumsy attempt to distinguish between news and current affairs; a decision that, particularly where GB News is concerned, risks undermining public trust in broadcast news. The Secretary of State appears uncomfortable and has said that she is
“looking … at what we can do as a government to deal with this. We can’t continue with a situation where people can’t trust what they see”.
Can the Minister expand on what actions the Government intend to take to ensure that Ofcom fulfils Parliament’s intentions?
I end as I began, in celebrating our UK broadcasters: long may they thrive. In our previous debate on this subject, I concluded by quoting Joni Mitchell. This time, I offer the same sentiment, but with Lisa Nandy speaking directly about the BBC:
“An institution founded to bring the best that has been thought and known to every home—if it didn’t exist today we would have to invent it”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like all others, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for giving us the opportunity of today’s debate. It has proved to be a timely one, because it is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the Government’s Green Paper on the BBC, published in the week before the Christmas Recess.
When I saw the Motion mentioning recent developments in broadcasting, I wondered how far we might roam in your Lordships’ House—and, indeed, we have heard about the Second World War a few times, the Home Service and the Light Programme. But noble Lords have also talked about some of the more recent trends in broadcasting that we have seen. The noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Hampton, and, very powerfully, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington spoke about the declining connection between young people and our public service broadcasters. The noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, talked about the 30% reduction in the BBC’s income from the licence fee without accompanying public debate. My noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot, still sporting his very Santa-like beard, highlighted that YouTube is now the second most popular broadcaster in the United Kingdom.
It is against the backdrop of recent changes such as this that we will soon be asked to consider the BBC’s royal charter for the next very uncertain decade. That is a vital moment not just for the corporation but for our other public service broadcasters and our nation as a whole. It comes hot on the heels of a recent litany of errors from the BBC that noble Lords have pointed out and which I shall not repeat—other than to say that those errors have profound consequences, whether that is multibillion-pound lawsuits or a decline in trust and connection between audiences and our broadcasters. We have seen that the proportion of people in the United Kingdom who say that they trust BBC News has fallen by 15 percentage points since 2018. That is something that should worry us, as I know it worries the BBC.
As noble Lords know, I am sympathetic to the BBC and our public service broadcasters. In that sense, I am a Fowlerite Conservative: we ask a lot of the BBC and expect the high standards that it has come to be renowned for over the last century. We should remember that 94% of adults use some of the BBC’s services in some form each month. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, said, it is to the BBC and our other public broadcasters that we turn in our nation’s most important moments.
However, the BBC faces some structural problems as we confront its next decade: a declining number of viewers, as the Christmas viewing figures prayed in aid by many noble Lords showed; increasing competition from other channels, as anyone who, like me, has tried to work out how to use the Christmas edition of the Radio Times in the modern age will be able to attest to; the declining number of licence fee payers, with 2.5 million fewer over the past decade, as the Government’s Green Paper points out; and the increasing evasion of the licence fee, the rate of which has doubled and now stands at 12.5%, which is one in eight people who should be paying for the service that we all enjoy and who is not.
We need to ask some very big questions to set the BBC and broadcasting more generally on the right course for the next uncertain decade. I, for one, find it difficult to predict what the next 10 years might hold, so I think it is important that we have these regular opportunities. A forever charter would be even harder to try to set out. But, unfortunately, the Government’s Green Paper ducks so many of the big questions that confront us over the coming years. The Government chose to disband the expert panel that was formed to look into future funding for the BBC in 2023, wasting some time and independent insight, and have ruled out some of the most basic questions in their Green Paper. For instance, it dismisses certain funding models seen in other countries. A recent paper by the British Academy draws some interesting comparisons with Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Spain and others. The Government have already ruled those out in the Green Paper, yet they leave the door open to advertising—something that the BBC itself is so opposed to. Can the Minister explain a bit of the rationale there?
The Green Paper rules out looking at the size and scope of the BBC. It says,
“we do not believe a smaller BBC is in the UK’s interest”.
However, I think we should at least ask the question whether the BBC ought to have so many television and radio channels. Do we really need four versions of Radio 1, with 1Xtra, Radio 1 Dance and Radio 1 Anthems—which, I was disappointed to learn, is not the place where one can find the much-missed Radio 4 “UK Theme”.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood is right to point out the impact of the BBC on other media, particularly local newspapers. The Government’s Green Paper does not say much about greater collaboration, or perhaps even mergers, between some of our public service broadcasters in the years to come. In the Government’s Creative Industries Sector Plan, which was published last June, they said that they would ask the Competition and Markets Authority, supported by Ofcom, to set out how changes in the sector
“could be taken into account as part of any future assessment of television and advertising markets. This would include when considering any potential closer, strategic partnerships or possible consolidation between broadcasters”.
Did the Government ask the CMA and Ofcom about this, and what progress have those two bodies made in the intervening months? However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, says, the CMA does not have a good track record in this area. It rejected Project Kangaroo, the plan for a consolidated streaming service for all our public service broadcasters, which would have given them such an important head start on Netflix and the others that have now gained pace.
The Green Paper contains some damaging ideas, such as the notion of free TV licences for people on benefits. That would only fuel division, resentment and some of the disconnect that audiences feel, and would add to the pressures on public spending that have led to many of the problems that noble Lords have identified in their remarks today. Perhaps the Minister can set out why the Government are looking at this.
We need to ask these big questions so that the BBC and other public service broadcasters can compete. We saw in recent weeks the news that the BBC has been replaced by TNT Sports as the broadcaster for the forthcoming Commonwealth Games—a great shame for those who wish to follow them. This will lead to increased piracy, as people try to watch their favourite sports or TV programmes illegally.
Noble Lords rightly point to the mergers and growth of already large international streamers and corporations, and to the way that they are pushing up production costs, making it more difficult for the BBC, Channel 4 and others to compete. I was glad to hear a number of noble Lords talking about the knock-on effect that this has on cinematic releases. Timothée Chalamet has been speaking very powerfully about trying to get people into cinemas to watch his latest film, “Marty Supreme”—something that would buck the trend.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, does not like it, but I am glad that he has at least been to the cinema to see it.
What discussions have the Government had with awards academies about the qualifying period that is necessary for films to be entered into things such as the Oscars and the BAFTAs? Should they not insist on a greater cinematic release? Having taken the Media Bill through your Lordships’ House in 2024, I agree with the comments that have been made about implementing and enforcing the provisions of that Act in relation to prominence and more.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, spoke powerfully about digital terrestrial television. In July 2025, Ofcom recommended that the Government make a decision about whether to invest more in digital terrestrial television, which, at present, is guaranteed only until 2034. At the time of Storm Goretti, we are reminded of what a vital lifeline our broadcasters are, particularly in rural parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister could say a bit about that?
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others spoke about the BBC World Service. The director-general, Tim Davie—who will be much missed—has been in front of the Public Accounts Committee in another place this morning. He pointed out that the BBC World Service has not yet had its financial settlement for the 2026-27 financial year. Can the Minister say when that will be set out? Against such a turbulent geopolitical backdrop, surely the BBC World Service needs to know how it much can spend later this year?
As other noble Lords have rightly done, I want to end by connecting broadcasting to other art forms. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke of the great and much-missed playwright, Sir Tom Stoppard. I recently saw his “Indian Ink” at the Hampstead Theatre, which I believe began as a radio play. Last night, at the Donmar Warehouse, I saw JB Priestley’s “When We Are Married”. He was another of our great playwrights who jumped from stage to screen to radio. In a recent report by UK Theatre, the producer of the BBC’s “The Night Manager”—which I am sure many of us are currently enjoying—speaks powerfully about the connection between funding for theatre, and other art forms, and what we will be viewing on our screens and streamers for years to come. During this helpful and wide-ranging debate, it is right that we have been able to switch over from broadcasting to talk about other art forms too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for securing this debate on UK broadcasting. Given the limited time that we have, I will commit to writing to noble Lords on points that I cannot cover in my concluding notes—I have a lot of bits of paper in front of me, so noble Lords must please bear with me.
As the noble Lord highlighted in his opening remarks, he and many others across your Lordships’ House have significant interest and expertise in this subject. It has therefore been a wide-ranging debate, with much to consider. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that your Lordships’ House undoubtedly has a particular interest in news and current affairs. I note that I enjoy hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on “Thought for the Day”, as I know many others do.
We are rightly proud of our broadcasting sector in the UK. It is unique, with a dynamic, mixed ecology of public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and streamers. It is a sector that is indispensable to our culture, society and economy. However, there are many different pressures on the broadcasting sector at the moment, as contributions to this debate have illustrated powerfully. It was particularly helpful to have the perspective of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bailey of Paddington, who talked about the generational shift and the fact that not everybody recognises themselves in our public service media or uses the BBC and other public sector media to access media. We need to be clear that there is a broader issue, and a broader fight for truth and unbiased broadcasting, with new challenges in the market and increased competition. These are just a few of the issues that the sector is currently facing. It is vital that we do not lose the need to address these issues and that we ensure that the UK’s broadcasting remains one of our greatest assets.
Today’s debate comes, as I think most noble Lords highlighted, shortly after the Government have published the BBC royal charter review Green Paper. Before I go on to cover the charter review briefly, I will speak to some of the work that DCMS is undertaking more generally in relation to broadcast media. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, highlighted the importance of the implementation of the Media Act. I acknowledge the work on this Act by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. As noble Lords will be aware, the Media Act 2024 made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting. Since the previous Act, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of the regulatory framework. The commencement of the modernised public service broadcasting framework on 1 January marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act and demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to ensuring the regulatory framework that our PSBs operate in keeps pace with changes in the media landscape.
As part of the Media Act implementation, we will be extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to mainstream video on demand services, securing a fairer competitive environment for our broadcasters by ensuring that TV-like on-demand services are regulated to similar standards as traditional TV. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on prominence, we are in the process of implementing the new online prominence regime, which will require particular TV platforms to carry and give appropriate prominence to PSB TV apps. This will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find and watch the public service broadcasting content they value on demand.
I move on to the BBC now. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, not getting on to its graduate scheme, I would argue that he has done all right—it is clear that we have gained and the BBC has lost. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the moral case for the BBC and for funding the BBC. Not surprisingly, the future of our national broadcaster was raised throughout the debate by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose speech I enjoyed and will reflect on.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his opening remarks, I agree that we should defend the BBC. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, that the BBC must own its problems and failings in order to rebuild trust.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, I say that the Government are also clear that the BBC is a vital part of our society that projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries and is pivotal in telling our national story. In the words of the Culture Secretary, which the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, quoted:
“the BBC, alongside the NHS, is one of the two most important institutions in our country”.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, echo the Secretary of State in saying that it is the light on the hill.
From Salford to Belfast, the BBC has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched by any other, and it is one of the most trusted news providers, both at home and abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Hall, described some powerful examples of how the BBC tells our national story, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. My noble friend Lord Chandos highlighted the importance of drama.
As our national broadcaster, the BBC fulfils a vital public service role, telling the story of who we are: our people, our places, and giving cultural definition to our communities. As made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the BBC was created to serve the whole of society. The noble Baroness made a powerful case for the BBC being a public service resource and for universality—no doubt themes we will return to throughout this year of debate on the charter review.
As noble Lords are aware, we have launched the BBC charter review. This will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and, through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC story. Through the review, we will ensure the BBC 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. The charter review will look at how to secure the BBC’s future against a rapidly changing media landscape to ensure the BBC does not just survive but thrives for decades to come.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, highlighted the digital age we are in, noting that how the BBC embraces this ethically and for the public benefit will be key. The debate on how to do this will be central to the BBC charter review, and it was helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, about the variation across different parts of the country, including the extent and proportion of people who access free-to-air content.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, focused on funding models. Essential to the charter review will be ensuring the financial sustainability of the BBC. We approach this charter review with an open mind, and we are consulting on a range of funding options, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently and generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee might be reformed.
Let me address the point on non-payment, made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and on the value for money the BBC represents if broken down to a daily cost per household, made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. We know that some funding options would represent a significant shift for both the sector and the BBC, as well as for audience experiences and expectations. We want to see a thriving media sector, including our public service broadcasters. Our decision-making in relation to the Green Paper will carefully consider the potential impacts on this ecosystem.
As the consultation is ongoing, it probably would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the range of fascinating views that have come out of today’s debate. I know, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly does not agree with some of the suggestions. I look forward to future debates with him and with others across your Lordships’ House as the year, and the work of the Government on the BBC royal charter review, continues.
I will try to cover a few of the other points made relating to the BBC; I apologise if I miss any out. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, spoke about BBC market impact on local online news. We recognise the importance of a plural local news sector and are aware of the issues and headwinds facing the green sector. As noted in the Green Paper, we want to make sure that the BBC works alongside, and does not crowd out, high-quality local media organisations.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised BBC board appointments. Most board appointments are for the BBC to make independent of government; moving forward, it is important that the BBC continues to demonstrate how it is working diligently to maintain the high standards for which it is rightly recognised. As we set out in December, the charter review will look at strengthening the BBC’s independence so that the public continue to have trust in the organisation and its programmes and content, and that will include considering the Government’s role in board appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised a number of points concerning political interference. We are clear that the BBC is the world’s most trusted international news service. A critical reason for that is its independence from government and other political actors. This Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC remains, I emphasise, fiercely independent. This is vital to the principle of press freedom more broadly.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others raised the importance of the World Service. We are clear that the World Service is vital, which is why we gave it a £32.6 million funding uplift this financial year. It is a vital element of our soft power and a big part of why the BBC can be seen as that light on the hill. I will come back in writing on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about ongoing certainty of funding, because I do not have the answer—one of the disbenefits of speaking just before the Minister is that it is quite difficult to get answers inserted at the last minute. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, also referred to BBC World Service funding. Our ambition is to establish a long-term sustainable funding model that provides predictable and stable funding for the World Service through the charter review. We will be able to come back to this throughout the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made a point about the potential influence of foreign state actors. We feel quite strongly about this as well. As I said, the Government are committed to making sure that the BBC has that freedom and remains fiercely independent.
As a postscript to this section of the debate, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Hannay and Lord Inglewood, raised the lawsuit by President Trump. It is not for the Government to comment on ongoing legal matters, but I point your Lordships’ House to the assertion by the BBC’s chair, who has gone on record strongly disagreeing with the assertion that it was the basis for a defamation claim.
I move on to public service broadcasters more generally. It was really useful to hear the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, on PSBs. I also found the contribution on this from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, of huge interest and it should be reflected on. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the increased scrutiny of public service media, including the BBC. As has come through in the debate, not least from the noble Lord, our public service media is wider than the BBC and we need trust to be retained and, where necessary, rebuilt across the range of broadcasters.
The Secretary of State has been clear that we will ensure that the high standards we expect from our public service media are reflected across the whole of broadcast media so that the highest standards are upheld. Generally our media have high standards, but we must not be complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted the importance of truth and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted the debate around politicians presenting current affairs. Polemic should not be presented as fact. The lines between broadcast news and opinion are in some cases becoming dangerously blurred. It is a dangerous place for democracy if people cannot trust what they see and hear. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Parekh about truth, trust and bias. This is why balance matters. We are now considering whether the Government need to go further to protect audiences.
Public service media providers are contending with funding shortfalls, changing and new habits, and regulation that has not really kept pace with the media revolution of recent years, and we want to fix this for the future. We want to ensure our public service media can continue to thrive and compete with global competitors as viewing shifts online so that they can continue to do what they do best. That is why we have committed to taking action to support public service media and the wider TV sector in the Creative Industries Sector Plan. We are also considering the findings in Ofcom’s public service media review, which will inform our work, and engaging with the sector on next steps. We also recognise the need to diversify the TV workforce, move commissioning out of London and ensure the whole nation is reflected in the story we tell about ourselves as a nation. We will work with the sector to ensure the right framework, conditions and support are in place for this to happen.
I have a couple more points which I will cover, but I am going to conclude to allow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to respond before we run out of time for this debate.
On local news, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, raised, the Government recognise the importance of local media, including local TV and its role in providing trusted and accurate news at a local level. I am pleased that local TV licences have been renewed by Ofcom to enable local TV to continue until at least 2034.
In relation to a point about Netflix made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who asked for assurance on Netflix’s proposed acquisition of Warner Brothers, given the legal and commercial sensitivities involved, it would not be appropriate to comment on any potential live media merger involving US media companies, but should any merger progress, the Competition and Markets Authority will examine the implications for competition and consumers, providing relevant jurisdiction criteria are met. We remain in regular contact with stakeholders, including the BFI and the UK Cinema Association, on how best to support the UK film and cinema sectors.
I am going to ditch the bit on radio, although I love radio, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I will again plug the programme by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted the pipeline that BBC Radio has provided for some of our greatest talent.
I will conclude there. It is clear from the debate today that UK broadcasting is at a pivotal moment. The Secretary of State was clear when she spoke at the Royal Television Society’s Cambridge Convention that public service media is fighting to be seen and heard in an increasingly competitive market. Our public service media is dealing with multiple challenges in funding, viewing habits and regulation. I know we will return to this debate throughout the year, but it has been a useful first step in our discussion on the future of broadcasting.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I am not remotely going to attempt a further summing up. We had a very good summing up from the Minister, and I congratulate her and the two spokesmen of the political parties on what they have said.
The debate has proved and established what I said at the beginning, which is that if you look at the Membership of the House of Lords, you find a great deal of experience in exactly this media area. I can only hope that the authorities, when they are organising future debates, will understand that that is the case.
I will mention three points, in headline terms, before sitting down. The first is the issue which was rightly raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; I knew his predecessor and we had a very good working relationship, and I hope the same will be true with him. His emphasis on radio is vastly important, and many people in this country listen much more to radio than watch television, or certainly as much. Programmes such as “From Our Own Correspondent” open a window to a whole range of things overseas.
Secondly, I welcome the new services that have developed. It is quite interesting how they have developed since the last time I debated these issues. There is a new surge—a new verve—in new services being established. Obviously, the chief one I have in mind is Times Radio. I must say we are greatly privileged that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, should have left his familiar position to support our debate, and I hope he finds it useful and valuable, too.
My third and last point is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, basically to say that he has pioneered and campaigned for more help for overseas aid, and his words and his—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I regret to say that under the rules for time limited debates, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed, and I am afraid I must put the Question on the Motion, if the noble Lord would sit down.
Mining: Pollution
Lord Oates
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s responsibility to ensure that mining companies which operated in former British colonies during colonial rule address pollution that their activities caused in those countries.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I tabled this debate to tell the story of the people of Kabwe, a city in Zambia which has been described as the world’s most polluted town, and to highlight the dangers of their experiences being replicated in the scramble for African resources currently under way. In doing so, I pay tribute to the people of Kabwe and those who are supporting them in their fight for justice and restitution, including Environment Africa, Action for Southern Africa—ACTSA—other civil society organisations and their legal advisers. In particular, I highlight the tireless work of ACTSA’s former director, Tricia Sibbons, who, with many others, has done so much to raise the profile of this issue in the United Kingdom. I also look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on South Africa has championed the cause of Kabwe’s people.
Broken Hill mine, later Kabwe mine, operated from 1906 to 1994. Between 1925 and 1974, the most productive phase of its operation, it was owned by a now defunct company which was within the Anglo American group. The parent company of that group at the time was Anglo American South Africa Limited, AASA. During most of the period that the mine was operational, until Zambian independence in October 1964, the UK was the legal authority. The town and the mine were named after Broken Hill in New South Wales, where lead mining also took place and where the health impacts of lead poisoning were identified as early as 1893 in a report commissioned by the New South Wales Government.
Widespread and severe lead poisoning and the deaths of several children in the villages close to the Kabwe mine were identified by a series of Kabwe mine doctors, and in 1970 Professor Ronald Lane, a renowned public health expert from Manchester University, was commissioned by Anglo American to investigate and advise on the situation. He confirmed the mine doctors’ findings and advised on remedial measures, including replacing the topsoil and relocating communities. This advice was not heeded, on the grounds that it would be “far too expensive”.
The mine ceased operations in 1994, leaving an estimated 6.4 million tonnes of lead-bearing waste piles, leaching lead into the soil and water. The biggest waste heap left behind is known as “Black Mountain”, which blows dust into neighbouring areas with the wind. Very young children are the worst affected. They ingest the dust, which is all around them, when they suck their fingers. Many children develop an addiction to lead, which can taste sweet, leading them to eat contaminated soil.
In a powerful report, Life in the World’s Most Polluted Town, published by Environment Africa and ACTSA last October, Mary from the mine area of Kabwe says of her 14 year-old daughter Precious:
“Her health is not ok. When she is coughing it gets intense and she has flu most of the time, bleeding from the nose, low body weight and a poor appetite. She likes to eat soil and she eats it in huge quantities. It’s very difficult to stop her because she hides it most of the time and I know that it’s the very soil that contains lead. We took her to the clinic and it was discovered that she has lead in her blood”.
Bertha Musonda, the mother of children aged nine and 15, from the Kabwe district of Makululu, said:
“Before taking my children to the clinic I wondered why they were always coughing and were very forgetful … When I did, the results showed that they both had lead in their blood”.
Lead pollution is everywhere, blown as dust into homes and ingested through vegetables grown in contaminated soil. The US Environmental Protection Agency defines lead contamination in soil above 200 milligrams per kilogram as a hazard for residents. In Kabwe it reaches as high as 60,000 milligrams. There is no safe level of lead in the blood. Leading medical experts advise that brain damage, in particular cognitive impairment, occurs with any elevated blood lead level—BLL—above zero. It is estimated that 140,000 people in Kabwe have lead poisoning—that is, BLLs above 5 milligrams per decilitre of blood.
Loveness, the mother of a six year-old girl and a three year-old boy, also from Makululu in Kabwe, took her children to the clinic to be tested for lead poisoning, because they were constantly sick. They had blood lead levels of 40 milligrams and 45 milligrams respectively, far in excess of the WHO reference point for blood poisoning of 5 milligrams. Studies have found that in Kabwe’s “Central Villages”, average BLLs for children exceed 50 milligrams. By way of comparison, a 2021 £467 million settlement relating to water contamination in Flint, Michigan, comprised 90,000 individuals whose BLLs were almost entirely below 10 milligrams per decilitre.
An application to allow a class action against Anglo American South Africa is currently before the South African courts. AASA denies liability. The legal action is a last resort because, as the ACTSA/Environment Africa report says:
“The Kabwe story should not be about legal wrangling over who left what when: there is no doubt that the pollution results from the extractive process, negligence in waste disposal, and refusal to protect residents … The Kabwe story should be one of deep regret by those responsible, of negotiation with and compensation from those who profited, as well as health testing and urgent care for those already affected … we must see full remediation of the environment, such that all children and adults live free from lead poisoning, that subsistence farming by families is again possible, agriculture is restored, and a green and pleasant land—every Zambian’s birthright—is finally a reality for future generations”.
In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will address the following questions. As the colonial authority during most of the period in which the Kabwe mine operated and produced pollution, what assessment have the UK Government made of their moral responsibility to bring their influence to bear on the relevant parties to address this issue? What discussions have the Government had specifically with Anglo American to encourage it to clean up the toxic legacy left behind by one of its own group companies? What assessment have the UK Government made of the impact of the severe cuts to UK bilateral development support to Zambia on Zambia’s ability to mitigate the social and economic impacts of the British legacy in Kabwe?
Sadly, the people of Kabwe are far from alone in suffering from the impacts of extractive industries around the world, and a new scramble for African resources threatens to create yet more toxic legacies. So what role is the UK playing in international fora to hold mining companies and other extractive industries accountable for the damage that they inflict on local communities? We owe it to Mary, Bertha, Loveness and their children, and tens of thousands of others in Kabwe, to ensure not only that they receive justice and restitution but that we do all we can to prevent the current scramble for African resources creating a plethora of new Kabwes.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on a very good speech, on securing this debate and on his solidarity work for the charity Action for Southern Africa, of which I am an honorary vice-president. It organised an excellent event in a room in your Lordships’ House, which I hosted, at which a victim still resident in Kabwe spoke movingly alongside Her Excellency the Zambian High Commissioner.
The main point I want to raise is that, on 21 November 2025, Anglo American announced a “partnership” with the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to
“support inclusive growth and sustainable development through Anglo American’s Impact Finance Network (IFN) in South Africa”.
Beginning this month, January 2026, the FCDO will provide £4.5 million, which is 100 million in Zambia’s currency, over four years to support Anglo American’s impact finance network programme in South Africa.
Since the aim of the grant is to
“support inclusive growth and sustainable development”,
how does this square with Anglo being accused by communities around the world of working against that very aim? Did the FCDO consult any relevant communities, NGOs or civil society organisations, such as Action for Southern Africa, before making that grant? Was any due diligence conducted into Anglo American’s role in the contracting by thousands of Southern African miners of TB and silicosis, and in the deliberate delaying of those miners receiving the compensation they won in a landmark 2019 legal case?
Was due diligence conducted in regard to Anglo American’s role in lead pollution in Kabwe, about which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke so movingly and accurately, particularly in the light of class action proceedings revealing how much the company knew about the lead pollution and the serious nature of it, before it handed on to its successor company one of the world’s most polluted towns—if not the world’s most polluted town—where 95% of children have lead poisoning?
I ask these questions while recognising that Anglo American played an important role in developing employment and growth across the African continent and elsewhere. However, this surely must be compatible with social justice and human rights. The UK Labour Government are supposed to support those principles, as I, as a former Labour Minister on Africa for the United Kingdom, once did as well.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his excellent introduction, because stories touch both the heart and the mind, harrowing as those stories of the people of Kabwe were that he shared with your Lordships.
This debate is timely because of the geopolitical tensions that we face currently, many of them connected to minerals needed to power our economies today as well as the economy of the future. Although much of the attention is focused on new mineral deposits, a key issue that is deeply relevant to the whole mining sector is how the legacy is addressed. Many companies that existed in the past no longer exist or have been subsumed into very different entities today. Some of these are still listed on the London Stock Exchange and therefore still have a relationship with their historic legacy, while others do not. The consequence is that many countries to which the UK has historic ties have legacy mine sites that can be anything from waste from a site, such as tailings waste, through to the old mine site itself.
Through the Church of England Pensions Board, which is a £3.6 billion pension fund serving the long-term interests of 44,000 members who have been members of the clergy or otherwise working for the Church, the role of mining has been a particular focus in recent years. The board recognises the systemic importance of mining to many of the other sectors upon which modern life depends and which the board is also invested in, such as aviation, shipping, construction, autos, technology and energy, to name but a few. But a particular focus of the board’s work has been on this issue of legacy, particularly related to mine waste, often contained in tailings dams, which, if not managed correctly, can cause significant social and environmental impacts. We have seen major disasters such as at Brumadinho in Brazil, killing 272 people, and at Jagersfontein in South Africa, killing two people and causing significant environmental damage.
To address this issue, the pensions board has led a global initiative with the support of both the UN and the mining industry to drive safety in tailings waste management by companies today. This has resulted in a global industry standard on tailings management with the creation of an independent Global Tailings Management Institute headquartered in South Africa. However, this still leaves the issue of the wider legacy of sites that are not operated by companies today or that are classed as orphaned, which litter the landscape of so many former British colonies and pose risks to communities and the environment around them.
Addressing that issue, which is deeply relevant to companies today whether they have legal liability or not due to the need to gain and retain the industry’s social licence to extract, requires an additional set of interventions. Through the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, which was set up and is chaired by the Church of England’s Pensions Board and backed by 100 investors with over $17 trillion under management, the commission laid out at the end of last year a set of recommendations on legacy. They will form a key part of conversations between the commission and the presidency of South Africa next month.
A couple of points arise from that. First, the commission notes that with many operations transitioning to closure in the next 10 or 20 years, coupled with the opening of new mines in so many different places, it is crucial to reflect on historical as well as future legacies and the role of investors in shaping a positive legacy for all. Investors have clearly indicated their expectation that the industry must address existing legacies while ensuring that new and operating sites create lasting value for people and nature.
Secondly, the commission has called for and is now working to support national-based legacy initiatives to rehabilitate unsafe or abandoned facilities using innovative financial mechanisms that incentivise reprocessing old mine waste to extract both the original and other minerals, as well as repurposing mine site land. Importantly, the investor commission is now working with the United Nations to create a global legacy fund to support the rehabilitation of lost or abandoned sites that do not have economic potential. Such a fund could support national-based solutions to long-standing abandoned mine sites, while also creating opportunities for local employment and economic diversification. The hope is that the first such demonstration of such an approach could be in South Africa and could provide a model that, if successful, could be replicated in other nations.
Given this unique collaboration and the historic relationship of the United Kingdom to many of the countries in which these legacy sites still exist, would the Minister be willing to meet staff of the Church of England Pensions Board? Will she commit to assessing whether His Majesty’s Government might support such a legacy fund through the UN? Indeed, joining the potential pilot in South Africa may be a very practical first step for His Majesty’s Government in supporting an approach to addressing this difficult issue of legacy. The benefit of doing so will be not only to the local communities of which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, gave such an incredibly moving snapshot case study—local communities blighted by the legacy of these mines—but to the whole mining sector and to our economy, which is intimately linked to what we extract.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, to thank very sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for securing this important debate and essentially to say that I agree with pretty well everything that has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, set out very clearly for us the absolute horror and tragedy of Kabwe. In preparing for this debate, I found out about the FCDO action mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I would like to say that I was surprised, but I am afraid I was not. It is very concerning, and there are serious questions. I hope we will hear some answers from the Minister.
I am not going to repeat the tale so powerfully presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, about Kabwe, the world’s most toxic town, but we are primarily talking about the actions of Anglo American. It is, I am afraid, a company now notorious in history. It is facing calls for accountability in South Africa, Peru and Chile, as well as in Zambia. In Chile, its actions have led to the irreversible destruction of glaciers, and that has compounded water scarcity issues in Peru. Local agriculture and indigenous ways of life have been endangered.
Of course, it is not just one company; we are talking about a systemic problem with an industry with a terrible track record. I am going to make two arguments for why we need to see urgent action from the Government on cleaning up colonial legacies and looking towards the present and the future. There are normative arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke about doing the moral thing, the right thing, but I will make some practical arguments about why it is in the interests of our health and security to ensure that we have a clean-up and do not make further messes. This toxic legacy of colonialism has real impacts on our health and security today.
I note that that the UK has endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, but it has failed to ensure that British companies are complying with them. There has been great concern about the critical minerals strategy released in November, which has attracted criticism from communities around the world as well as from non-governmental organisations. We are talking about signing several critical mineral partnerships and agreements with nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and South Africa. There are real concerns attached to those agreements. Communities living on the front lines have warned that the actions associated with British government action will have destructive environmental and human health impacts.
Eric Mokuoa of the Bench Marks Foundation in South Africa said that the British action is going to
“fuel social and environmental injustices across global supply chains”.
That is why I am very happy to associate the Green Party, as I have before, with the call for a business, human rights and environment Act, as has been called for by the Corporate Justice Coalition of more than 40 organisations across the UK. We have to not keep making the same mistakes as we have made again and again over the centuries.
I also note a briefing that I received from Spotlight on Corruption, the London Mining Network and Culture Unstained about the Adani Group, which is the world’s largest private coal developer, associated with huge problems with pollution, particularly in India, violent displacement of indigenous communities and, in Australia, serious ecological harms to indigenous sites and delicate ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. That, of course, is not a colonial company, but the British links are very large and very clear. UK banks Barclays and Standard Chartered arranged in March 2024 a $409 million bond issue for Adani Green Energy, which is a publicly traded company listed in India, but Adani Energy Holdings Ltd is registered in the UK. I note also that there are considerable questions about the financial arrangements of the Adani Group.
That brings me to a broader point about how mining pollution is often physical, but pollution is also often connected to corruption, in terms of theft from local communities and theft from nations, and these are all interrelated. Those are the moral arguments, but I come now to the practical arguments.
I am going to raise an issue that I am sure will surprise some noble Lords. No, I have not picked up the wrong page from another speech. I am going to raise the issue of antimicrobial resistance. There is definite evidence for mining activity and sites being associated with elevated levels of antimicrobial resistance. We come to the point that we learned during Covid that no one is safe until everyone is safe from infectious diseases. Public health is a global issue, and antimicrobial resistance essentially threatens the health of us all: it threatens the survival of modern medicine.
I go first to a study from the journal Environmental Pollution in 2022, about antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic-resistant genes in a uranium mine. This is a study from China. What you are looking at is heavy metals co-selecting for antibiotic resistance. Essentially, if you think about this, the organism gets a threat to its own health. It boosts up its own defences, and those defences can work both against heavy metals and against antibiotics. That was work in China, and that was also citing some work done with two iron ore mines and a lead/zinc mine in Iran, where they found elevated AMR.
If we want to look at our own colonial legacy, there is a very interesting paper put out by researchers from Newcastle University and IIT Delhi, looking at urban rivers in the UK and India. In our own River Tyne, there are elevated levels of AMR associated with historic mining and industrial activity, and the same thing was found in India. We do not know very much about this yet, but everywhere we look we find what we expect to find. Those AMR genes and AMR organisms do not stay in those places: they move.
Another study, not on heavy metals or on mining directly, came out last month on PFAS, the forever chemicals, which showed how the seafood trade is actually spreading PFAS around the world. From areas of hotspots of PFAS, the seafood is then exported to other places and eaten. I have no doubt that we are going to see the same sort of thing happening with heavy metal- and mining-related pollution.
To conclude, we need to think very hard about what we are doing now. We need to acknowledge that every form of mining is going to have a deleterious environmental impact. We need to minimise that, but we also need to think about what we are mining these materials for, and what they are being used for. This is a small plea for mindful mining: for not trashing more of this fragile planet and not causing damage that we do not need to cause.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Oates on securing this debate, the powerful way he introduced it and exposing the shame and the scandal of Kabwe. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his continued campaign in that area, and the Church of England pensions board’s work on legacy, which I found interesting and worth while.
I want to make a more general point about where this has come from, and where it is going. “The flag follows trade” was the describing motto of the growth of the British Empire and started with the East India Company before extending everywhere. I have statistics for 1906, which show that the percentages of the world’s yield of mining production from the British Empire were as follows: gold, 60%; silver, 12%; tin, 73%; copper, 9%; lead, 15%; iron, 18%; nickel, 60%; manganese, 40%l coal, 30%; asbestos, 90%; graphite, 45%; mica, 90%; and diamonds, 98%. Mining continued throughout the colonial period and beyond, even if newly independent countries had a little more control.
I do not make a wholesale denunciation of the Empire: there were benefits in terms of infrastructure, the rule of law, education and the English language. But the prime objective of the Empire was to benefit Britain, and the consequences—good and bad—for the local populations were just incidental. When Harold Macmillan made his “wind of change” speech in South Africa in 1960, he set in train the process of decolonisation. It is worth recording. He said:
“The wind of change is blowing through this continent and, whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it”.
In the 10 years I had the privilege of chairing the International Development Committee, I travelled to many former British colonies. I found a remarkable amount of good will for the positive aspects of the legacy, and appreciation of our aid, in the amounts and the way in which it was delivered, but disappointment at our distance and lack of post-independence partnership. Of course, all this was before the slashing of our official development assistance. I am disappointed, to put it mildly, and sometimes outraged by the language used by Ministers to justify these cuts. Referring to our development assistance as a
“giant cashpoint in the sky”,
as Boris Johnson did, was as ignorant as it was offensive.
However, saying that that is outdated and patronising also undermines the impressive way that delivery of aid and development assistance matured under successive Governments, as we moved to deliver 0.7%. The drive behind the post-war settlement, the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions and the commitment to 0.7% were an acknowledgement that industrialised countries had grown rich partially, but very significantly, on the back of exploiting poorer countries; in other words, there is a moral imperative to work with former colonies today to help them achieve poverty elimination and prosperity.
I never denied the challenges, and always looked for what worked, what could be replicated, and how corruption could be curtailed and capacity and resilience strengthened. I think that UK aid focused well on that. What impressed me was how we focused on poverty reduction, with support for health systems, education, and the rights of women and girls as an essential underpinning. But now, faced with the world’s challenges, we choose to downgrade our commitment to continue to help the countries we exploited to help them secure their place in the world, or at least to the ambition of ending absolute poverty and leaving no one behind. What chance in the present circumstances do we now have of achieving that by 2030?
Our influence in what, for shorthand, is called the global South is diminishing and being displaced by an expansionist China and a disruptive, exploitative Russia. It is therefore not just a moral responsibility to acknowledge our legacy but in our direct current interests to show our former colonies that we are here to co-operate in helping their development and the elimination of poverty. I know, because I have heard the Minister before, that she will say that we aim to do things differently and it is not all about aid. However, quoting the Premier League, trade, investment, culture, education and so on goes only so far, mostly because they are beyond the Government’s control, financial support and responsibility. It is difficult to see how new ambitions can be achieved on the back of such a dramatic reduction in the funding of initiatives.
Can the Minister tell us what practical steps the Government will take to promote trade and investment in former colonies, especially in Africa? What soft power initiatives are planned to highlight the positive impact of UK plc across developing countries? How will the Government work with the private sector to promote trade and investment, and get it to consider funding development initiatives such as education, skills training, and upgrading infrastructure to deliver clean water and energy to more people? It is this that will create the climate where their businesses will flourish.
I can give examples of where the private sector can help. For example, when Botswana discovered diamonds shortly after achieving independence, it sought the best advice as to how to optimise this benefit, appointing one of the world’s leading diamond valuers. This led to a 50:50 partnership with De Beers, a company called Debswana. This partnership has added value by bringing diamond finishing to Botswana and has enabled Botswana to use the funds for public good and improve living standards. That is the positive way it could be done but, sadly, not the way it is often done.
I also chair a charity, Water Unite, which has attracted private funding to invest in sustainable businesses in developing countries to produce clean water, improve sanitation and recycle plastics. Funding has come from a levy on the sale of bottled water and soft drinks by the Co-op and other retailers, as well as an impact fund, which has attracted funding from private high net worth individuals and foundations. This has a potential to develop, free of taxpayers and on the back on the private sector. It would be helpful if the Government could help promote more of these kinds of initiatives.
The Government say that public support for aid and development has diminished. I am not convinced they are right about that, but to the extent that it is true it is because political leadership has undermined what was a strong cross-party initiative.
We are still exploiting people from poor developing countries by encouraging them to come here to do the jobs our people do not want to do, and paying them less. We then give them a lowly and vulnerable status and change the rules under which they came and can stay. If we truly want to reduce immigration then we need to ensure that developing countries are able to offer hope and prospects at home. We need to find ways of reducing dependence on immigration by attracting UK-based labour to fill vacancies.
Perhaps the Government could do more to test public opinion by offering more support for UK Aid Match—I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group for Aid Match—to see how generous the public will be if they know the Government will match their contribution, and I mean really match by giving extra funds, not just moving the budget around. The test for government rhetoric will be how all threads of UK engagement are woven together and the extent to which this delivers genuine progress in partner countries. We exploited many countries; we are still doing it. I do not support the case for reparations, but I understand how the demand may grow if we sow such indifference to our legacy and lack a positive current engagement to make a difference.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on securing this debate and the powerful way in which he introduced it. No one could have failed to have been moved by the case that he outlined, so ably reinforced by the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I am afraid I have not had the opportunity to research the details of the case he mentioned, so I will not comment on it. I am sure what he says is absolutely correct, but as I do not know the details so it would be wrong for me to express a view. I address my remarks, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, more on the generality of the issue.
Putting that case aside, it is generally unclear how much pollution was caused by mining companies in former colonies during colonial rule. It is difficult even to estimate the extent of mining which took place. The environmental impacts of different mining activities in different settings will be varied. Our understanding and the metrics of pollution are now, rightly, undoubtedly far more advanced than those of our predecessors. Mining is an essential activity for many of the advances in human existence that we all want to see but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I also want to see it done responsibly and with the appropriate controls.
There are many cases throughout history, as well as today, of environmental damage being caused by mining malpractice, not least in our own country. In February last year, at least 50,000 tonnes of acidic debris were spilled from a tailings dam at a copper mine in Zambia, operated by a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Even that figure is probably an underestimate of the damage. It is entirely right that such cases are investigated where laws may have been broken, and the strongest possible action should be taken.
Mining activities took place long before and after the British Empire, including in former colonies. Moreover, the mining industry continues to make a valuable contribution to our economy to this day, with 2,000 mines and quarries still active in our own country. It is inevitable that mining activities have some environmental impact; what is important is how they are regulated and how to minimise those impacts as much as possible. Our knowledge and the technology to enable us to do that is advancing all the time. For example, in some instances the British Empire implemented environmental laws, licensing systems for mining companies to manage resources and proper regulation to protect mine workers. I am sure we could have done more, but we did a lot.
In this century, the previous Government took action on the environment with the international community, investing £2.4 billion-worth of international climate finance between 2016 and 2020 into adaptation, including areas of loss and damage. Moreover, UK Export Finance added climate resilience debt clauses to loan agreements with 12 African and Caribbean countries.
However, although we support international co-operation, this Question for Short Debate asserts that it is the UK’s responsibility to determine how mining companies should behave in now independent countries. The problem, of course, is that this would mean acting as though they were almost still colonies, unable to determine their own laws and regulations or make their own agreements with the private sector.
As I have mentioned, determining the pollution caused by mining activities during the colonial period is far from straightforward. I am aware that Carbon Brief ranks the UK fourth in the world when accounting for colonial emissions, but this is not specific to mining, nor does it recognise that these colonies had their own mining sectors prior to the colonial period. Furthermore, those ranked at the top for carbon emissions happen to be a former British colony, the US, and China.
I fear that some of the arguments, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, indicated, mirror the arguments for reparations more broadly, which my noble friend Lord Biggar has so expertly countered in his writing and articles. To clarify, I am not saying that the UK should do nothing on the world stage to address pollution. As I have said, the previous Government were strongly committed to international co-operation on the environment. The All-Party Group for Africa, which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, co-chairs, published in May last year its report on how the UK can help to support Africa’s energy transition, recommending that the Government increase support for private sector investment in the continent’s renewable energy sources.
The UK should also offer support to Commonwealth countries to help them put in place their own enforceable regulations, especially against those with no interest in good practice at all. This is not the same as requiring mining companies to address pollution they may or may not have caused during historical periods when the impacts were not fully understood and the same standards that we have today were not in place.
It is vital to interpret analyses of historical mining pollution with caution and think carefully about the ethical and legal approaches involved when it comes to making requirements on surviving mining companies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution on this topic.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his speech. I was moved by what he had to say and the accounts he shared with us. They really brought to life the issues that we are turning our attention to, which too often can seem very distant and abstract. I was affected a great deal by what the noble Lord said about mothers and the children they are caring for, and the impact this is having on their health, possibly for the rest of their lives. I appreciate the way that he talked about that. I also thank him for his leadership and tenacity on this over some time, and I extend that compliment to my noble friend Lord Hain; I know that they have worked together on this over probably many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, started with a plea that the episode at Kabwe should serve as a lesson. I hear that. Some clear lessons can be learned, and they should instruct our approach to extractive industries in the future. There is no doubt, from what I have learned, that extractive industries are here to stay and that we will not be able to decarbonise without them, so it is vital that, in future, mining is always done responsibly, to the highest standards, and that those standards are required internationally. The UK is working to make sure that those standards can be agreed, implemented and enforced. That is not straightforward, as was reflected in some of your Lordships’ speeches, but it is certainly the intention of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked specifically what the UK Government are doing. I can assure him that I have been in touch with the British high commissioner in Pretoria, who is following the legal case that is still taking place, which my noble friend Lord Hain also referred to. It is being followed carefully and closely, and the high commissioner in Pretoria is in close contact with everybody he needs to be about that. I will get back in touch with him following this debate to get an up-to-date assessment of where that is and what we can expect to see.
My noble friend Lord Hain asked me about the FCDO’s partnership. The partnership is with the Anglo American Foundation, so it is separate from the corporation. We always do due diligence ahead of these things. He asked us to make sure that social justice and human rights are fundamental to our approach, and I assure him that they are. Anglo American is an important company. It is difficult to see how mining can continue globally to the extent needed without Anglo American, but what really matters is that we confront the legacies of the past and appropriate steps are taken in that regard, and that, moving forward, mining is done responsibly so that we never again see the kind of impact on a community that we have seen.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich spoke about the pension investments and invited me to meet to discuss legacy issues with trustees there. I am very happy to do that. I thank the Church of England Pensions Board for its participation in the emerging markets and developing economies taskforce, where we work with big investors in the City to try to encourage them to invest more in developing economies. In a moment, I will get on to the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, around development assistance more generally, but part of our more modern approach is that we need to work with the City and public markets, where the many trillions of dollars are held that we need to get flowing into those developing economies. In the end, that is how development will happen on a sustainable basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, our approach to overseas assistance has developed—not that there was anything wrong with what was happening before; it is just that we will be doing things differently. The Church of England is a full participant in that, and I am grateful for it and happy to have the meetings that he suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is a lovely man, who I respect very much. He has done a huge amount for international development through the years and has forgotten more than I will probably ever know. He has heard me say this several times before, but perhaps this is an opportunity to persuade him a little that what we are doing in our approach to development has some merit. I point out that the size of African economies combined is $2.8 trillion and the amount of development assistance in Africa at peak ODA was around $70 billion, so about 2.5% of the money in Africa has come from development assistance. This is the scale of the challenge that we have an ambition to meet in Africa. It is vital that we meet it, because turning away and leaving conditions to deteriorate as they have—I know that the Sahel is a particular concern for many Members of this House—makes the whole world less secure. We see problems with extremism and antimicrobial resistance, as has been mentioned. Health is a good example of intervention from the UK, not just through development assistance but through technical expertise and work to promote health security. The Ebola and mpox outbreaks were dealt with quickly and effectively, and we did not see the more widespread infection that we might have done because of the work that we were able to do, alongside partners in-country, to support communities and countries to handle them in the right way.
The noble Lord asked how we are working to promote trade. We have some practical initiatives to promote trade in Africa. Previous approaches have been good—this is not a criticism at all, it is just that we have to continue to refresh and evolve our approach—but what will make the biggest difference is allowing countries to trade with one another, and then, when they want to, to trade with us freely as well. Our developing countries trading scheme removes rules of origin requirements on countries, for example, so they can trade with us without having to prove where every last component came from, if they came from developing countries. That encourages more trade with Africa.
We are working closely through the BII, UKEF and the World Bank on how we improve African infrastructure. That is how they will be able to facilitate more of that trade, grow their economies, and become self-sufficient and less dependent on aid, which is what they tell us they want. This is how they want us to work. The reason we had such a strong World Bank IDA pledge this year is that we know that, by working that way, we get far more money into developing economies than we have ever been able to do through bilateral aid programmes, which in some cases have fostered dependency and undermined the ability of countries to lead their own processes and strengthen their own systems. They want to educate their own children and devise their own healthcare, appropriate to them, and that is what we want to support them in doing.
Where bilateral aid is the best way in which to do that, we will continue to do it, and we will continue to be leaders in humanitarian support. More often now, it is about investment and support for building systems, and enabling countries such as Ghana, Rwanda and Ethiopia, by supporting them in growing their own tax base so that they can get every year more than they have ever had in ODA to spend on their own public services. That is what they say they want and that is how we are going to work with them. We had a good launch of our new Africa approach—I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for the work that he did to bring that about. It is all about moving more towards partnership and away from some of the paternalistic approaches of the past.
To return to the main subject of the debate this afternoon, it is right to say that we have seen the enduring scars that have been left by damaging mining practices around the world. Sympathy is not a sufficient word, but we have complete respect for and a desire to work to support those who have been affected. The Government are determined to ensure that future mining does not repeat those mistakes and that we embed responsible and sustainable practices that put local communities at their heart.
I was able to visit Anglo American when I was in Chile last year. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned that, in many countries in Latin America and Africa, too often there have been situations where local communities have not been prioritised in any way—I come from the north-east; mining is part of my region, and to this day I see the scars that can be left. The mine was operated from an office block in central Santiago. Men who had worked underground at the face of the mine for years were now working in an office building close to their homes, so they did not have to travel and be away from their families for days or weeks on end and they could work safely using high-tech equipment. It was clear that that is something of the future of mining, and it is the kind of approach that we are going to see more often.
There is a big leap to be taken from the practices that we still too often see to that new, modern and safe approach, but that is what the UK is working to achieve. Governance is essential to this. From my perspective as a Development Minister, this is about ensuring that mineral wealth can translate into long-term development gains, rather than environmental degradation, corruption or, too often, conflict.
We know that critical mineral reserves in the developing world can support inclusive and sustainable economic development, but that must be done under the right conditions. We are going to work alongside our partners so that mining and mineral processing are carried out to high environmental, social and government standards. Very often, we see the extraction take place in a country, but the processing—the piece of the process where the biggest value is added—takes place somewhere else. We need to look at that and make sure that the countries that hold mineral wealth can get the benefit of it.
This is all part of the Government’s commitment to supporting UK business in pursuit of economic growth. We want British companies to be successful, but we expect them to follow relevant law and align with appropriate international standards. Under the Companies Act 2006, all directors in the UK are required to consider the impact of operations, including on the community and environment, when they make decisions. Since 2019, large companies are required to disclose in their annual reports how they have done that. In addition, quoted companies and large public interest entities are required to report on social matters in respect of human rights as part of their annual reports and accounts.
Responsibility is central to the UK’s international approach to critical minerals. We are using our multilateral and bilateral agreements to promote high standards globally. In addition, we are reviewing our approach to responsible business conduct policy, focusing on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.
We advocate for binding frameworks and voluntary standards. That includes the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD standards, and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which we helped to establish. These encourage companies to avoid, mitigate and remediate environmental and social impacts in areas at high risk and affected by conflict.
We support transparency and good governance. The UK co-founded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and funds the Natural Resource Governance Institute to help countries manage mining revenues responsibly. Through our global initiatives, we help countries to ensure that the mining of metals and minerals, particularly in tropical forest regions, is carried out responsibly. This is how we minimise harm to nature, as well as harm to indigenous peoples and local communities, which is most relevant to this debate. It is their forests and their home, and they are the people who preserve these precious global assets on the world’s behalf.
The UK works alongside countries on everything from investigations to scholarships to satellite technology, and we must continue to do so. Some 30% of known global critical mineral deposits are in Africa, and this is at the heart of the UK’s new approach to the continent, which is ongoing dialogue and partnership built on fairness and respect. We are focused on making progress on many priorities, from security to education, health and the growth and opportunity that people everywhere want.
All this is part of our commitment to tackling the climate and nature crisis in a socially just and responsible way, leading by example wherever we can. This includes our 2035 nationally determined contributions target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels. We are cutting emissions faster than any other country in the G7 while growing our economy.
The world has seen too often what can go devastatingly wrong when Governments do not take a lead and when they step back. We are improving the international approach to mining and, again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for his moving introduction, which reminds us why this matters so much, not just on an environmental and industrial level but, at the end of the day, for people trying to live their lives with dignity and securing the health of their children. I am very grateful to him for what he said at the beginning of this debate.
Schools and Universities: Language Learning
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
That this House takes note of measures, such as visa waivers, to improve the supply chain of qualified modern foreign language teachers and the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists which, along with the British Council and the British Academy, supports the APPG. I am a languages graduate myself in Spanish and French and a current student of Arabic at the FCDO’s excellent language centre.
My intention today is not just to stand here and recite complaints and problems about the teaching and learning of modern languages but to propose constructive, practical and achievable measures for repair and improvement. Neither will I go into great detail on the importance of languages, because I know that the Minister is already well aware of their value, not just as part of a balanced, enriching curriculum but for the benefit, security and prosperity of the UK as a nation. As the statutory guidance for the national curriculum says,
“Learning a language is ‘a liberation from insularity and provides an opening to other cultures’. It helps to equip pupils with the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life”.
I will cite only a very few facts and statistics to summarise this broad sweep of a case for languages before turning to the practicalities of the remedies.
First, research from Cambridge University has shown that, if we spent more on teaching French, Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin in schools, the UK could increase its export growth by £19 billion a year. Other research shows that the lack of language skills in the workforce costs the UK economy the equivalent of 3.5% of GDP. Secondly, students who have spent a year abroad building their international and cross-cultural experience as well as their language skills are 23% less likely to be unemployed after graduation. I am of course delighted that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus+, which was and will again be one important factor in the potential supply chain of MFL teachers.
Thirdly, it is a myth that everybody speaks English. On the contrary, only 5% of the world’s population are native English speakers and 75% speak no English at all. AI and machine translation are no substitute for human communication, with its nuance, slang, humour and accuracy, which trump AI tendencies to confuse and hallucinate, confuse numbers and names or fail to deal with dialects or tonal languages.
But the fact is that, however desirable we might make languages at school, and in whatever format they are prescribed or assessed, it is all meaningless if we do not have anyone to teach them. The teacher supply chain is the key to the sustainability of languages in schools and universities.
My focus today is on how to remedy the dramatic shortage of language teachers, how to cut through the vicious circle we are in, where GCSE take-up has stalled, so A-level take-up has fallen, so applications to do languages at university have plummeted, so more and more universities are scrapping language degrees and fewer and fewer potential UK-trained language teachers are being produced. It is like that song “There’s a hole in my bucket”, where you end up with the same problem you started with, despite having gone round and round in circles with a series of steps to mend it.
Even if every single one of the students currently doing a language degree went into teaching, we still would not come close to meeting the shortfall of qualified teachers. Only 43% of the Government’s recruitment target was met in 2024. Although the published target for 2025-26 has been 93% met, I am afraid this is only because the target itself was cut by nearly half—so not really anything to write home about.
We badly need a package of measures which does three things: first, removes the barriers which are preventing foreign nationals, especially EU nationals, training here to be MFL teachers; secondly, removes the barriers preventing foreign nationals who have completed that training in the UK going on to accept job offers; and, thirdly, improves the pipeline of homegrown MFL teachers.
This is a good point to indicate that very similar problems and solutions are also relevant for maths and physics teachers, where reliance on overseas recruitment is at least as great as for modern languages. Some of my proposals are within the remit not of the DfE but of the Home Office, but there could not be a better Minister to take up those issues with her colleagues there.
Issue number one is that nearly half the UK’s trainee language teachers are foreign nationals. But anyone would think we were trying to deter them, not encourage them. Bursaries have been reduced from £26,000 to £20,000 and scholarships from £28,000 to £22,000. The bursary does not always even cover the basic costs of the training fee for international students, which varies enormously between providers. In Cambridge this year, for example, it is nearly £40,000.
Universities often ask for half the fees in advance, but the bursary is paid in instalments, which leads to many students taking on debt in order to train. A recent report from the Institute of Physics revealed that some trainee physics teachers were resorting to sleeping in libraries and using food banks. The international relocation payment of £10,000 was scrapped in April 2024. So I ask the Minister whether she will restore the level of bursaries and scholarships and reinstate the relocation payment.
Once students are qualified, another set of obstacles appears. Instead of achieving a strategically sensible return on investment, we now make it as difficult as possible for the teachers we have trained to teach in a UK classroom. The problem now is visas and immigration rules. Overseas teachers must apply and pay for a skilled worker visa, together with the NHS surcharge. The school offering the job must also sponsor the visa, which comes at another cost.
The APPG has heard a great deal of evidence from schools reporting that they cannot or will not do that, because they do not have the funds or admin staff to deal with it. This is a critical problem. Despite the existence of DfE guidance, many schools say that the process of applying for the sponsor visa is unbelievably complicated and costly and, since the graduate visa route was reduced in duration to 18 months, it is no longer a viable route for early career teachers, whose induction period is two years. The official guidance is clearly not cutting through and must be made clearer, more effective and more upfront, because our data suggest that up to half of international trainees fail to secure employment after qualifying.
I have questions for the Minister on this aspect of the supply chain. Will she back a visa waiver for qualified MFL teachers recruited to teach in state schools and actively encourage the Home Office to introduce it? If it needs to be piloted first, will her department and/or Home Office colleagues provide rapid, streamlined guidance to schools on how to apply for the sponsor visa and reduce or relieve altogether the costs of doing so? Will she restore the graduate visa to 24 months so that it aligns with the induction period for early career teachers? These are all relatively low-cost, swiftly implementable measures whose impact could be easily and quickly evaluated. We are going to continue relying on overseas recruitment of MFL teachers until or unless we can produce more of our own. The immigration White Paper from last May sets out an expectation that employers will prioritise the so-called domestic workforce but, for MFL teachers, no adequate domestic workforce exists, because we produce so few graduate linguists. So a special case for a visa waiver must be made.
I turn finally to what can be done to improve the sustainability of languages in our schools and universities, to cut through the vicious circle I described earlier. Two immediate critical interventions could make an effective start. The first would be an advanced modern languages premium for secondary schools and colleges, modelled on the successful advanced maths premium introduced in 2017, the purpose of which would be to boost A-level take-up. The British Academy calculated in 2021 that achieving a 20% increase in the take-up of modern languages at A-level would cost around £3 million a year. The policy is widely supported across the sector. So, while the DfE is giving more thought to flexible languages pathways and GCSEs in response to the recent curriculum and assessment review, will the Minister at least commit to an advanced languages premium to boost A-levels as an immediate and hopefully even temporary measure? In combination with a visa waiver, this could be a quick win to help spark the chain reaction and step change we need.
More A-level take-up would lead to more applications to study languages at university, where language degrees are in crisis: in many cases, in terminal decline or already dead. They survive in only 10 post-1992 universities, and provision in the Russell group has already begun to crack with the recently announced plans from Nottingham. Cold spots reveal distinct inequality of provision towards students from less privileged backgrounds, which of course is compounded later by worse employability after graduation. Cuts in languages at HE level have a serious knock-on effect in economic, diplomatic and research competitiveness, as well as the teacher supply chain. Closures of courses in Mandarin, Russian and Arabic are a particular threat to the UK’s pipeline of specialist linguists needed for defence and security roles.
However, resuscitation is possible, as well as urgent. My key recommendation for an immediate measure to stem the tide of cuts and closures is for university modern language degrees to receive category C1 strategic funding from the Office for Students. Currently, as I understand it, its allocations focus mainly on STEM subjects, on the grounds that they are of strategic importance and cost more to provide. Archaeology also attracts this level of additional strategic funding. The same can, and must, be said of language degrees, which are more teaching intensive compared to other humanities subjects, requiring more contact hours, smaller classes, provision of new languages taught from scratch and, of course, the sustainability of the third year abroad, which is often described as “the jewel in the crown” of a languages degree and is very highly valued by prospective employers. Languages’ strategic importance to critical industries and functions of the state should be much better acknowledged by this additional funding. Does the Minister agree, and will she exert as much pressure and influence as she can on the OfS to take this on?
I have intentionally focused on a small number of measures which could be taken in the immediate and short term. My proposals also show that getting language teaching right is not just a challenge for the DfE but cuts across many government departments and agencies. The decline is currently very acute, but language skills are vital to so many aspects of the UK’s cultural, economic, soft-power and security interests that we really must not allow things to get past the point of no return. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate and acknowledge the enormous amount of work that she does through the APPG and any other channels to make sure that the question of modern languages teaching and learning remains as high on the agenda as it possibly can be.
Why does the teaching and learning of a modern foreign language matter? This debate is partly about the technicalities of improving the supply chain of modern foreign language teachers since, as we have already heard, 50% of modern languages teachers are now recruited from outside of the UK. However, there is a prior question: why does it matter? As we have also heard, figures from government suggest that there are economic and diplomatic, and so on, very good reasons, at both personal and GDP level, why we should have more and more young people who are proficient at languages. We have figures and research for the value of French and Spanish, but also increasingly German, not to mention Mandarin. Noble Lords will all have heard this from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and other places too, and other noble Lords may well expand on this.
These are very good reasons in themselves, but there is another set of reasons for learning a language, one of which is that learning a language is good for you. Many hours of research and research papers have shown that the plasticity of the brain is heightened by learning a language. It increases cognitive flexibility and adaptability, and these are clearly very good reasons and worth while for everyone—even in the later years, should any noble Lord choose to take up a language.
However, perhaps my favourite reason for learning a language is, frankly, that it is fun. With the right pedagogical approach, a classroom in which language teaching and learning is taking place is a fun classroom to work in. It is a real-world skill; it can be deployed, practised and improved by communicating with others in your classroom—from my own personal experience, often to the delight of young people. However, those young people miss out if there are not sufficient, or sufficiently well-trained and qualified, modern languages teachers with whom they can work.
Modern foreign languages have the reputation of being hard subjects because there is a perceived harshness in the marking compared with other subjects. That may or may not be true, but, frankly, we do not hear enough on the aspect that I am really enthusiastic about, which is the fun—although we do not hear a lot about fun in education in general.
This debate is about how to get our schools and universities out of the spiral of decline that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about. It appears from government figures that there has been an improvement in ITT recruitment to modern and foreign language teaching. However, as the target was lower, and is still only 90% met, and as it comes against a background of very low levels of recruitment over previous years, there is still a great deal to do if we are to arrest the decline of modern language departments at university level.
If there is not a secure base of effective language teaching in key stages 4 and 5, we will continue to have this problem, and A-levels will continue to decline. Recently, a House of Commons committee reinforced the view that teaching is still insufficiently attractive in terms of burdensome workloads, and of course, there are pay level issues. This needs to be remedied. Given the number of modern languages teachers that we need, I ask my noble friend the Minister, as she has already been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, if the Government will reconsider a visa waiver scheme for non-UK trainees and teachers in recruitment. This would go a long way towards improving our position.
Perhaps what we also need is a national strategy. I hesitate to suggest this, because it seems to be the answer to almost anything that comes before government—“Let’s have a national strategy”—but I do think that it would be worth while. Certainly, we must urgently consider visa sponsoring and the material that schools need to be able to do that.
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister to look again at the issue of functional language skills teaching and qualification raised in the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds)
My Lords, may I draw to everyone’s attention the fact that the timing in this debate is very tight? Could everyone please either go below five minutes or stick to the five minutes’ advisory time? Otherwise, we will not have time for the Minister to respond in full.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Coussins, on introducing this debate and also on her outstanding and continuing work on the importance of modern languages.
The well-known actor Larry Lamb, who is fronting the British Council’s new festival of languages this summer in London, recently said:
“English is the language of business but children and young people should understand the level of respect that comes when you attempt to speak the language of the people with whom you’re working”.
Mr Lamb criticised a 2004 decision by Charles Clarke, the then Education Secretary, to drop compulsory language learning from the age of 14. Mr Lamb also added, somewhat provocatively:
“I feel disappointed that the education system has allowed this to happen. I bet there aren’t many private schools where taking languages is a choice, particularly at the top end”.
It is true that the prospects for modern language learning are currently not good, but that is the responsibility of successive Governments and most certainly not the responsibility of Charles Clarke alone. Successive Governments have allowed this situation to develop.
GCSE entries in modern languages decreased from over 500,000 in 2004 to just over 330,000 in 2025. The proposed abolition of the EBacc does not help much, because languages will have to compete even more with other subjects when pupils are making choices. The DfE, over many years, has missed its targets for modern language trainee teachers. In 2025, only 42% of the target was reached.
A most shocking thing, which I had not realised, is that over half of all universities have ceased to offer modern language degrees altogether. Currently, only 48 do, compared to 108 in 2000. The consequence is obviously a strong decline in the number of qualified modern language teachers. As is always the case in education matters, without qualified and well-trained teachers, there is quite simply no education. My eye is upon the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.
Many years ago, in an earlier career, I set up a number of projects to teach French in primary schools, with tight and co-operative links to the appropriate secondary schools. We trained teachers and hired peripatetic staff and French assistants. Our strong in-service training included what became known locally, rather unfortunately, as “French weekends”. In this residential training, French was spoken throughout, French food was served and there were obviously quite a number of wine tastings. The whole scheme brought together primary and secondary teachers with the Alliance Française. It was a true languages pipeline, with stellar O-level and A-level results in languages as a consequence. This was one way of achieving that improvement.
More recently, a solution to the falling numbers of modern language teachers has been recruitment from overseas, as we have said. Precisely the issues involved with that approach are at the heart of this debate: 50% of trainees are recruited internationally; they get bursaries, but the cost of employing them and visa difficulties have presented other problems, not least that apparently, half the trainees go home when they cannot find a job here. Another stupid complication is that the duration of the graduate visa scheme has been reduced to 18 months, while the induction period for newly qualified teachers lasts for two years. That is not good co-ordination.
However, there are plenty of practical solutions, some of which will emerge from this debate. The idea that there should be a national languages strategy has already been mentioned. It is backed by the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Association of School and College Leaders, the British Council and Universities UK, which is quite a line-up. Another practical idea would be for the DfE or local authorities to set up local regional conferences where heads and teachers could share solutions, such as helplines and guidance on the visa system. I feel compelled to say that that is what we used to do.
There is strong consensus worldwide that effective communication between nations is more valuable and relevant now than it has ever been. The DfE itself said:
“Learning a language empowers young people to engage with the world, think critically and understand new perspectives”.
That is true, so I hope the Minister takes careful note not only of the excellent evidence provided by this debate but of the realistic and practical solutions that have already been proposed, when we are nowhere near the end of the debate.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am very sorry to intervene again but, if every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes an extra minute, we are not going to get through this debate in time.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on her brilliant introduction to this debate and I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. We are both alumni of St Hilda’s College, Oxford, and we are both passionate about languages.
As a child, I lived in Paris for three years. I studied French and Spanish at university, then lived in Germany for four years with my RAF husband and was employed to teach French and English in a German Gymnasium. It was quite a challenge. We had married too young for the RAF, so were not allowed to live in military married quarters and lived in a German town surrounded by German speakers. Although the head teacher always addressed me in French, I picked up a great deal of German. Sadly, as I seldom have a chance to speak other languages now, most of my fluency in all three languages has largely gone, but I still value the learning of them, the window on different worlds they gave me and the sheer enjoyment of chatting in a language that was not English.
It has to be a matter of deep concern that our country is becoming monolingual. At one stage it appeared that it was more difficult to get good GCSE and A-level grades in languages than in other subjects, and that was a deterrent to students. The exam boards addressed that to equalise the marking, but it was damaging. Of course, Brexit has greatly harmed our international relations. The demise of Erasmus was another blow. We have to hope that now Erasmus+ is to be restored, young people will once again enjoy travelling abroad and finding out about the languages and customs of other countries.
Damage was done under Labour when a language ceased to be compulsory for GCSE. The EBacc brought it back, but in a programme which was highly academic and ruled out many more creative students. As fewer students study languages, fewer go to university and emerge as enthusiastic teachers. It is a vicious circle which has seen universities close their language departments with further dire effects.
We need solutions. We rely heavily on international recruitment, yet put barriers in the way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out. Bursaries have been reduced and the difficulty of getting visas has prevented possible teachers getting jobs. Will the Minister say what is going to happen about bursaries and visas?
We need a strategy to boost language learning. Ideally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, set out, this should start at primary school when young minds are open and young mouths can develop to make the different sounds needed by different languages. If you do not start languages until secondary school, young people are already getting anxious about making new noises and talking with new words. Can the Minister say what is being done to encourage languages in primary schools? Some years back the British Academy ran competitions to find imaginative language learning in primary schools, with some schools focusing on food and some on drama, music or clothing to stimulate ideas, often with great success. What happened to those imaginative programmes?
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Languages, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is a critical part, has had meetings where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, we have discovered that learning a language leads to increased cognitive flexibility and adaptability. Numerous studies have supported the claim that learning a second language affects a person’s brain, with differences depending on the age of the person when they learn the language. Who knew that languages are good for your health? They are also good for business, international relations and friendship between countries and peoples. We used to have diplomats who were totally fluent in obscure languages and able to contribute to a peaceful world by dint of communicating in native tongues. Where will they learn these languages now if university departments close?
We need also to support the Open University, which is the UK’s largest provider of university-level education across a variety of language-related subjects, including French, German, Spanish, Chinese and others. They have programmes at all levels of difficulty. Their studies are nearly all via flexible distance learning, so are widely available to anyone interested, and they have short courses and modules as well as full-time courses. Can the Minister say if the Government would support a new national strategy to incentivise language learning and teaching? Languages should be supported within the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to send a strong signal to employers and the public that they are a valuable tool in our country’s wealth and well-being. We cannot allow this drift to continue. Urgent action is needed if we are to remain an international country with trade and friends around the world. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coussins for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic and for her excellent and constructive introduction. As ever, I declare my interest as a secondary school teacher in Hackney, although I teach design technology rather than useful languages. At school I learnt French and Latin to O-level under the legendary Bill Lucas—let us see if the Minister is listening to that—some Greek and some German. In fact, a few years ago my son Charlie wandered into an airport shop to find me speaking to a woman in German. “I didn’t know Dad spoke German”, he said to my wife. “He doesn’t”, she said. “I don’t know what the hell he’s speaking.”
I respectfully take issue with my noble friend Lady Coussins in the framing of this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I think we need to discuss the sustainability of language learning in life. I am married to a fluent Italian speaker and early on in our relationship, I found it extremely frustrating to go out to Italy and not be able to understand or be understood, so I took private one-to-one lessons at the age of 30, unlike one of my noble friends who sensibly married his Italian teacher.
Over the next few years, I had a variety of tutors, all Italian and all excellent, and it is one of the most rewarding things I have ever done in my life. It was fun. There was no Duolingo then, and I still remain slightly dubious about that way of learning. Perhaps the parliamentary challenge will change my mind. I am now a reasonable Italian speaker and a keen member of the APPG on Italy. We recently had a visit to Rome with a full day and a half with the Italian parliament. I am rather more used to talking to Italian builders, and some of my language might have surprised our hosts.
We need to engender a love for languages and cultures among children. The government response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review says:
“Languages are a vital part of a broad and balanced curriculum, equipping pupils with the communication skills, cultural awareness and linguistic foundations needed to thrive in a globalised society”.
The elephant in the room is Brexit. It is not so much a hidden elephant as a large pink hippopotamus in a tutu sashaying down the aisle. As my former colleague and head of modern foreign languages, Adam Lamb, says:
“The historic pipeline for recruitment was not just from the UK universities, but also from Europe. Morale amongst MFL teachers has taken several big hits of late for many reasons. MFL has already taken the hard hit of having been decoupled from forming the spine of the EBACC measure. This, along with many departments struggling to recruit, is leading to fragmented departments and students receiving a lot of non-specialist cover teaching nationally”.
According to the British Council, as a nation we lose an estimated £48 billion per year in lost trade due to language barriers, to say nothing of the benefits of employability and social mobility that a basic skill in foreign language brings. The valuable English language summer school business has been hit as well. As Alicja Penrose of Bede’s told me:
“Since Brexit, any EU teachers who did not work in the UK pre 2021 are not able to secure work permits, which creates a shortage of teachers across the industry. There currently is no seasonal visa type for them that would allow them to work in the UK in the summer”.
The Government need to back up their fine words in the response to the review with action. Teaching vacancies need to be filled by language teachers who are specialists in the language that they are teaching. Visa waivers need to be granted to language teachers from abroad and, indeed, as they say, linguistic foundations need to be allowed to thrive in a globalised society.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is conventional in this House to congratulate the sponsor of a debate, and I will certainly not miss that out on the present occasion because it is high time that the plight of modern language learning and training in the UK was drawn to public attention and remedied. But I will go further on this occasion by congratulating my noble friend Lady Coussins on the unrelenting work she has done through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages to shine a light on what is, I suggest, an act of national self-harm.
Is there really a problem with modern language teaching and learning? Well, there is not much doubt about that. Others have already quoted figures, and others in this debate will quote figures, to demonstrate the scale of the crisis, but here are some of those produced on 16 December by the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA. From the academic year 2012-13 to the academic year 2023-24, the overall figures for modern languages dropped from 125,900 to 80,100; those for French from 9,700 to 3,700; and those for German and Scandinavian languages from 3,900 to 1,400. It is important to remember that where the drop in university places leads to closures, what are called “cold spots” occur at GCSE and A-level too.
Those figures should be a wake-up call to the Government and to Parliament. Other figures from the sector are equally dire, such as those for the Anglo-French programme for the exchange of teaching assistants in both directions for a year teaching in each other’s schools. It has just celebrated—if that is the right word—its 120th anniversary, which I attended. It was set up to mark the entente cordiale, but the figures are terrible. Some will question whether this really matters in a world where English has become—and I actually welcome this—the global lingua franca, although not, of course, the language of the majority of the population of the world. It is set to remain so for the rest of this century, and perhaps longer.
That is certainly a fact of life, and we are rightly proud of our language—its versatility, its flexibility, and the access it provides to much great literature. But is it in our interest to fly along on the coattails of the United States—which is what, in fact, we are doing—and to have less and less knowledge of, or access to, other great civilisations, many but not all by any means, in continental Europe? I would suggest not: not in business, not in trade, not in academic terms, not in the conduct of international relations, and not in the in-depth understanding of other societies.
If we are, over time, to remedy this situation, we need an overall multifaceted set of policies by government, by schools and by universities. Several recent Governments have aspired, and have announced their aspiration, to initiate such policies, but, frankly, they have then acted only in a half-hearted sort of way—often seriously underresourced, and often also with other government policies necessary for success contradicting university needs for visa access to fulfil their international student and other academic studies. It is surely time for a more systematic, better co-ordinated, better concerted effort. I do hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will commit the Government to undertaking such an effort.
Anyway, we have one element of such a programme already, which can be warmly welcomed: the decision by the UK, agreed by the EU, to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme in 2027, reversing the damage done when we intemperately pulled out of that programme after the Brexit vote, unlike plenty of other third countries which remain in the programme. However, look at the school visit programme: laid low by Brexit and Covid, it has still not recovered properly, despite the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Macron and the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz to resume them on a bilateral basis. The restraints on collective visas for school visits to the UK make no sense whatever. Is there any evidence of illegal migration by that route? Perhaps the Minister can explain why it is taking so long to resume those school visit programmes.
The one thing we cannot afford to do as a nation that has for centuries thriven on international trade and investment, is to withdraw into a kind of monoglot ghetto, whose leading politicians complain about hearing nothing but foreign languages on public transport.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Order. Can the noble Lord wind up, please? He is already a minute over. If everyone takes an extra minute, the Minister will not have any time to sum up at the end.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
We should be looking at modern languages, with both teaching and learning as a means of promoting our soft power and influence, not as something we could perfectly well do without.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I am very impressed by these attempts to maintain order in the classroom, and I will try to stay under five minutes.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on bringing this debate to the House, and like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, am delighted that the Government are rejoining Erasmus+. We should, however, confront the fact that when it comes to Erasmus, the Brexiteers have a point. Erasmus was designed and assumed to be an exchange programme in which there would be roughly balancing flows of students between different countries, justifying the fact that they had taxpayer-financed education whichever country they went to. However, in reality, there were very large inflows of students into the UK through Erasmus, but, sadly, modest outflows of students, so Erasmus was a cost for the UK. Can the Minister therefore explain to the House whether the Government are doing anything in this new agreement to ensure a better balance of flows in and out of the UK? Does she agree that it is particularly important that we do more to get British students, of whatever age, studying and working in placements and internships abroad? That is the best way of solving this problem. For that, the programme needs to be properly managed. Sadly, one of the other difficulties we had with the Turing scheme was the uncertainty and failures in competent management. The sooner we can say that the British Council will have a leading role in delivering these programmes, in both directions, the greater the chance we have of something that is successful.
I declare an interest as I serve on the board of the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt University in Berlin—perhaps one of the remaining uses of my rusty A-level German. At Humboldt University, we try to send students on a combined programme of study and work placements in the UK. Since Brexit, that has been a lot harder. I very much hope that, now we are rejoining Erasmus+, that will be more feasible again. However, the students in Berlin are not simply German nationals; they come from elsewhere. Will this arrangement cover German universities regardless of where the students come from, or will the arrangement be restricted to the subset of students at the Centre for British Studies who are German or other EU citizens? It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister on that. I hope she may agree that if specific issues like this arise, I can write to her and take her through the issues and problems that we face.
I want to end on one wider point. We have heard some bold claims about the study and teaching of modern languages being fun. I hope that that is the case; it is a great argument to deploy. However, I personally find that an argument that is particularly persuasive with Ministers used to hard-headed assessments of economic benefits and returns to the UK, and who often focus very much, therefore, on STEM subjects as those with the greatest utility and practical value, is that when they or the media sit around considering a crisis anywhere in the world, we assume in the UK that we have a window on the world. We always assume that we have an expert who speaks the language, that we have a historian who knows the background to whatever crisis or political problem. We assume that our security agencies have the capacity to track what is going on—but, as we know, in order to pass security vetting, people need to have had a family history of living in the UK, which enables their security to be established. It is that window on the world that depends, ultimately, on British people studying a wide range of foreign languages. If we lose that, our capacity to engage in the world—including the most practical forms necessary for our own national security—is eroded. I hope, then, that during this debate, we develop a long list of arguments for modern languages, and that alongside the fun, alongside the culture and alongside the economic benefits, we will not forget the practical security angle as well.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate, and more importantly for her tireless leadership in this subject.
I think that I will have to be the first to confess that I have a Duolingo addiction, but I know that a charming app—however motivating—cannot replace a great teacher or the cultural cognitive fluency that real language learning develops. The point I wanted to double-click on today is that in the age of AI, this truth becomes even sharper.
AI will help us with language, but it cannot replace human linguistic capability. If anything, it makes that idea more strategically important. There is an attractive thought that, because machine translation is improving so rapidly, we can ease off—we will not need to learn languages because every single thing programmed into our iPhones, our iPads and even our ears will help us understand somebody standing in front of us. But AI does not read intent. It cannot interpret ambiguity, does not appreciate humour, cannot decode face-saving formulations or detect the veiled threats on which diplomacy often turns. In a world where a mistranslated phrase can ricochet globally in minutes, the risk is not just error; it is the amplification of misinterpretation.
The security community is already acknowledging this. The British Academy warns that declining UK language capability risks leaving us “lost for words”. The US Government Accountability Office describes foreign language skills as “increasingly key” to diplomatic, military and counterterrorism missions. Britain is not a serious country if it speaks only English. Nor are we serious about growth, as others have already said. The economic case is clear. Our SMEs, which I remind you make up 99.9% of all firms, are markedly more competitive internationally when they have language skills. Studies show that they are around 30% more successful in exporting. We need this now more than ever. If we neglect national language capacity, we limit national economic reach.
However, we have a solution working at scale which has not yet been mentioned. At the Open University, where I am chancellor, the School of Languages and Applied Linguistics is the largest provider of university-level language learning in the UK. It reaches adults at higher education cold spots: workers retraining in mid-career, carers studying at night—people who need genuinely flexible routes back into language learning. In the age of AI, this model is not just educationally valuable; it is economically strategic. With the right incentives, the lifelong learning entitlement could make language study a normal part of adult upskilling across the country.
I end with three brief questions to the Minister which I hope will reinforce what others have already asked. First, will the Government reduce the recruitment barriers facing overseas language teachers? Secondly, will they streamline sponsorship routes for corporates for international teachers? Thirdly, will they commit to a refreshed national languages strategy linked explicitly to the lifelong learning entitlement?
AI will transform how we work with languages, but it cannot replace the human ability to understand nuanced content and intent. Investing in languages is not nostalgic; it is strategic. For my part, if I have learnt one thing in researching for this debate, it is that I now urgently need to get a real-life Spanish teacher.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for her comprehensive and thoughtful introduction. Like others, I admire her perseverance in ensuring that we do not lose sight of the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
The economic security and other personal benefits of learning and speaking a second language have already been articulated in this debate, so I will not repeat them. It is clear, however, that we need urgent, concerted and co-ordinated action—from primary schools through to universities and beyond—to address the inadequate, long-standing and worsening supply of language learning and teaching skills needed to meet our future needs. It is also clear is that we need a joined-up and holistic approach that is coherent across education and skills systems. While the Government have ambitious reforms to address teacher shortages, their immigration policies risk undermining them, particularly in regard to MFL and, as we have heard, in maths and physics.
The reduction of the graduate visa route from 24 to 18 months creates a structural barrier to retention where international trainees are most needed. The 18-month limit creates a structural misalignment where international trainees will be forced to leave before completing their two-year early career framework induction, unless their school sponsors them through a skilled worker visa, which many schools are unwilling to do due to the cost and complex process.
International trainees have historically played a vital role in plugging this gap due to under-recruitment at secondary level, where EU-trained teachers once formed a significant proportion of the workforce. This is a serious misalignment. Without aligning the policies, we risk losing valuable talent and wasting public investment. Coherence between Department for Education recruitment targets and Home Office immigration policies is needed to sustain this, particularly in the short term.
Given the shortage of UK language graduates, do the Government have any plans to remove the hurdles, such as increased fee costs, NHS charges, visas and reduced financial support, which trainee language teachers face? Are they planning to introduce visa waivers for teachers, as has been well argued during the course of this debate? We know that, due to the hurdles, it is estimated that half of international trainee teachers leave. Bursaries are there, but they are not much use if other hurdles act as disincentives. They are, in fact, a waste of investment.
If we do not act now, we risk the collapse of homegrown language teachers. While it is right that in the long term we should be aiming to create our own pipeline, it is important that in the short term we do whatever we can to sustain this sector to help provide a platform on which we can build a long-term strategy.
While we deal with the immediate shortage in order to avert the collapse of language learning and teaching, it is imperative that in the longer term we develop a long-term strategy. It should set out a long-term pipeline of language skills which links to education and economic and diplomatic needs, and gives departments a single framework to work to. Short-term fixes are absolutely essential, but long-term strategies are equally important to obviate the need for short-term fixes in the future.
There are of course other steps that the Government can take. For example, should the Government be raising awareness of the value of language learning for personal growth and cognitive development? I suggest that we might even look at universities providing joint degrees with other subjects, so that we do not have to close language departments. Other suggestions have been made and I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London and chairman of FutureLearn. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out in her introduction to this important debate, languages are a strategic asset for an outward-facing country such as the UK, yet we have essentially adopted an approach of benign neglect. It is surely telling, for example, that this Government’s industrial strategy does not contain a single reference to languages. This is not unique; every single iteration of the industrial strategy since Brexit has also essentially neglected to mention languages as a key component of our economic performance.
When it comes to engaging with the big emerging powerhouses of the global economy, it is not surprising that we find ourselves hobbled by this linguistic weakness. I think we can all agree that our export performance gives no grounds for complacency. Initiatives such as World of Languages show that there is no shortage of curiosity about global languages in our schools, but, as we have heard in this debate, the pipeline through school into university and beyond is clearly broken.
Take Mandarin as an example of where we could clearly do better. For obvious reasons, given China’s importance to the global economy, national security and other matters, countries such as the US and Australia have designated Mandarin as a strategic or priority language and support it accordingly. By contrast, no equivalent strategic designation exists in this country and, tellingly, there is no certainty beyond this financial year over the funding for the valuable Mandarin Excellence Programme delivered by University College London’s Institute of Education, in partnership with the British Council.
As we have heard this afternoon, teacher supply in schools is a major constraint, as is the fact—as with other languages—that the curriculum content is seen as hard to access for many non-heritage students. The end result is a shrinking flow into universities, leaving the UK unable to produce China-capable graduates at scale. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned some other key statistics, but those for China are particularly striking. Just 685 UK students enrolled in China studies degrees or other degrees with a China content in 2023-24, which was down 20% in a decade—a period during which we cannot say that China’s significance has diminished.
I will end with three short questions for the Minister. Like others, I welcome rejoining Erasmus+. But, on its own, as a Europe-focused programme, it is clearly very limited, for capacity reasons, in the extent to which it supports the lived study-abroad experiences that underpin learning of vital non-European languages. Will the Minister ensure that a genuinely global route, such as Turing, will continue to sit alongside Erasmus post our rejoining it in 2027?
Secondly, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned the lifelong learning entitlement as a possible way to promote language learning. I fear that the Government are missing a trick with the lifelong learning entitlement, because of their restrictive, STEM-oriented approach to eligibility for this important funding stream. Will the Minister ensure that foreign language modules are eligible for LLE funding, so that more people can build language skills flexibly over time?
Finally, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Blower and Lady Lane-Fox, I urge the Minister and the Government to think more strategically. If the Government really want to show that they take these issues seriously, will she ensure that the next update to the industrial strategy clearly designates languages as a long-term strategic capability for the country?
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on initiating this debate. I would like to focus on the second part of the Motion, on the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
We have to start with the question of why you should learn a foreign language. If the desire to learn a foreign language is diminishing, that is problematic. Most of us, with few exceptions in this Chamber, will have grown up at a time when it was obvious why you would want to learn a foreign language. If you wanted to go anywhere, English was spoken in some parts but, however hard you worked and however loud or slowly you spoke, it still was not understood, so you had to do something about it. We then had huge movements of people and lots of people’s parental language was not the language of the country they grew up in.
But all that has changed. There is diminishing strength and movement in the reason why you should learn a foreign language, particularly if you are an English-speaking monoglot. The fact is that polyglots are in the majority in the world; it is just the English speakers who get stuck with their single language. Globally, there are far more non-native English speakers than native ones.
Allow me to just acknowledge the practical purposes of learning a foreign language. The noble Baroness, Lady Cousins, reminded us only in the past 12 months, when we talked about the Criminal Justice Board, about the need for court translators and interpreters, who are incredibly important in the ability to deliver justice. There are other areas, but I want to briefly move away from the utility argument, although I do so with real hesitation because the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, will be speaking after me and, if I get this theologically wrong, I ask him to please correct me.
It is 500 years since William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament. By bringing together Hebrew and Greek terms, he coined the word “atonement”, which was fundamental to the Reformation. Its root is “at-one-ment”. Such concepts and ideas have enormous impacts in history, and understanding language and its power, and the acquisition of a foreign language or another language from your native one—which in reverse allows you to understand your own language better—is such a fundamental part of the human condition.
Having looked 500 years back, I would like to look 100 years ahead, when I think English will be dominant as the lingua franca. If you work for a large multinational company in mainland Europe and you have a business meeting, it requires only one person on that call to not have the native language of the country in which you are based for the meeting to be held in English, even though there may be people around the table who would be much more comfortable in another language.
This is one of the very few occasions when I would like to come back in 100 years and hear what that majority English globally will sound like. We might find that the English as spoken in the British Isles would be classified as some strange form of a modern foreign language. That is why I think that ownership of that language is enormously important.
The key thing that I urge on the Minister is that valuing a foreign language has to start at home. I declare my interest as First Civil Service Commissioner. Why does not even the diplomatic service recruit on the basis of language skills? Why is it that we recruit fast streamers with language skills—probably because of family background—and do not recognise that?
On a final point, we have huge populations in which the main language spoken, as you can see from the 2001 census, is Urdu, Gujarati or Hindi. For families that are multilingual, as in Birmingham where I was an MP, or in cities like Leicester, if you have a certificate our system does not actually recognise that second language as a qualification. Within our institutions, we need to value language and its utility much more, as well as looking—when it is based on populations, need and workplace—to be just that bit more imaginative. Just thinking that we need more foreign language teachers, and saying that is great because it allows us to buy a cup of coffee everywhere, is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating today’s debate and speaking so eloquently that in many ways her speech alone will have given the Minister plenty of questions to answer. I pay tribute also to the work she has done as chair of the APPG—and so much more, because modern foreign languages are so important, yet they are so undervalued.
I declare an interest as a Cambridge academic, where I teach European politics. At times, having fluency in other modern foreign languages is useful, because I can say to my students, “Yes, it’s alright if you let me have that in German or French—I can read it”. But also in the last academic year, I was a HESA statistic. During lockdown I decided, having refreshed my French, German and a bit of Italian, that maybe I should try a language that I had not tried before—Spanish. In a sense, it was a very easy thing to do because, if you have some Italian, French and Latin, Spanish is quite easy. I went from beginners through to C1 level. Cambridge in its wisdom has now decided that, if you are studying C1, you get a diploma, so I now have a nice university certificate. They said that it meant they had to register me with HESA, because it was a level 4 qualification.
I am one of the few people studying at what counts as university level who is doing it in my spare time, alongside large numbers of undergraduates, postgraduates and junior researchers at Cambridge, who have realised that doing a modern foreign language is really important. My university is one of those that still understands the importance of modern foreign languages; we have an excellent department of modern foreign languages, and a centre that allows many people in the university and beyond to learn a language ab initio.
We are in a minority, yet one piece of information we were given in the excellent Library briefing was the concern of schools that Russell Group universities may not value modern foreign languages. That should not be seen to be the case; modern foreign languages at A-level are really important. One thing that we need to do is to remind students and teachers that language learning is important. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that it can be fun, but it is also a vital life skill. We assume that somehow, you do languages for GCSE or A-level, tick a box and move on, but it is not necessarily the same as some other qualifications, because these are life skills which you can use not just at 15 or 18 but throughout your life.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out, we should be thinking about modern languages as not just things that people study at school but as part of lifelong learning. What thought has the Minister given to people having the opportunity to learn languages at various stages? Yes, primary schools are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said. It is much better to learn a language at nursery or primary school than in your 50s—as I tried to do recently—but the opportunity to learn those languages is important.
The previous Government felt that modern foreign languages were important for the economy, or because they enhance other academic skills. However, they are also important not just for diplomacy in the formal sense, which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, talked about, but for the ability for us to connect interculturally. Yes, other people might speak English, and they might speak English to us in the room, but they will speak their own language in the margins. If we can speak those languages as well, our communication and depth of experience will be so much stronger. Will the Government pledge to increase the opportunities for people at all stages of life?
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coussins not only for securing this debate but for the very constructive way in which she introduced the subject.
I was very struck by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about the limitations of mere mechanical translation. I recall a debate on regional assistance funding in the EU, in which there was reference to enormous and complex problems being solved by “la sagesse normande”. The English translation was:
“All problems will be solved by Norman Wisdom”.
Mechanical translation misses so much of the nuance.
I want to underline things that have already been said, but I also note that the interim report on the national curriculum, which was published last year, deemed language education to be the furthest away from the principles that informed the review: that the curriculum should be coherent, knowledge-rich and inclusive. It was the furthest away. In the Government’s response to the conclusions of the report, which was very constructive, there is support for a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools.
My fundamental question, which echoes comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, is how precisely are the Government going to substantiate that aspiration for a clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools? That is not only European languages, because I take the point made around the House about the vital importance of the very large numbers of non-European languages spoken in our schools, which give us an enhanced view of the world.
I am thinking particularly of a remarkable school in Harrow, Saint Jérôme Church of England Bilingual School. It was quite deliberately named after a translator, because that primary school not only teaches modern languages as a subject; it delivers a large part of the curriculum in French. It is a bilingual school. When the Government are looking at how to create a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools, I hope that it will be possible to look at that school’s experience of over 10 years.
I had the privilege of opening that school 10 years ago. The founding headmaster, the Reverend Daniel Norris, is just about to retire after enormous achievement. The experience of and results achieved in a school where 80% of the pupils have a mother tongue other than English that they speak at home are a valuable indication of what can be done to lay the foundations of constructive language learning at a primary level.
In the myth of the Tower of Babel—I am encouraged by the invocation of William Tyndale by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—multilingualism, the confusion of tongues, is regarded as a punishment for human presumption. We should realise that, at Pentecost, in the New Testament, that is overturned. At Pentecost, multiple languages are not erased but everybody is enabled to listen, in their own language, profoundly to what is being said. It is a total mythological reversal. I hope that we are not going to slump back into trying to answer the Tower of Babel by insisting on monoglot English as a culture for the entire world. Language is not only desirable for boosting trade but helps people to listen well. We are very concerned about social divisions and atomisation in our society, and listening well is a basic factor in democracy.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, who predictably gave us a unique perspective for this debate. We are very fortunate to have so many illustrious speakers in this debate and, in particular, two first-class bookends, if I may call them that. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who I know from working with her on the APPG is a tireless and tenacious campaigner and advocate for this, and the closing bookend is the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, who is a heavyweight Minister in this House. She is a former senior Cabinet Minister and has ministerial clout. We are looking for that ministerial clout in this debate today.
We all know that the whole position and state of the teaching and learning of modern languages in this country is in crisis. We know that there is a downward spiral of fewer pupils learning them, fewer teachers coming in, fewer graduates coming out of our universities, and fewer courses and faculties at universities. As my noble friend Lady Shephard, said, it was not helped by the decision that Charles Clarke made in 2004.
The Prime Minister has said in his own words that he wants to put Britain back on the world stage and to reset our relationship with Europe. It is worth quoting briefly what the Times said on this, when it talked about the fact that a nation that speaks only English
“limits Britain’s ability to do business, understand our neighbours, broaden our views and make lasting friendships with those beyond our borders”.
That is of course true. As other speakers, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Garden, have said, there are the wider advantages of improving and helping with learning, memory, mental faculties and so on.
My noble friend Lord Willetts referred to the Treasury approach to these things and its very hard-headed approach to taking decisions. These things are difficult to measure, which is why the Treasury has enormous difficulty. The Treasury simply cannot measure common sense and it does not know how to put it into its calculations. I hope, again, that the Minister will be an advocate when she deals with other government departments.
I understand the difficulty—the Minister will understand this better than anybody—of competing subjects jostling for position in a very crowded curriculum. I have had many discussions about this with my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who, as we all know, is a great advocate for engineering, science and technology. Of course, in the modern world these are very important, but if you talk to employers who are recruiting young people, you find that they recognise that there are downsides, sometimes, of technology, in that many of the people they recruit are not always as good as they should be at communication and find it more difficult to express themselves clearly and succinctly. Again, that is one of the big advantages of learning a foreign language.
I come back to the Minister. There have been, in this debate, a whole range of proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and from other speakers. I am sure the Minister has a very good speech which will tell us everything that the Government are currently doing, but I hope she will take the opportunity to commit herself to further action in a positive way. Many proposals have come forward, and I hope she will be able to give us some comfort that there is more action to be taken by the Government.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, we are all immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this important debate. Her Motion rightly draws attention to the supply chain for qualified modern foreign language teachers and to practical measures, such as visa waivers, that could help sustain language learning in our schools and universities. These measures may sound, as she said, technical, but they go to the heart of whether we are serious about languages as a national priority.
I argue, as other noble Lords have already highlighted, that the debate is about more than teacher supply alone. Language learning is not an optional enrichment or a narrow skills issue; it is a form of living cultural infrastructure. Just as roads enable the movement of goods and digital networks enable the flow of data, languages enable the circulation of ideas, values and relationships. When that infrastructure weakens, the consequences are not abstract but cultural, diplomatic and economic.
We increasingly recognise that infrastructure is not confined to concrete and cables. The British Academy, in its 2025 report on social and cultural infrastructure, argues that such systems underpin social cohesion, resilience and long-term prosperity, and deserve the same seriousness we afford to transport or broadband. Language learning belongs squarely in that category. It enables participation, mutual understanding, and the circulation of ideas across borders and communities. Without it, our cultural life becomes thinner, our diplomacy weaker and our global engagement more fragile.
Professor Li Wei, of UCL’s Institute of Education, has described language learning as fundamentally a “process of cultural translation”. By this, he does not mean a mechanical exercise but an active negotiation of meaning between people, histories and values. Through that process, learners develop creativity, critical thinking, and cultural and sociolinguistic sensitivities—qualities essential not only to education but to civic life and international co-operation. Language classrooms are, in effect, places where cultural understanding is practised daily. This matters profoundly for the UK’s place in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, so eloquently emphasised in his speech.
A recent British Council survey shows a six-point fall in the UK’s overall international attractiveness in 2025. That should concern us. Yet the same research offers reassurance, with trust in the UK remaining high and engagement indicators recovering. We are still widely perceived as a reliable, value-driven actor—no small advantage in a fractured and volatile global landscape.
However, trust is not self-sustaining and reputation is not self-renewing. Both depend on sustained investment in the relationships, programmes and people that build familiarity and understanding across borders. Language teachers are precisely such people. They are cultural ambassadors in every classroom, shaping how future generations understand the world—and how the world understands us. When fragmented immigration policy makes it harder to recruit and retain them, when visa waivers that could ease critical shortages are dismissed, and when international trainees are forced to leave just as they are ready to contribute, we are not merely adjusting administrative rules but dismantling infrastructure that serves our strategic interests.
Language learning sits at the intersection of education, culture and diplomacy. To neglect it is to weaken all three at once. So yes, we should examine visa waivers and policy coherence, but with a broader ambition in mind: to recognise language learning as the strategic cultural asset it truly is, vital to our schools and universities, and to invest in it accordingly for returns that are social, cultural and enduring.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I also express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for her tireless work over so many years in support of language training and related issues.
As many have pointed out, we are living in an international and, in particular, business environment dominated by English in various forms. This, we must recognise, inevitably leads to a lack of interest in foreign languages, particularly among the young, in the UK and more widely in the English-speaking world. To do nothing about this, even at the best of times, is surely short-sighted; as has been pointed out, it is widely recognised that the UK needs foreign language proficiency to enhance our economic prosperity, global competitiveness and general political, diplomatic and cultural engagement in the world. To do nothing about it in today’s world is not just short-sighted but positively misguided, a point to which I will come back.
Retaining and improving our national foreign language proficiency can be achieved only by investing sustainably over time in an effective modern language programme in the wider educational curriculum. There is clear evidence of a worrying decline over recent years in foreign language learning, particularly at A-level and at university. There is also plenty of evidence that this decline is to a large extent caused by teacher shortages. We have the vicious circle—what others have called the spiral of decline.
Short-term fixes are available and, to be fair, the Government have recognised the need for action with financial incentives, apprenticeship schemes, and talk about recruitment and retention measures. The decision to rejoin Erasmus next year is hugely welcome. It may over time increase the attractiveness of European languages, both as subjects to be studied and as a teaching career. However, it seems odd in this context that other quick wins described by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, such as a visa waiver programme, are not being pursued or followed up.
In all this, as so many other speakers have mentioned, there seems little evidence of any sense of a long-term strategy to address what is, in effect, a language learning crisis in the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is a cost issue, but surely we are talking of reasonably small sums in the wider education budget. To have a comprehensive strategy, as so many have called for, would hardly be a huge shift of education spending priorities. It is difficult to avoid concluding that addressing what is, in effect, a crisis is somehow low on the Government’s priorities. As I said earlier, this seems positively misguided at this moment in time. Every day’s news reminds us that we live in the increasingly unstable and unpredictable world that is so often mentioned in this Chamber.
In my view, this debate needs also to be seen in this context, as well as many others. A small but vital element in the wider security picture is a priority to invest in the nation’s foreign language proficiencies. For example, our ability to work alongside our European allies, understand the complexities of the Middle East, trade effectively in Asia and penetrate the thinking of those who wish us harm depends, in part, on this. The cost must be comparatively small. I urge the Government to give language teaching the priority it deserves.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, it is already clear at this late stage in the debate that a very strong case has been made for action to be taken to ensure the sustainability of language learning and the supply of qualified foreign language teachers in our schools and universities. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for dealing, with her customary thoroughness, with practical ways to move forward with the issues, I shall therefore try to devote my five minutes to the sustainability theme.
Nevertheless, I first make clear my support for the noble Baroness’s suggestions. In addition, I acknowledge the co-operation received from various embassies and other organisations, mainly voluntary ones. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we were able to celebrate 120 years of the language assistants programme between the UK and France, and there has also been a very good Spanish embassy project in this field. But, of course, both are affected by the current visa, and other, restrictions.
Will the Minister consider a partnering arrangement, similar to that of the funding of development projects by the FCDO, which aims to match funding raised by voluntary organisations with departmental funding? It seems a very good way of bringing the public and private sectors together. I also acknowledge the work of the APG on Modern Languages, so admirably co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and so efficiently moved forward by its secretariat.
In looking to the sustainability of language teaching and learning, I wish to focus on the role of edtech—not to replace traditional teachers, but to aid and support them. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has already referred to this. Here, I must declare an interest as the honorary president of BESA, the British Educational Suppliers Association, and a promoter of the Bett, the British Educational Training and Technology Show, where last year, 35,000 attendees from over 125 countries came together to share ideas and shape the future of learning. Anyone who has attended one of these annual exhibitions will realise what support and time-saving can be given to teachers in all subjects—but this is especially evident in language learning. The example of Duolingo has already been referred to in this context. This year, the Bett will take place at the Excel Centre between 21 and 23 January. I thoroughly recommend a visit for anyone who may, like me, not be fully conversant with all the possibilities and advantages that the use of edtech can bring, especially to teachers. Is the Minister planning a visit to this year’s Bett exhibition?
In 1988, when, as the then Lords Minister in the Department for Education, among other things I was taking the Education Reform Bill through the House of Lords. That Bill introduced the national curriculum. We had many discussions in the department about the need to include modern languages as a core subject. I would never have dreamt that 38 years later, we would still be discussing the value of and need for language learning as a tool and skill.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I, too, give thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this debate, and for her powerful introduction and sensible proposals.
We have all welcomed the reinstatement of the Erasmus+ programme, but, as universities will tell you, it will take a good 10 years to reverse the adverse effects of foolishly stopping it. Even before it ceased, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out, it was easier to attract students from the continent to come to universities here than to find students from our universities wanting to spend time abroad, especially in the sciences, because their lack of basic language skills was the main deterrent. So, we are talking about a long-term problem here.
The recent figures from the Higher Education Policy Institute have highlighted what a shocking situation this is. We have to keep repeating that the decision back in 2004 to remove the compulsory status of modern languages from the national curriculum meant a dramatic reduction in GCSE take-up. That, coupled with the important emphasis on STEM subjects, has further marginalised modern languages.
There has been little recognition of the future economic importance of global trading partners in India, Turkey, South America, China and the Far East, even though the Labour Party itself drew attention to this back in 2015. We are very well positioned, because of our large Asian and Turkish communities, to study those languages through which we are most likely to benefit economically. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, has already mentioned, we have failed in schools to recognise and encourage bilingual children in some of these rarer foreign languages. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, laid out the proposals, and the Government should surely change their attitude to understanding the importance of languages as both a route to other cultures and to build bridges that lead to economic success.
We have talked about teachers coming from abroad, how important they are and what needs to be done. But one of our problems is the way we treat all migrants, which militates against welcoming them. The national political debate is itself a deterrent to anyone coming here. In this respect, though, visa waivers and some of the other proposals are very important.
I did school French and German and enjoyed them very much, but I was never particularly brilliant at them. I then worked for the World Health Organization, which asked me to go as a consultant to the beautiful little food manufacturing town of Piacenza, in the Po Valley in Italy, back in the 1980s, where the local authority wanted to improve the health and social care of older people. The WHO wisely insisted that I take a lengthy immersion course in Italian, so that I could engage in some basic discussions with the delightful Communist mayor and his incredibly forward-looking team. My life was transformed. I fell in love with Italy, of course, and the Italians, and eventually bought a home there. Forty years later I am still learning Italian, and Italian friends are laughing at my mistakes. I would like to think that every state school child here could have their eyes opened to lives beyond these shores, because perhaps it would change our currently depressing national conversations, and the conversations would be different.
Modern languages teaching can be fun, as has been stressed. We would like to see everybody having the opportunity to see other people, to visit, and to get to have some of that fun. To the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I would like to stress that I too was addicted to Duolingo, but only a few months ago I managed to wean myself off, because the pings were driving me crazy. I will offer her treatment in mental health ways of getting rid of that addiction if she would care to. Duolingo is a start. It is a help in refreshing, but it does not substitute for that wonderful involvement we get through travelling abroad.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I add still more congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate on such an important topic; that is clear right across the House. I pay tribute to her for her long-standing and resolute championing of modern language teaching and much, much more.
I will speak to the business case. My career has been in shipping—arguably the most international of businesses, transporting cargos all over the globe. English is the lingua franca of maritime business, employed in the vast majority of shipping contracts, as it is for most international commercial contracts. As a young shipbroker in London with English as my mother tongue, I did not realise how valuable Norwegian and French were to be for me. Taking a gap year before university and being one quarter Norwegian, I elected to spend the time as a business trainee in Norway. Despite numerous visits down the years, my knowledge of the language was fairly basic.
On my arrival, male colleagues were very affable and helpful. Rather more imaginatively, my lady colleagues announced that if I wanted any help, of course I would have to speak Norwegian. This was a challenge, but with their help, augmented by a weekly outside lesson, I made huge strides. It is amazing what six months of near total immersion can do. Three years later, on taking up my career as a shipbroker, I found that the negotiations, and a great deal of the business discussion, with Norwegian ship owners was of course in English—but they were all intrigued also to exchange some thoughts in Norwegian with this young Briton, both in and out of the office. It was an extra card that I was lucky enough to have in my hand, and I commend this to all young people thinking about their careers.
My French language shipping experience came about more haphazardly. I was a junior broker, post Cambridge, in the tanker department. One day the cry went up, “Does anyone speak French?” I assumed help was needed with an invoice or something similar. Not for the first time in my life did I find how dangerous it is to assume anything. Armed with my rather average French A-level from a summer course at the Sorbonne, I announced that I did. “Good,” announced the head of the department, “We’re going to start working with the Algerian state shipping company.” I remonstrated that my French was perhaps not all that might be required, but I was overruled. I took a few conversation classes at lunchtimes, and with some hard work on my side and some patience and forbearance on the Algerian side, we soon established a very good relationship and successfully negotiated a lot of business in French.
My point—I think it has been made many times already—is that foreign languages, particularly certain key ones such as French, Spanish and German, can be the greatest possible benefit to the individual and to businesses. Obviously today the list is getting longer, with Chinese, Arabic and Japanese becoming more prominent.
Another point relating to careers in business is that Britain is very well regarded in South American markets. There is enormous good will and great potential for British exports and invisibles. However, it is of the utmost importance to speak Spanish, or Portuguese in Brazil. I have the honour to serve as president of Canning House, the forum for UK-Latin American relations. I work very hard at it, and I love Latin America and its peoples, but alas, I do not speak Spanish. I will never equal the position enjoyed by our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—a former Canning House president herself, who studied in Ecuador and speaks impeccable Spanish.
Summing up all the strands—cultural, business, societal, and economic—it is essential that the UK boosts significantly its capital in languages. Recapping on all that we have heard, MFL provision is in crisis, particularly in our universities. We know that building back capacity in anything once lost is a very expensive and challenging process. I support the recommendation that a visa waiver be applied to suitably qualified foreign language teachers. I support the demands for, to be honest, most of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, so I will not regurgitate them here. Can the Minister tell me whether any of Britain’s education providers has sought to equal the excellence of some of the former techs in the provision of business training along with foreign languages? I have had some tremendous experience down the years of exceptional people who had studied language and business at techs.
In conclusion, looking back on my experience, it was only having commenced my career that I fully appreciated the significant business value of certain languages. I suggest that consideration be given to the establishment of language ambassadors, who would visit schools and promote the immense potential value and life enrichment provided by languages in general, and perhaps degrees in them. As someone who expects soon to be out of this place, with some time on my hands, I think this would be very worth while.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this timely and thoughtful debate. I add my thanks in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing it. Across the House, there has been striking consensus on two points: first, that the decline in modern foreign language learning in our schools and universities is deeply worrying; and, secondly, that the shortage of qualified language teachers is a central and urgent cause of that decline.
Language learning is not a luxury add-on to the curriculum. It is fundamental to our economic competitiveness, cultural understanding, diplomatic reach and national security. In an increasingly competitive global economy, linguistic capability is a core economic asset. Research commissioned by the former Department for Business, and subsequently cited by the British Academy and others, has estimated that the UK’s language skills deficit costs the economy around 3.5% of GDP, as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in opening the debate. That equates to around £40 billion in lost trade annually, reduced export performance and missed investment opportunities, driven in part by an overreliance on English and a shortage of people able to operate confidently in other languages.
Many British companies that export have demonstrated more productivity and resilience than those that do not, yet surveys of small and medium-sized enterprises consistently show that language barriers are among the most common obstacles to exporting. Businesses report losing contracts, failing to enter new markets and relying on costly intermediaries because of a lack of staff with the necessary language skills. This is particularly damaging for SMEs, which form the backbone of our economy but often lack the resources to compensate for that language gap.
There is strong evidence that language skills enhance individual and national productivity. Graduates with foreign language skills enjoy a measurable wage premium during their working lives, often estimated at between 5% and 10%. This reflects their higher employability, access to roles and a range of life skills, as my noble friend Lady Smith said in talking about lifelong learning. When multiplied across the workforce, these individual gains translate into significant national economic benefits.
The United Kingdom now seeks to deepen and diversify its trading relationships with our European neighbours post Brexit. I want to comment on the “French weekends” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. A close friend of mine, Antoine, who works for the French Government on the Erasmus programme, is watching this debate keenly, because he is keen to expand connections between France and the United Kingdom, particularly around the French language. I was particularly moved by that.
The Government’s own trade ambitions depend on people who can negotiate contracts, understand regulatory systems, build long-term relationships and operate with cultural fluency. Language skills are not a “nice to have” in this context; they are our economic infrastructure. Yet uptake at GCSE and A-level, as we have heard from many noble Lords, remains stubbornly low, university language departments continue to close, and schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, are increasingly unable to offer a broad and sustained language curriculum. This threatens to create a two-tier system in which language skills and the economic advantages that flow from them are concentrated among the most privileged, while the wider economy suffers from a shrinking skills base.
We cannot reverse these trends without addressing the supply of teachers. As several noble Lords have made clear, domestic recruitment alone is not currently meeting this need. The pipeline is weak, retention is fragile and workload pressures are driving skilled teachers out of the profession. Against that backdrop, it is simply self-defeating to erect additional barriers to recruiting qualified modern foreign language teachers from overseas, particularly when the economic cost of inaction is measured in tens of billions of pounds each year. That is why the question of visas and migration policy is so important.
Language teachers are, by definition, internationally mobile professionals. Many are native speakers, and bring with them a cultural knowledge and linguistic authenticity that directly improves teaching quality and student outcomes. In economic terms they represent not a cost but a long-term investment in the skills base on which future growth depends. Yet the current system remains slow, expensive and, in many cases, actively discouraging. That is why on these Benches we believe that there is a strong case for targeted visa waivers or streamlined routes specifically for modern foreign language teachers, and I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. These roles should be treated as shortage occupations not just in name but in practice. Schools should not be deterred from appointing excellent candidates because of prohibitive fees, bureaucratic delays or uncertainty over status, especially when the economic returns of stronger language capability are so well evidenced.
But visas alone will not be enough. Sustainability must be the watchword. Overseas teachers need proper induction, professional support, and a clear route to settlement if they are to stay and build long-term careers here. We must ensure that their qualifications are recognised swiftly and fairly and that schools are supported in navigating the process. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the broader ecosystem. Teacher supply is inseparable from student demand. Pupils are less likely to study languages if provision is patchy, courses are withdrawn midway or teaching is delivered by non-specialists. Universities, in turn, cannot sustain language departments if school uptake continues to fall. This is a vicious circle, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and one that the UK can ill afford economically.
I was particularly struck by contributions highlighting the impact on less commonly taught languages. They are often first to disappear when staffing becomes difficult, yet these are precisely the languages in which the United Kingdom most needs capacity. Languages such as Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, Polish, Turkish, Urdu and Persian are spoken in regions accounting for a substantial and growing share of global GDP. Further, when it comes to the issue of security—I see that the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Robertson, are here—having individuals who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, Russian and Persian will be crucial in years to come. Weak provision in these languages undermines our ability to trade, attract investment and operate effectively in strategically important markets.
This is not simply an education issue, nor is it simply a migration issue; it is an economic and security strategy issue. Will the Government commit to working across departments to develop a coherent approach, one that recognises the proven economic and security value of language skills, values international expertise and places long-term sustainability at its heart? From these Benches, we stand ready to support pragmatic, evidence-based measures to rebuild language learning in this country. That includes fairer visa routes, better support for overseas teachers, stronger incentives for domestic trainees, and a renewed commitment to languages as a core part of a broad and balanced education.
If we fail to act, we risk presiding over a slow erosion of one of the UK’s greatest strengths: our ability to engage confidently, respectfully and effectively in the wider world. That would be a loss to not just our education system but our economy, our global standing and our society as a whole. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the strength of feeling expressed across this House and respond with the urgency and ambition that the situation so clearly demands.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and all noble Lords who have chosen to make valuable contributions on this subject. The recruitment and retention of modern language teachers, indeed of teachers in all subjects, is incredibly important. In an education setting, consistency and reliability are paramount and, alongside excellence, that must be the north star. Learning a foreign language can be one of the most rewarding skills that students will achieve during their tenure at school and university. Taking on board Spanish, for example, introduces them not just to Spain but to the majority of countries in South America, such as Peru, Colombia, Argentina and Chile. They can experience some of the finest gastronomy in the world. They can dive into the history of the Inca empire. In short, learning a foreign language can be the gateway to myriad new experiences and cultural discovery to which there is only an upside.
This is not where the benefits end. Taking Peru specifically, many young people left the country for Europe during the political unrest of the late 1980s. They came to live in Europe, they learned the language, but, more importantly, they took on the culture. Many of those individuals have over the years returned to that country, and the country itself has hugely benefited from that net return. It is a melting pot of the best cultural experiences brought back home, and the UK has the ability to replicate that success.
In many situations, learning a foreign language not only deepens students’ comprehension of grammar and linguistics in both the foreign language and English but, crucially, expands their future opportunities. As highlighted by my noble friend Lady Shephard, a former Secretary of State for Education, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Mountevans, the ability to be fluent in a foreign language is attractive to employers. UK companies operating overseas should of course be offering opportunities to local staff—that goes without saying—but it will always be of interest to them if they can have colleagues from head office helping to run the business on the ground, speaking the language and interacting.
For those reasons, it is pivotal to ensure that pupils have access to an adequate number of well-trained teachers. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are encouraged by the early steps that this Government have taken. Continuing to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education is a welcome move, as is the offering of bursaries for new trainee language teachers. It would appear unlikely that the Government will introduce a visa waiver for language teachers, and we do not per se have a major issue with that, but where His Majesty’s Government will not seek teachers from abroad, they must be training teachers at home. Failing to deliver on both items is simply not an option. Some 93% of the Government’s postgraduate initial teacher training target has been met, and this is of course an important start, but, as was highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Blower, the target set was by far the lowest in recent years. It was a low bar to meet, and we urge the Minister to commit to scaling up this recruitment drive with some real numbers.
However, there is little use driving teacher recruitment if the demand is no longer there for the subjects in question. We are therefore concerned about the effects that the Government’s proposed reforms to the national curriculum will have on the uptake of foreign languages by pupils, and thus the supply of teachers in both schools and universities. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Shephard, the English baccalaureate will cease to exist from 2027. Pupils will no longer have a structural incentive to study a foreign language at GCSE. The GCSE is the principal gateway into the continued study of a subject. If the incentive to study languages at 16 is removed, it risks reducing the number of pupils entering the pipeline at this critical stage.
Before the Conservative Government implemented the EBacc in 2010, foreign languages as a percentage of all GCSE entries had seen a decrease of more than 60% under the previous Administration. From 2010 to 2024, we succeeded in reversing that trend. Languages have since consistently accounted for around 7% of entries. The EBacc system is proven to have worked, and the removal of that tried and tested system will undoubtedly see a return to the previous decline. Then, without the EBacc, the Government will reform Progress 8 to offer breadth at the expense of depth, despite the curriculum and assessment review recommending that its structure remain unchanged. Foreign languages will have to compete with an increased number of subjects, many of which may be perceived as less challenging, enabling students to perhaps take the easier option and further lowering uptake.
The Government have repeatedly said they are investing in 6,500 new teachers, despite the decrease in the number of primary school teachers since the Government came into power. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, put it so well on 17 December, there is at least a problem, if not a crisis, in teacher recruitment and retention. Critically, attempting to expand teacher supply while at the same time undermining subject demand will surely lead to a sub-optimal outcome. Even without the Government’s forthcoming reforms, language learning beyond GCSE level is already falling. Foreign language uptake as a proportion of A-level entries has been lowered for the past 30 years and is now less than half of GCSE entries. The number of students accepted on to French, German, Scandinavian and Iberian studies courses has fallen by 35% in the past five years.
As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, 17 universities have now closed their modern language courses. The Government’s reforms risk accelerating this decline in foreign languages. If you lower the demand for subjects, you automatically lower the demand for teachers, which goes directly against the Government’s manifesto pledge to fire up recruitment. We ask for a focus on language pupil retention post GCSE, not lowering entries in the first place. If the Government believe that this strategy is correct, it would be safe to assume they have modelled the impact of the absence of EBacc on foreign languages uptake. So will the Minister share that modelling with your Lordships’ House? Post GCSE, how will the Government plan to both incentivise pupils to continue learning languages and to direct teachers into both higher and further education?
I conclude with something that has not been raised yet: a quote from the director of HEPI, who said that the 2004 decision that languages would no longer be compulsory for 14 to 16 year-olds was
“probably the worst educational policy of this century”.
So will the Minister commit to at least considering a reversal of that policy decision? Ensuring that there is a steady uptake of foreign languages and a suitable number of teachers requires a holistic effort throughout the schooling system.
If we fail to encourage children to learn a language at GCSE, there is little use in investing in language at later stages. If pupils do not carry languages past GCSE, we are laying brilliant foundations but not building on them.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as the heavyweight bookend closing this debate, let me say what a good debate it has been. I thank my fellow bookend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for having introduced it in the first place. There was a clear consensus during the debate that having the opportunity to study a modern foreign language should be part of a broad and rich education that every child in this country deserves.
Languages provide an insight into other cultures, and indeed they provide an insight into our own language, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, also made clear. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that I benefited from a couple of terms of Latin at Dyson Perrins, the school that we shared, as well as A-level French and O-level German and Italian. That has not stopped me, however, still wanting to be part of this year’s Duolingo challenge, and I will take on anybody who also wants to be part of it.
As many have argued, languages also open the door to better employment opportunities; they are an important cultural asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said; they are of economic and security value, and they are therefore a vital part of the curriculum. We are working to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education.
Of course—and this has been a key feature of this debate—we cannot do that without high-quality teachers in our classrooms. Recruiting and retaining expert teachers is critical to this Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child, as high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes. This is why the Government’s plan for change is committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across secondary schools, special schools and colleges over this Parliament. Delivery is already under way, with a 4% pay award agreed for 2025-26, building on the 5.5% pay award for 2024-25, meaning that teachers and leaders will see an increase in their pay of almost 10% over two years under this Government.
We are already seeing positive signs that this investment is delivering, with the workforce growing by 2,346 full-time equivalents between 2023-24 and 2024-25 in secondary and special schools. That is where they are needed most, particularly for the sorts of subjects we are talking about today, and it is good that there is more positive news. We have seen a year-on-year increase in the number of trainees for postgraduate initial teacher training for modern foreign languages, up by 185 to 1,364 in 2025-26 from 1,179 in 2024-25. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that that is a real number. This is supported by real government commitment, with continued bursaries, and therefore with a 14% increase in the number of trainee teachers starting their initial teacher training this year.
This recruitment year, we are offering language trainees bursaries worth £20,000 tax free or a scholarship worth £22,000 tax free to teach French, German or Spanish. Of course, to ensure continued recruitment of expert modern foreign language teachers, trainees can also access a tuition fee loan, maintenance loan and additional support depending on their circumstances, such as a childcare grant.
There has been a focus in this debate on international recruitment. While our teacher recruitment strategy is focused primarily on domestic recruitment, with over 70% of modern foreign language teachers being UK nationals, we recognise the valuable part that high-quality international teachers can play in contributing to our schools, especially in MFL. That is why highly qualified teachers who have trained in overseas countries can apply directly for qualified teacher status via the apply for QTS in England service, which has robust eligibility requirements to ensure that overseas teachers awarded QTS have the necessary skills and experience to teach in schools in England.
There has been focus on the immigration system during this debate and perhaps I could provide some reassurance for noble Lords. It is, of course, easier for an international teacher to be employed on a skilled worker visa than it is for other workers, by virtue of the fact that they do not have to meet the minimum visa salary thresholds as long as they are paid in line with the national teacher pay scales. This means that a qualified teacher outside London earning £31,650 qualifies for a skilled worker visa, whereas for most other occupations they would need to earn at least £41,700. I know that noble Lords have raised the point about whether it is difficult for schools to sponsor international teachers as workers. We recognise the challenge and that is why we are continuing to work closely to support the sector, providing dedicated guidance for schools which would like to employ international teachers and looking at how we can best support schools to navigate the visa sponsorship processes to ensure that international teachers can train and work in England. This is of course something where multi-academy trusts and local authorities can also provide support to schools that want to act as sponsors for those visas.
Therefore, while I understand the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the forthcoming reduction in the graduate visa length, it remains an internationally very competitive visa and provides 18 months of opportunity for schools to determine whether an international student who has become a teacher is one whom they would then want to go on and sponsor. We also continue to offer bursaries and scholarships to non-UK national trainees in modern foreign languages to attract the best of those trainees and to ensure that they receive the appropriate training in this country.
On the international relocation payment, this was a two-year programme which the Government announced in June would not continue beyond its pilot stage. That is because, in looking at the evaluation, the research suggested that while the IRP supported some teachers to come to England to teach, the majority said that they would have come without the incentive and that the bursary and scholarship offer—which I have already outlined and which applies to international teachers—was a greater incentive to trainees.
On the point about the visa waiver, there have been no visa waivers for any profession since 2015. It is not our intention to develop a visa waiver here, but as I have identified, there are a whole range of other ways in which we are encouraging, where necessary, international students both to come to the UK and to stay to become teachers.
Several noble Lords have noted the important decision taken by this Government to rejoin from 2027 Erasmus+, the EU’s flagship programme for education, training, youth and support. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, rightly identified the asymmetry in the previous membership of Erasmus, which is why I am sure he is impressed that the Government have secured fair terms, including a 30% discount and a 10-month review to ensure value for money, maintaining a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the number of participants benefiting from the programme. I believe that the benefits of this association, which extends beyond higher education to vocational training, adult education, schools and youth support organisations, will unlock world-class opportunities for learners, educators and communities and enable them to experience new cultures and learning environments and to learn languages, to recognise the significance of learning those languages and to gain new skills.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is right that, in order to get the most out of this, we need to ensure that we encourage participation. That is a challenge we will take very seriously. We are already working to determine the national agency. As the noble Lord said, we are talking to the British Council about taking on that role.
We know, however, that the best recruitment strategy for teachers is a strong retention strategy. Since this Government came to power, we have sought to repair the relationship with the education workforce. We are working alongside them to re-establish teaching as an attractive expert profession, in which teachers are once more valued for the important work they do.
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum. We want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education, starting at primary where languages are a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stages 2 and 3. We are committed to enhancing early language education through to secondary to build that strong foundation for language skills and to increase the languages pipeline.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, referenced the Curriculum and Assessment Review. It recommended that we update the key stage 2 languages programme of study to include clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what substantial progress in one language looks like. There is an issue about how you ensure the continuity of learning from the last two years of primary education through the transition into secondary. Sometimes pupils have to move to a different language, or the secondary school does not recognise the learning that has happened in primary schools.
Strengthening the national curriculum—taking up some of the good ideas talked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, in terms of work between primary and secondary schools—could make an important difference. It is an area in which we can support further work. I know that all noble Lords—there has been mention of it already—are intrigued by the French weekends of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and would be very willing to accept invitations.
We are going much further than the review’s recommendations to tackle a range of issues that impact the languages pipeline. For example, we are exploring the feasibility of developing a flexible new qualification. This would mean that all pupils can have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points, enabling a recognition of progress and development in languages. This could also be extended to languages beyond those mainstream modern foreign languages.
We will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers, regardless of location, have access to high-quality professional development and the skills they need to deliver the curriculum, and are able to develop the sort of networks that noble Lords have talked about.
We are working with the sector to learn from successful approaches to supporting the languages pipeline, including at A-level and degree level, and ways in which we can, for example, support A-level teaching through innovative partnerships with higher education and from approaches such as the one in Hackney, which is improving primary provision and transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised the issue of education technology; we are also exploring how AI and edtech can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how those tools can help to deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages as well as reduce teacher workload.
I understand that one of the objectives the last Government hoped for in introducing the EBacc was to increase study of those subjects, but actually of course the review found that uptake of EBacc subjects has not translated into increased study of them at 16 to 19. EBacc measures have, of course, unnecessarily constrained subject choice, affecting students’ engagement and achievement. That is why we will consult on an improved Progress 8, which balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, while no longer pursuing the EBacc accountability measure.
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to high-quality language education. That is why, starting at primary, we are committed to enhancing early language education, through to secondary, and to building a strong foundation for language skills to ensure a continuation on to A-levels and therefore to provide an appropriate pipeline into higher education. I recognise the concern that many noble Lords have expressed about the reduction in the number of students going into higher education to study modern foreign languages and the threats to some of those modern foreign language courses.
Although higher education providers are autonomous and independent institutions and will be ultimately responsible for the decisions they make regarding which courses they choose to deliver, I am sure their decisions could not have been made easier by the freezing of tuition fees and the failure by the previous Government to recognise the financial challenge that higher education was facing. That is why, although we are not proposing to change the categorisation of modern foreign languages in the strategic priorities grant, we have, through a commitment to index-linking tuition fee increases, provided much more financial stability to higher education and the ability to plan strategically and avoid the sorts of cold spots, including in modern foreign languages, that noble Lords have identified.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the significance of universities, particularly, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the Open University. I share her admiration and credit her for her role in the contribution that the OU makes to language learning. Although the lifelong learning entitlement does not, in its first set of modules, include modern foreign languages, there is clearly an opportunity to ensure funding for modern foreign language learning throughout lifetimes in future iterations of the extent of the lifelong learning entitlement.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this excellent debate. We recognise the importance and value of languages. We will continue to ensure that language education in England is accessible for all. We have used the Curriculum and Assessment Review to strengthen languages education as part of broader curriculum reform. We recognise that this can be delivered only by expert teachers, and ensuring that there are sufficient high-quality teachers in the classroom is a cornerstone of this Government’s plan for change. That is why we are pleased about the good progress we are making in recruiting more teachers and keeping more teachers in the classroom, as well as the increased number of modern foreign language trainees who have begun training this year. We will continue to ensure that we recruit and retain the best modern foreign language teachers for the remainder of this Parliament, through our financial incentives and through improving teacher workload and well-being so that we can achieve all the benefits of learning modern foreign languages, both at school and throughout lives, that noble Lords have identified in this debate.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. I am pleased and happy to hear her say that she recognises that schools still have an issue over how complicated and costly the process for applying and getting sponsorship visas can be. I hope very much that that will lead to more efficient and upfront guidance and help for schools on this issue.
On some of the other issues and questions that I put to the Minister in my introduction and which have been raised by other noble Lords, I think there is still some distance between what the Minister has set out as positive progress and the evidence being received by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages from teachers and schools, particularly teachers who are foreign nationals who have been trained here as MFL teachers but still find it very difficult to get jobs here because of the difficulty in negotiating the visa requirements. I hope that the Minister will be open to follow-up discussions with me and other noble Lords to see whether we can push a little further with the department, and of course the Home Office, on these issues.
In thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and at the risk of breaching one of the rules in the Companion, I would just like to say, merci, danke, gracias and shukran.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That, in order to allow the House to complete its scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and return it to the Commons in reasonable time before the end of the current parliamentary session, further time should be provided for consideration of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very aware that this is the last business we will consider today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. The assisted dying Bill commands strong views, both in favour and against, and is of huge public interest in terms of not only its content but its progress through our Parliament—and not least how we in this House conduct our scrutiny of it. Over 1,000 amendments in Committee have been tabled, arranged into approximately 84 groups. So far, we have spent in total some 32 hours in this House scrutinising the Bill, and we have another 50 hours scheduled. However, in four days of Committee—about 17 hours—we have considered only 10 groups. If we continue at the rate we are going, this House will fail to complete the process of scrutiny. We will reach no conclusions on the Bill as to how it should be amended or whether it should return to the Commons. Instead, the Bill will fail through lack of time—this despite the fact that it came to this House in June of last year after extensive scrutiny in the Commons and received in this House an unopposed Second Reading after a two-day debate with 110 speakers.
Many Members of the House, from the newest to the most experienced and on both sides of the substantive issue of assisted dying, have expressed the view to me that it would be wrong, and would significantly damage the reputation of this House, if we failed to reach conclusions on the Bill. I strongly agree with that. We should not allow our justified reputation for high-quality scrutiny to be tarnished by failing to reach conclusions on this Bill.
The purpose of my Motion today is to give the House the opportunity to express a view on whether your Lordships want this House to complete its scrutiny and, if the Bill passes Third Reading in this House, to send it back to the Commons in time for it to complete all its stages before the end of this parliamentary Session. To achieve this, I believe that we have to undertake our scrutiny role in the normal way that we do. We need to work co-operatively so that we can focus the time we have on the key issues, in order to reach agreement wherever possible on amendments to the Bill, and then decide whether to send the Bill back to the Commons.
This House works best when we work together, exercise self-restraint and undertake scrutiny that reaches conclusions on legislation. For self-regulation to retain respect—and I most certainly believe it should continue—this House has to be effective in reaching conclusions.
The Government are neutral on this Bill and will, I know, remain so. As sponsor of the Bill, I am grateful for the time that has been made available so far for consideration of it. But, as I have said, if we continue at this pace, we will fail in our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill.
If the Motion passes, I would hope that all sides can be brought together through the usual channels to achieve a reasonable, informal but effective process to complete the passage of the Bill through this House—taking into account, of course, the needs of the House staff. This remains a Private Member’s Bill, and extra time should not involve any time that would otherwise be for government business.
The approach to scrutiny I am suggesting, which is normal in our House, is the way we can fulfil our role as a revising Chamber and reach conclusions. This does not lead to chaos. The House would have to agree to an amendment like this in each case. The key thing is the approach we take to scrutiny. More time may be required, but the mutual agreement we reach on how we do things is key to the solution.
Before I close, I emphasise that the form of the Motion has been drafted to ensure that it does not preclude the possibility of a negative vote at Third Reading. My personal view is that, for constitutional reasons, this would be the wrong thing for this House to do, but it is not excluded by the Motion. My aim with the Motion is to get to Third Reading, so that we can reach a decision on the Bill and, if it passes that stage, ensure that it has time to complete its later stages in Parliament. The Government Chief Whip has made it clear to me—I completely agree with this—that if the Motion passes, the normal sitting hours for tomorrow will not be affected in any way.
Whatever colleagues’ views are on the Bill, I invite all noble Lords to support the Motion and thereby express the view of this House that it wishes to complete its scrutiny of the Bill, reach conclusions and thereby fulfil its responsibilities as a revising Chamber. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, after the Leader of the House has spoken, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is taking part remotely.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, before other noble Lords contribute, I thought it would assist the House if I said a few words about the procedure and timings for this debate and the Government’s position.
Turning first to procedure, I remind colleagues that this debate should be focused on the narrow subject of the Motion—that is, the time available to debate the Bill. The purpose of the Motion before us is to allow the House to express a view on the time needed. It is not an opportunity to reopen and continue debate on the substance of the Bill and what it does and does not do. So far, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have had two days of Second Reading and many hours of Committee, and there are a further 10 Fridays scheduled for debate. I would also urge noble Lords not to repeat arguments and to keep comments brief so that this debate can conclude in good time.
Secondly, on timings, colleagues will be mindful that the House is due to sit again at 10 am tomorrow morning further to consider amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords will need to come to a decision this evening on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In light of tomorrow’s sitting time, I hope that the House will not sit too late. If necessary, the Chief Whip or I may return to the Dispatch Box to advise colleagues if it looks as if proceedings are not coming to a timely conclusion.
On the Government’s position on the Bill, as we have said before, the Government are neutral on this issue. This is not a Government Bill but a Private Member’s Bill. Noble Lords are considering whether, in light of the additional Fridays already provided, additional time beyond the usual sitting Friday times should be made available. I know that the House is interested in how the Government will respond to this question if the Motion is passed. I hope that noble Lords will also understand that I am not going to give any commitments at this stage. We will listen to the debate and, if the Motion is agreed, to the views of the House.
If the Motion is agreed, we will have early discussions with colleagues in the usual channels, the House authorities and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the next steps. In considering those next steps, I am clear that the Bill should not take away time available for government legislation. I am sure that we are all very mindful of the impact on the staff of the House and the Members involved in discussions and debates on the Bill. I hope that this is helpful, prior to the consideration of this specific debate on the timings of the discussions to take place.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot be present in person today because of the snow and the increased risk of fracture should I slip. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak remotely and briefly on the Motion before us. The Motion implies that, despite our already having been generous with our time to an unprecedented degree, as the allocation of so many Fridays between now and 24 April demonstrates, it would somehow be unreasonable not to allocate yet more time.
I suggest that the Motion overlooks the reason why we have had to spend so much time to date considering amendments, for surely, as with any Bill, we can only ever work with what we have been given—in this case, by the other place. The volume of amendments and the time taken to consider them therefore reflect the quality, or lack thereof, of the Bill that was sent to us.
I wonder if we really appreciate the deep gratitude of those who, unlike us, are not privileged, perhaps because they feel vulnerable because of disability or old age, and do not have a voice, so depend on us to consider their concerns. It is surely to our credit that that is exactly what we are doing. We should surely be heartened by how much it is appreciated that we take our duty to scrutinise so seriously. We are simply doing our job without fear or favour as Parliament’s revising Chamber.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a wonderfully wise Scottish saying from the 16th century, which I believe this Bill shows has stood the test of time: “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. Our procedures are being followed appropriately and reasonably. If any Bill is so poorly drafted and so unsafe, surely the question is not so much whether the Bill deserves more time, but whether yet more time could transform it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I speak very briefly in favour of the Motion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, this is not about support or opposition to the Bill. It is about how your Lordships’ House deals with a controversial piece of legislation, passed by the other House, which has come to us as a Private Member’s Bill. It is not an easy question, and it is a slightly unusual position. One can adduce very sensible arguments in favour of whatever position one wants to take; we all have our own views.
Many people have been in this House far longer than I have, but this issue is not just for this House; it is for Parliament and for the other House. I come to this after 40 years in the other place, where I had responsibilities, among others, for managing parliamentary business and relationships with your Lordships’ House. I mind, as others do, about the reputation of Parliament at a time when we are under increased scrutiny.
In a nutshell, my view is that the House should carry on with its traditional role of scrutinising and, if necessary, amending legislation, but crucially, the final decision as to whether this controversial piece of legislation reaches the statute book should be taken by the other place and not by us. At the end of the day, they are accountable to the electorate for the progress of this Bill. That is what the Motion seeks to do and that is why I support it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for writing an email to everyone in the House, but I did so because the Motion is extremely important and I strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. This is probably one of the most important Bills to come before this House in recent years, as all noble Lords will know. It is unfortunate that it is a Private Member’s Bill, because that presents additional problems. I do not like the Bill, but we have it and we have to deal with it.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise, after a very heavy day of debate, because it is important to reflect on what I have heard, not only in interactions with colleagues and friends across your Lordships’ House but, more importantly, from the public. They are looking to us to do our role: to scrutinise legislation. I have sat through some fantastic debates, particularly watching the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, on the other side of the argument. However, I have canvassed colleagues on this side of the House—we are not whipped either—and some of their comments are, “I am not supportive of your position, but I am frustrated by the lack of progress”. That is a consistent message across your Lordships’ House and out among the public.
There is a lot of scrutiny on your Lordships’ House at the moment—on what we do, whether we deliver value for money, et cetera. There would be a massive negative reaction from the public, regardless of what side of the argument they are on, if we do not get through this legislation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in urging the Government and the usual channels to support us, as suggested by the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We owe it to the public, who will be watching us, to do our best to make sure that we do our duty and send this Bill back to the other place for it to do its duty as well.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I too support the idea that this Bill needs extra time. It is entirely unsurprising that that is the case given that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill, it is dealing with such a matter of substance. For example, if you compare the process that was put before the House for the Mental Health Bill—an important but arguably less significant piece of legislation—by the time we got to the Lords Committee stage, we had already had an independent commission, a White Paper, a public consultation, draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. All of that is in effect being done by your Lordships through this process, so it is not surprising we need extra time. The suggestion that, just because this has been introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, democracy requires that we give it less scrutiny than a government Bill is an unpersuasive argument.
It is also the case that, over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for namechecking me earlier, particularly in the same sentence as my noble friend Lord Pannick. I have the unenviable task tomorrow morning of moving the first amendment and the first group at 10 o’clock and, before I come here, I shall certainly have to reflect on the length of the speech that I intend to make. In fact, I have already prepared a speech that will probably not last more than 12 to 15 minutes, which seems to me be entirely proportionate to the huge group that we will be considering tomorrow.
I came here thinking that I would oppose the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, if it was put to the test. However, in fact I have been particularly influenced by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who brings great wisdom to this House and, above all, an example of common sense which is heard often among the senior judiciary, in my view—I had to say that, did I not?
I have one stricture, if it is right to describe it as that, to put to the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I have discussed issues relating to the length of the debates on this Bill. I still believe that we can complete all stages of this Bill in the time that has already been allotted. I believe that if Members of this House were sparing in not making further Second Reading-type speeches, we would achieve that task. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord that we do need a little bit more discussion from his side. I have encouraged him, and there have been meetings to this effect, to look at the main issues on this Bill—I know there are a thousand amendments, but there are about 10 main issues at most—and come and tell us where he is prepared to make concessions, and how we can constructively discuss such concessions. On a Bill like this, if we do not go through that process, actually, the Committee stage becomes futile.
I hope that as a result of this debate—and I will not now vote against this Motion if the opinion of the House is sought—we shall see a more co-operative and speedy approach to the Bill’s Committee stage so that we really can achieve reaching a Third Reading debate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I was one of the signatories to the email that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to. I was very happy to do that, because although I of course support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his Motion, I additionally think that it is worth reflecting tonight on another aspect of the House of Lords’ reputation in this matter.
I have been involved with this issue in this House for several decades, and the House of Lords has, until now, shown extraordinary parliamentary leadership on this question. We have considered three other Bills apart from this one and we have had two other Select Committees. Personally, I was influenced in understanding the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by going to Oregon with her 20 years ago to look at the state of its situation. We did not agree—we came away with very different perspectives of what we saw—but we were both very much influenced by that. The House of Lords has shown authority, enormous value in its scrutiny and great honesty in its debates. I am very sad that in the last few weeks, which I fear has been partly because of some of the issues that have been mentioned tonight, the House of Lords, instead of being congratulated on its position on assisted dying, which has been the previous situation, has been heavily criticised for the nature of the—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I suggest that noble Lords do not interrupt other noble Lords when they are speaking.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I do not back away from the phrase “heavily criticised”. I cannot believe that anybody in this House who has at least absorbed some of the media coverage of these debates has not accepted that there has been no general agreement about the positions that have been taken, and more importantly, about the way in which some of those positions have been argued. There are, of course, enormous divisions of opinion, as there have always been, but in this House, they have been—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Is the noble Baroness absolutely confident that her remarks are pertinent to the Motion and the question of how much time should be allocated to the debate?
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord, but I am trying to make the points about the value of the reputation of this House, specifically in relation to this particular subject—on which over many years we have built up an authority, which I am very sad to see dissipated if there are more time-wasting activities, which other noble Lords have referred to.
I hope that this Motion will be accepted, that we will go through with our very important work, that we will send the Bill back to the Commons in time for it to be appropriately considered there and—it is very important to say—that we regain our reputation for honest, lengthy, astute scrutiny and great authority on this subject.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I remember debates in this House on assisted dying over 20 or 25 years ago—the noble Baroness spoke in them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We have always taken a great interest in it.
It is very clear that in this House there is a small group who are passionately for assisted dying and a small group who are positively against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is very difficult to bring them together. The speech that he made today was very similar to the speech that he made about three weeks ago, asking for common sense to prevail and that we should discuss what the amendments should be. I applaud that approach, but it appears that the people moving the amendments do not want that to happen. They do not want the Bill to pass at all. That was very clear in the early debates I remember of 25 years ago. They are just not going to accept amendments; they want the Bill to be blocked.
As we are the second most important debating Chamber in the country, I find it extraordinary that, after the length of time we have taken debating it and listening, we cannot come to a conclusion.
I do not believe that the Front Benches are listening to the country at all about this. The country on the whole does not follow most of our debates on minor legislation, but people do know that we are being subjected to a filibuster in this House by a relatively small number of Members. It goes back to those early debates. The main argument against assisted dying, way back 25 years ago, was the sanctity of life. That has virtually disappeared, apart from the fact that two bishops mentioned it at Second Reading.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I agree that we could complete the Bill in the time allocated if we got a firm steer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about what he intends to do with the amendments we have already discussed. The closest we came to a steer from him was in our last session, discussing 18, 21 and 25 year-olds, when he said he would go away and think about possibly adding new tests to make it more certain that 18 year-olds had made the right decision on whether they should opt to die or not.
I have sat through all the debates here and I stand to be corrected, but I do not think the noble and learned Lord has agreed to accept in principle any of the other amendments that have been tabled. He gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he intends to defend every word in the Bill, line by line, and not produce reasoned amendments for Report. If he were to do that, I suspect we could make a great deal more progress.
I conclude by saying that, tomorrow, we will be discussing major amendments on palliative care, and many of them are quite different. If the noble and learned Lord were to stand up early on and say, “I like the principles of Amendments X, Y and Z, and I promise to go away and come back on Report with a better version of them”, I suspect we would make rapid progress. So it is in the noble and learned Lord’s hands to get this done in the next 10 days, and he should not blame those who are willing to talk about amendments which he gives the impression he would never accept in a month of Sundays.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I also support the idea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the Bill needs more time for scrutiny than is available through the usual tried and tested Private Member’s Bill process. We have to manage expectations, though, and I have been thinking about precedents for a Bill of this complexity. With the help of the House of Lords Library, I have been looking at balloted Private Members’ Bills from the House of Commons ballot that reached First Reading in this House in the 10 years from the start of the 2015 Session. It is very interesting.
In the other place, of course, ballot Bills are introduced by title only, with the full text appearing or changing at later stages. But the full text version as brought from the Commons provides a consistent and analytically robust basis for comparison. The average length of the Bills in that 10-year period was 8.8 pages, with a mean of five clauses. In contrast, this complex Bill, heralding major social and societal changes, has 51 pages, with 59 clauses. So it is hardly surprising that it needs lengthy scrutiny.
Eight of these pages were actually added by the sponsor on Report, with little or no discussion. In the other place, 92% of the amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor were not even debated, and just seven were put to MPs for decision. This data refutes the misleading impression being given in the national media, which suggests that your Lordships’ House is delaying progress by tabling and debating amendments, as in reality they are needed to improve the safety and care of patients.
I suggest that counting the number of amendments is misleading, because many are consequential on the change proposed. As my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested, there are about 10 major issues. The noble and learned Lord has not said which amendments, if any, even those recommended by the royal colleges and patient advocacy groups, he is willing to accept. Members are waiting for his active engagement and for a bit of give and take.
In the past 10 years, only 66—about a third—of all balloted Private Members’ Bills have become law. Of these successful Bills, the vast majority were government handouts or had explicit government support. Nobody can argue against scrutiny, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has recognised that a Bill of this length and complexity does not fit the usual model of a Private Member’s Bill. I have concluded that the kindest thing for the Government to do would be to seek to establish a royal commission to give this weighty issue the attention that it deserves. We cannot do it justice through the Private Members’ Bill process, but I agree that it needs time.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I hope that the noble and learned Lord gets an opportunity to reply to this debate, but I wondered whether I could ask what is perhaps the daft laddie question. Is he, or are the Government Front Bench, able to tell us how many days and what dates they think will be required for the Bill to get through its passage in Committee, on Report—bearing in mind that there may well be Divisions on Report—and then at Third Reading, so that proceedings here will be completed in adequate time before the end of the parliamentary Session, before it goes back to the other place? Of course, the other place will presumably need time on Fridays or Wednesdays, as I think they sometimes sit on Wednesdays to deal with Private Members’ Bills.
Irrespective of one’s views of the merits of the Bill or of the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, it would be enormously helpful if he could put some meat on the bones of “reasonable time”—the phrase he uses in his Motion. That would inform us in a very helpful way. If he cannot do it, perhaps the Government Front Bench could do so instead.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the process. Time in Committee is obviously linked to the progress of meetings, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for offering a one-on-one meeting on one aspect of the Bill.
However, the usual manner in Committee, as I have understood it from substantive Bills—usually government Bills—is to have themed meetings with quite a large number of Peers to discuss issues. There may be around 10, but I would say that there are more than 10 issues here. That is concentrated down on Report. If the noble and learned Lord could adopt that process, it would limit the time in Committee.
I might also remind the noble and learned Lord of his evidence to the Select Committee when I raised the issue of advertising. If noble Lords look at Clause 43, they would think that advertising was still on printed pieces of paper. We know that that is not the case but, due to the lack of government write-round on a Private Member’s Bill, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which has responsibility for the Online Safety Act, has no idea what the impact of that clause will be on that Act or on online advertising. In response to my questions, the noble and learned Lord accepted that he needs to come back with more detail on advertising.
I have looked at the Order Paper under Clause 43 and there are a number of amendments, but still none from the noble and learned Lord in relation to these matters, so I am now going to have to go to the Public Bill Office to get my amendments drafted not knowing what the noble and learned Lord’s position was when he gave that evidence before Christmas. That is the type of issue of process that is causing more time to be used in your Lordships’ House. I have about 15 amendments down, so I am concentrating on a handful of the issues, which I believe is the way I have behaved with any Bill before your Lordships’ House to date.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
May I ask noble Lords to focus more clearly on the Motion in front of us and not get into discussing the Bill? What is before us is very narrow and could be disposed of quite quickly if we focus on that.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I support the intent behind the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I believe that it is right that the House be given the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in exhaustive detail, given the significance of the legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out, the comparison that can be legitimately drawn with government legislation of equal significance but perhaps less moment that has had a greater degree of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.
I also think it right to take account of the point that was made fairly and succinctly by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier: that we are being invited to commit to extra time without necessarily knowing how much and under what circumstances. We may receive enlightenment from the Government Front Bench; we may receive indications from Ministers as to what is envisaged; but it would be helpful to know, rather than to vote in favour of or to offer our support for a generalised sentiment rather than a precise plan of action. Indeed, some of the concern about the legislation being put forward has come from those who sympathise with the generalised sentiment of the legislation itself but worry profoundly about implementation.
In the evidence of the Committee that we have had so far, I believe that the debate has been characterised by high-quality interventions from all sides. I would briefly single out the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. The debate she initiated on the age at which this momentous decision might be taken prompted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to acknowledge that many wise arguments were raised and that it was appropriate that some discussion should take place outside this place about how her concerns might be taken account of in the legislation. It was gracious of him to do so, but valuable as those conversations outside the Chamber are, they are no substitute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed out, for an acknowledgement in the Chamber of a willingness on the part of the promoters of the Bill and others to come forward with their own amendments, or to accept amendments from other Peers which ensure that the lacunae identified in the legislation are to be properly addressed before we reach Report and Third Reading, or on Report.
My final point—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The mover of the original Bill, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have written to all Members to say that their door is open, offering to discuss a way forward. The offer has been there, and the noble Lord should accept that.
Lord Gove (Con)
I did accept that, and if I did not make myself clear enough, let me make it absolutely clear: I consider it to be wise and gracious and I am grateful, but it is still no substitute for the legislative process itself and for legislators being satisfied that the acknowledgement of a fault or lacuna in the Bill is to be addressed through an amendment or to be rejected, so we can make a judgment about the Bill, unamended, on that basis. That is the purpose of legislative scrutiny. It is not about reassurances, however polite, well-meant and honourable; it is about legislation. This is a law-making Chamber.
I have two final points. The point was made by Joubert, the French philosopher, that it is better to comprehensively debate a principle without settling it than to settle it without comprehensive debate. That is the essence of the democratic principle—all the more so when we are legislating. I want to see the maximum amount of time, so that the amendments that have been put forward are properly scrutinised. It is not just a personal preference on my part, and here I take profound issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for whom I have enormous respect. She referred to what has been written about our debates outside. We may or may not wish to take account of that, but it is quite wrong to say that this House has been lowered in the estimation of outside observers because of the way in which we have handled the debate on this Bill.
Lord Gove (Con)
Noble Lords may not wish to hear it, but this is of direct relevance to the debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can we just turn the temperature of the House down a bit, please? There is no need for this. We have a very narrow Motion before us. Let us stick to the Motion and make a decision.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall move to the Woolsack in a few minutes, so I shall be mute, for which many noble Lords will be grateful. Perhaps I might just point out to the noble Lord, and perhaps to some of his colleagues who have graced us with their presence in recent months, that the principle that this House has in the way it conducts itself is self-regulation. Perhaps I could just define what self-regulation is not. Self-regulation is not regulating oneself in one’s own self-interest; it is regulating oneself in the interest of the whole House and of the reputation of the House, and to get business done. I think that certain noble Lords are in danger of misunderstanding exactly what we understand self-regulation to be, and they are doing themselves and their reputation no good.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the way to avoid introducing for the first time a guillotine Motion on a Bill in this House is for my noble and learned friend to specifically come within the next 10 days to answer each and every question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. That would solve the problem.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am grateful for those recent interventions. They certainly help me, and I am sure they assist the House. But it also assists the House to know that this House is more respected, not less, for giving extensive scrutiny to the Bill. This is the view of people, including those, such as Charlotte Ivers, who favour assisted dying. It would be a sad day if those of us who believe in exhaustive scrutiny and extensive debate were told that that was not in our best traditions.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to say, thinking particularly about those who are living, but specifically about those who are dying, let us pass this Motion tonight and get on with the work.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, asks: how much extra time? The answer surely is that that depends on what progress we make tomorrow and next week. Can I simply say this? There are many difficult issues posed by this Bill, but this Motion is not difficult at all. We are simply being asked to vote that this House believes that extra time should be granted to the extent required to ensure that we can come to a conclusion, whether it is in favour of this Bill, whether it is against this Bill or whether it is that the Bill should be amended. Let us get on and approve this Motion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have exhausted the debate. There is widespread support for this Motion, and for that I am incredibly grateful. Can I say just one thing? What this Motion, if passed, means is that the House is saying loudly, clearly and, I hope, unanimously that our job is to get to the end of the process of scrutinising the Bill.
I shall answer just two or three particular points that have been made. What is at the heart of it is the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. What will we do and how long will it take? I agree with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We need to craft informally a process that ensures that we get to the end of the process.
The Leader of the House was kind enough to say that, if this Motion were to pass, the usual channels would, in effect, convene a meeting and we would then seek a way forward. I have to say I am incredibly attracted to the things that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said: not his opposition to the Bill, I hasten to add, but to the proposition that there are—and this number may be wrong—about 10 crucial issues in relation to this Bill. Let us immediately try to identify what those 10 or so issues are and then reach a process by which we go through them. To the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that has been his position all along. He very helpfully led us to an identification of those 10 issues and we tried to do a grouping that reflected that, but it did not command support. I think we should look at that again.
It is so important for the House to come to the right conclusion. If we pass this Motion now, we will send a signal that our job is to craft a structure that means that we can get through the Bill.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I have listened to all that the noble and learned Lord said and I agree with the various statements which have been made about the duty to scrutinise, but I have also listened to those who have said that he has not responded to any of the amendments, apart from that on age. The issues are identified. Can he tell the House how he will respond in a positive manner, as Members on the Front Bench normally do when we are discussing Bills?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question. I have quite scrupulously, as we have gone through the amendments in Committee, indicated which I accept or in principle accept; for example, in relation to 18 to 25 year-olds. Subsequent to that, we have had meetings, and I have gone through in some detail how we should deal with that, and we have reached agreement at those meetings in principle as to what to do. I am very grateful to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is nodding in relation to that.
In addition, for example, I have indicated that I am in favour in principle of some special protection for those who have suffered from a deprivation of liberty. I have also indicated—and I do this just by way of example—that in relation to multidisciplinary teams looking after people who are grievously ill or terminally ill, we should think of some way of incorporating their role into the Bill. It is obvious that I am not doing it enough, but I feel I have responded in some detail in relation to individual points. I have also indicated where I do not accept amendments. However, I am listening, and I need to improve in relation to that, because many people are saying that I am not responding adequately; but that will need to be part of the process that we adopt.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before the noble Baroness intervenes, can I just say that if we are having questions to the noble and learned Lord, they should be on the Motion and not on the wider issue of the Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before the noble and learned Lord makes his decision whether to press his Motion, I simply wanted to ask the Leader of the House whether, if this Motion is passed, she believes that a new form of procedure has then been created by this House. It will no longer really be a Private Member’s Bill. We will have a situation where, as a Back-Bencher, the noble and learned Lord will have demonstrated that it is possible to take control of the scheduling of business in this House. As there have been a lot of very positive contributions both from the noble and the learned Lord and from others in response to this Motion and a desire for this House to change the way in which it is dealing with this Bill, would it be better for him to withdraw the Motion rather than create a new situation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks me to respond. I do not know if she was here at the beginning, when I first commented, but I was very clear that the House will be making a decision on what it thinks. If the House makes a decision that it wishes to have extra time, then it will be a matter for discussion in the usual channels to see if that is available. That is not a new procedure. I was also very clear that it is not open to the Government to provide government time for this Bill; this is a Private Member’s Bill. But the usual channels, both government and opposition, and all parties, will listen to what the House has to say and reflect on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every single word the Leader said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before I move to adjourn the House, I wanted to touch on the impact of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The House has agreed the Motion, and the Government will reflect on that carefully with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has said, the Government remain neutral on the Bill, and I cannot give any firm commitments about what will happen next. But as is right, we will carefully think how we can progress the Bill outside government time.
I am sure noble Lords will have questions about what this means for tomorrow. As I have said, ultimately how the House sits on any given day is in the hands of the House, not me as Government Chief Whip. But, as my noble friend Lady Smith has said, I do not consider it reasonable for the House to sit beyond the usual rising time tomorrow at this short notice. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has, of course, agreed with that, and has made that clear in his contribution. I will therefore seek to adjourn the House at around 3 pm tomorrow, as I have done in previous weeks. I will then, as my noble friend Lady Smith has said, seek to hold urgent discussions with the usual channels and the House authorities early next week, to seek to find a way forward to deliver what the House has just agreed. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.