Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Last week, the House paid tribute to Lord Flight, who served as the MP for Arundel and South Downs from 1997 to 2005. My condolences go to his family and friends.
Before we begin, I would like to pay tribute to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who died last week. Previously elected as the MP for Orkney and Shetland in 1983, Lord Wallace joined the Scottish Parliament in 1999, where he held the role of First Minister on three occasions. On behalf of the House, I offer my condolences to his family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Can I associate the Government side of the House with your tributes to Lord Wallace and Lord Flight, Mr Speaker? I pay tribute to Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney of the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, who died on 25 January. He was an outstanding young officer. I convey the condolences of the whole House to his friends and family.
I also inform the House—as you know, Mr Speaker—that my hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister is in the Norwegian High North on reservist training. When we said we would boost the reserves, this is the Defence team delivering in person.
Turning to the question, my message to Great British businesses of all sizes is that we want the UK to be the best place in the world to start and grow a defence business. That is why we have set a target to spend an extra £2.5 billion with SMEs by 2028. That is an uplift of 50%. This is a Labour Government delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Dr Opher
Impcross, a company in my constituency of Stroud, is the sole supplier of flight-critical parts to the Typhoon aircraft and a key supplier for the Vanguard submarine fleet. It is on the verge of collapse, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is filing to wind it up, after the owners were prohibited from selling their business on the grounds of national security and sovereign capability. What support is the Secretary of State offering to critical suppliers that are struggling financially, and will he meet me to discuss what steps we can take to support this company?
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing Impcross in his constituency. I think he will accept that it is right that when British companies deliver the sort of sovereign UK capabilities he mentions that we scrutinise hard any sale to foreign firms. Impcross does indeed play an important role in the Typhoon and F-35 supply chains, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry would be happy to meet him.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency manufactures drones and communications equipment used around the world. It is having some problems engaging with the Ministry of Defence on sovereign capability, and the previous Minister of State for Defence Procurement was due to visit the company in my constituency, but that meeting has since fallen through since the reshuffle. The Minister confirmed on 25 November that he would visit. Can I ask that the meeting is arranged as soon as possible, please?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman points to a firm in his constituency, and it is true that for too long too many small firms have felt locked out of MOD contracts. It is also true that the last Government, his Government, missed their own targets for SME defence support. Our new office for small business growth, which opened its doors for the first time last week, will help turn that around. At the risk of overburdening my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, I am sure that he would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
UK defence SMEs remain essential to safeguarding our national security, and while drones remain an essential part of modern warfare, so are helicopters. Yet The Times has reported that our sovereign capability to produce military helicopters could now be under threat because of Government indecision as to whether we actually need helicopters. Apparently, the Treasury has deemed that they may not be essential to operations going forward. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that decides on defence procurement priorities? Also, can he clarify when the decision to award the medium-lift helicopter contract will finally be made?
John Healey
My hon. Friend and his Committee know a great deal more about this than The Times does. He will know that a competitive contract process is under way for the new medium-lift helicopter. He will also know that we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan. And he will know that, as part of that plan, we are dealing with a programme of record—a previous commitment to equipment—that was hugely overcommitted, underfunded and, in some cases, unsuited to the threats we face. For the first time in nearly 18 years, the Ministry of Defence is taking a line-by-line approach to building up our plans for the future.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that many small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector are supported by bigger defence firms? Companies such as Honeywell operate on the Leonardo site in Yeovil. Does he therefore accept that, if bigger defence firms such as Leonardo cannot get contracts like the one for the new medium-lift helicopter, we risk losing not just Leonardo but smaller defence firms, too?
John Healey
Firms such as Leonardo are getting defence contracts. I was in Edinburgh just the week before last to award a £450 million contract to Leonardo for a really important part of upgrading our Typhoon jets for the future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the supply chain to smaller and medium-sized firms is often mediated by primes such as Leonardo, which is why it is important that, since the election, we have let over 1,100 major contracts in defence, 84% of which have gone to British-based firms.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney.
Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?
John Healey
We are working flat out to complete the DIP, and the hon. Gentleman above all, having been responsible for defence procurement in the last Government, will appreciate just how overcommitted his own programme is. He will appreciate the truth of his former boss saying that, over 14 years, the Conservatives had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. We will deal with that overcommitment, we will deal with the underfunding and we will deal with the fact that his plans were unsuited to many of the threats we face.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We all know that we must urgently increase defence spending, but we are not hearing many ways to get it moving right away without harming British security in other ways. Slashing international development aid or investment in renewable energy, for instance, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that there is a £28 billion funding shortfall, so I want to offer the Secretary of State a practical, costed way to close much of that gap. Defence bonds would raise £20 billion over the next two years and get investment straightaway into capability and the industrial base, including the SMEs we rely on. Will the Secretary of State give this proposal serious consideration as part of a clear, funded plan to plug the funding gaps and get defence investment moving?
John Healey
I remember when the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor stood in this House after the election to argue, like the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did, for this country to invest 2.5% of GDP by 2030—the hon. Member for South Suffolk called for it 13 times before the Prime Minister said, a year ago, we would do it three years earlier.
We will look at any way of raising the level of investment going into defence, but the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) could start by recognising that this Government have made a commitment to record investment in defence—the largest increase since the end of the cold war. I note in passing that he seems to be against how we will fund this to reach 2.5% and 2.6% next year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are still on Question 1, so it would be useful if Members can help me.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Three weeks ago I was in Kyiv. I saw for myself the savagery of Putin’s brutal assault on the Ukrainian people and I saw also their extraordinary defiance. Next week I will co-chair the 50-nation strong Ukraine defence contact group in NATO, and the UK is providing more military support now than ever before, and we will continue to stand united in this House, will continue to stand united in this country, and will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Mr Perkins
The Defence Secretary is absolutely right to spell out the strength of our commitment but there is increasing concern about the extent to which China is propping up both the economic and military capabilities of Mr Putin and his barbaric regime, so can the Secretary of State tell me what his latest assessment is of China’s contribution to Putin’s war machine and what steps we are taking to ensure the international community remains united?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and as a nation and a Government the UK will not hesitate to act against those supplying and funding Putin’s war economy. We have sanctioned a range of organisations that operate in third countries over economic and military support for Russia, including 50 Chinese companies. We will continue to work across other nations with other nations and to bolster the support for Ukraine and the principles of the UN charter.
Rachel Taylor
In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, many, like Felicitas in Water Orton, have welcomed Ukrainian refugees into their homes and have stood by Ukraine, just as this Labour Government have. Meanwhile, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has removed the Ukrainian flag from county hall despite public protest. Given the ever-growing threats of Russian aggression, what steps is the UK taking to strengthen its anti-submarine warfare capabilities?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that politicians of any party are judged on what we do, not just what we say, and the performance of Reform-led councils will certainly come home to roost, I suggest, for their party. But my hon. Friend is right: in this new era of Russian threat, we must ensure that our Royal Navy has the innovation it needs to detect, to track and to deter threats beneath the waves, and so today we have announced a new £40 million contract with a British-based SME to buy new sonobuoys, exactly to be deployed and used beneath the waves to track Putin’s subs.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Our Ukrainian friends want not just to physically rebuild after this devastating war, but to recover with a modernised, reformed economy that can attract investment and support their entrepreneurial population. This is something Britain can help with, given our strengths in defence and technology and, indeed, as a global financial centre. So may I ask the Government to fully lean into these efforts alongside our allies, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the private sector, because an economically strong Ukraine is good not just for Ukraine’s future security, but for ours as well?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: a strong Ukraine is the key to a long-term secure Europe. He is also right that British defence, British innovation and British financial muscle can help Ukraine in the medium term. I think he would also recognise that we can contribute to Ukraine in a unique way, having been, since the start of Putin’s brutal invasion, Ukraine’s closest and most reliable ally under both Governments.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
As we approach the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine this month, with reports that Russian troops have killed 12 people and injured 17 others after launching a drone strike on civilians just yesterday, the brutality of Putin’s war shows no sign of abating. So can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will not follow any US lead that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty or territorial integrity, and will he commit to maintaining Britain’s military support at current levels or above, ensuring that decisions about Ukraine’s future remain with Kyiv, not with Washington or Moscow?
John Healey
Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the heart of our determination to stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to step up our support for Ukraine. The House will recognise the brutal attack on those mineworkers, who were going to work to mine the coal that keeps their own Ukrainian citizens warm in this period of unprecedented cold in Ukraine.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Pembrokeshire is at the heart of Britain’s defence future, and I am excited about the opportunity for local people. To help deliver that, I am proud that this Labour Government are working with the Labour Government in Wales on progressing the defence growth deal for Wales, which will help prove that defence is an engine for growth right across Wales.
Henry Tufnell
I welcome the Government’s increased investment in the defence sector in Pembrokeshire; it represents a real opportunity for businesses and the local community, with good, well-paid jobs and strong local supply chains all strengthening our national security. Can the Minister set out what engagement he has had with the local supply chain, as well as any discussions regarding the new munitions and energetics factory in Milford Haven?
Luke Pollard
Since I met my hon. Friend, we have been discussing how we can not only roll out faster the new munitions factories that the Government have committed to deliver but support growth in skills, and our £182 million for skills in the defence industrial strategy includes skills funding for Wales. The defence growth deal provides the opportunity to uplift skills for defence right across Wales, and I am happy to continue our conversations on how that can benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Pembrokeshire.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
As the strategic defence review sets out, the High North is becoming more important to the UK and our NATO allies, as it becomes more accessible through climate change. We have Royal Navy deployments in the High North and Royal Marines undertaking cold weather training in Norway, as well as Ranger exercises in Sweden and Finland. We will continue to step up on Arctic security alongside our NATO and JEF allies.
Mr Carmichael
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your words about the late Lord Wallace of Tankerness? Jim Wallace was not just my predecessor in this House; he was a friend and, in fact, my London flatmate for many years. I am sure that his family and all those who mourn his passing, especially in the Northern Isles, will appreciate your acknowledgment of his contribution. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Through the years of the cold war, the RAF radar station at Saxa Vord in Unst was the frontline of our nation’s defences to the north. That was drawn down 20 years ago, and it is now home to the Shetland spaceport. We have seen the recent activities of the Russian tanker Yantar and the interception of the Bella 1. With space being identified as a priority in the strategic defence review, will the Government now reassess the significance of Shetland and its waters as we look to the developing situation in the far north?
John Healey
We deeply value the role that Shetland—and Scotland in general—plays to reinforce the security of the United Kingdom. That is demonstrated by the fact that there are 9,500 full-time troops in Scotland; the fact that there are around 3,000 civilian defence personnel based in Scotland; and the fact that, as a Government, in the last year we put over £2 billion into the Scottish economy to support defence and the role that Scotland plays in general. It is not only part of keeping this country safer but of defence driving economic growth throughout the UK.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Along with that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my constituency has an obvious interest in the High North and the defence of the western approaches. I welcome the £40 million investment in anti-submarine sonobuoys and the Atlantic Bastion operation’s defence of our subsea cables, but can the Minister give us a similar assurance on the integrity of cables and communications between our islands across the Pentland Firth, the Minch, the Irish sea and even the Isle of Wight?
John Healey
My hon. Friend quite rightly points to a growing level of Russian activity in particular that monitors and potentially threatens our critical undersea infrastructure. He will see the way in which we have demonstrated that we see, understand and track those Russian threats. We are working, particularly together with JEF allies, to deal with those threats, and we will step that up further in the months ahead.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The US remains the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and our co-operation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as any anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment. As close friends, we are not afraid to have difficult conversations when we need to. Friends turn up for each other, as we did for the US in Afghanistan, and friends are also honest with each other, as the Prime Minister has set out.
Ayoub Khan
Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider diverting defence spending away from programmes that do not truly protect the British people? Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts. Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades. As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In Bury St Edmunds, we have many US servicemen from Lakenheath who are living off-base. They are a huge asset and greatly welcome. Does the Minister agree that the US remains our most essential ally, and will he join me in expressing gratitude for the service of those brave US servicemen and women, who are so important for our security?
Luke Pollard
There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?
Luke Pollard
I am sorry that the shadow Minister missed my concluding remarks at the end of the Opposition day debate on the subject last week. Not once did he say why his Government started that deal; nor did he give details of the preparatory work that his Government were supposed to do to answer his own question. This deal secures the future of that UK-US base. We will continue working closely with our American allies to progress the deal, and will continue those conversations, but I am afraid that all the shadow Minister is asking for is more uncertainty. We are securing the future of that base; he is just talking it down.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We entered negotiations on SAFE participation in good faith; however, no agreement was possible that met our national interests. We will continue to explore co-operation with the EU and its member states that strengthens European security and underpins our NATO-first policy. We are pleased that the Government have been able to conclude new defence partnerships with our European partners, including France and Germany.
Max Wilkinson
Does this not go back to the key problem that faces us as a nation, which is the failed Brexit bestowed upon us by the previous Government and their friends in the Reform party? Ministers have my sympathy as they try to unpick this mess, but they are going too slowly. Brexit is clearly the biggest barrier to us participating in this scheme. Is it not now obvious that our best economic interests and our national security are best served by a more rapid reintegration with the European Union?
Luke Pollard
The biggest security threat facing the United Kingdom is Russia. We are responding to that by deepening our alliances right across the NATO alliance, especially with our European friends, and we will continue to do so. We were not able to conclude the SAFE negotiations in a manner consistent with the objectives we set when we started that work, but we will continue to work with our European friends, because they are also our NATO allies. Their security is our security, and we take that very seriously.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Building European strategic autonomy is vital to deterring Putin from making further attacks on us, but that is completely undermined by attacks on NATO—the bedrock of our security—by the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that when our alliances are undermined for superficial political gain, the Green party is, in essence, doing the work of Putin?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?
Luke Pollard
I, too, want a closer defence partnership with Europe. That is why we set that out in the Prime Minister’s announcement on the EU reset. We will continue working closely with not just the European Union, but European Union member states, the majority of which are NATO members. That will support their security. We are an important player on the international defence scene, and it is important that UK businesses are able to access markets, not just for the purposes of economic growth, but because that keeps European Union member states safe.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans across this country are benefiting from record levels of investment. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans as a vital national asset; there is £50 million for Operation Valour, and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme, alongside Operations Courage, Restore, Fortitude, Ascend and Nova. We are committed to ensuring that our veterans can easily access the support that they deserve when and where they need it.
Catherine Fookes
Veterans in my constituency benefit from the stellar Monmouthshire veterans support hub in Abergavenny. Such organisations, and the volunteers who keep them running, are invaluable to our communities. We also have excellent branches of the Royal British Legion, and a veterans-informed GP service in Monmouth. As the Government’s Valour programme gets under way, will the Secretary of State accompany me when I next visit the Monmouthshire veterans hub, not only to sample its brilliant breakfast fry-up, but to see brilliant examples of what can be achieved by these support hubs?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is truly wonderful to hear about the great work being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency to support veterans. Far be it from me to get between the Secretary of State and a fry-up, but if I can, I may take his place on a visit.
John Whitby
What assessment has the Minister made of the adequacy of housing provision for military veterans, particularly those with service-related injuries or disabilities, in rural areas such as Derbyshire Dales, where there is severe pressure on our affordable and supported housing stock?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Those veterans who choose to resettle in rural areas may face additional challenges in accessing the services that they deserve. This Government are committed to reducing veterans’ homelessness, and I note the £12 million that we have spent to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I wish the hon. and gallant Member a happy birthday.
Protecting the moral component of fighting power is a duty on those of us who have the huge privilege of serving as Ministers in this Government. I am sure that every officer will know that they have a role to play as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales has said that support for veterans to tackle
“substance abuse, mental health crisis and residential services do not exist within NHS Wales as they do in NHS England”.
What steps is the Minister taking to work with the commissioner and the Welsh Government to improve access to essential services? Will she encourage veterans to attend my event in Caernarfon on Sunday, which will bring together a host of key support organisations?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I echo what the right hon. Lady says in promoting her event; she is doing an excellent job. Of course, my commitment is to veterans across the entire nation. We must do what we can, where we can, to ensure that veterans, wherever they are, can access the support that they need. Some of the matters that the right hon. Lady referred to are devolved, but of course work I with all my counterparts across the devolved Administrations to deliver.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres.
More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions:
“If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”?
What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Apologies. The right hon. Member played a pivotal role in the previous Government’s disastrous record on looking after the armed forces, overseeing the horrendous decline in accommodation and real-terms cuts to military pay, and hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces, so I know he is not a details man. I gently remind him that the Prime Minister did not work with that individual or with any organisation, and his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. The Prime Minister actually has a record of representing people who were wrongfully accused or killed on operations.
Mr Francois
Let us try this for detail. Why should any British soldier, past or present, or those who commanded them, owe loyalty to a Labour Government who contain an Attorney General who once willingly represented Gerry Adams, or to a Prime Minister who once wrote a legal treatise on how best to prosecute them under the European convention on human rights? Why, before he was elected to Parliament, did our Prime Minister agree to take formal legal instructions from Phil Shiner, a man hated throughout the British Army for his years of false claims against veterans, for which he was convicted as a fraudster and struck off? What kind of politicians support our soldiers by helping to sue them?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is well known in the House that the Prime Minister was a human rights lawyer, so obviously he wrote in connection with that. What really stands as a testament to the Prime Minister’s support for veterans is the fact that this Government are delivering record spending for veterans and rolling out £50 million for valour hubs. I think that speaks for itself.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have paused the declaration of IOC for Ajax until the investigations of safety incidents have concluded. Let me be clear: I want the Ministry of Defence and our forces to be bold, to innovate and to challenge, but they must never compromise on safety. We are preparing a recommendation on the next steps on Ajax, and I will keep the House informed, as I have since Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November last year.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in this topic. There were 33 injuries sustained during Exercise Titan Storm. General Dynamics achieved initial operating capability for Ajax on 23 July, and between then and Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November, there were three other exercises: Exercise Scorpion Cyclone, Exercise Cyclone Storm and Exercise Tradewind. I asked the Minister a written question last year about how many injuries were sustained, but I am yet to receive a response. How many noise and vibration injuries were sustained on those three exercises? Will he confirm whether there were any injuries prior to his signing off IOC on 5 November?
Luke Pollard
It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman, the Member of Parliament who tables the most parliamentary questions to the MOD, keeps track of all his questions. I am certain that I have replied to that one, but will check when I get back to the Department, and make sure that he has the reply. We are looking at all the incidents from Titan Storm, at previous suggestions of incidents, and at potential injuries. The injuries under the last Government were well documented, but we have instigated a number of investigations to get to the bottom of what happened, and why that information did not flow to Ministers ahead of the IOC declaration. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. The strategy is backed by a record £9 billion investment over a decade. That work will be driven by the Defence Housing Service. We have already rapidly improved military homes by delivering our charter commitments, including transforming 1,000 of the very worst homes.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the new publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which is already improving conditions for service families by bringing 4,688 of the 5,088 military homes in the eastern region back into public ownership for upgrade and renewal. Does the Minister agree that we must continue investing in our armed forces—the backbone of our national security—and that after years of neglect under the last Government, Labour’s £9 billion military housing strategy is finally delivering the homes and support that our service families deserve?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out that under the previous Government, forces families were severely let down on housing. Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will, as he rightly notes, be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is massive improvement in forces housing, but there is a site at Ballykinler that has been lying vacant for, I understand, five years. It is heated, and it has new windows. There has been lots of work done. I have written to the MOD, asking whether it is possible for properties that are not being used to be used for another purpose. For instance, they could be used for youth camps, for youth groups or for social housing, because this site in Ballykinler is secure. The Minister may not be able to answer that question now, but I would very much appreciate an answer on that.
Louise Sandher-Jones
As the hon. Member will be aware, I cannot provide an update on that specific instance now, but I will get an answer for him. We are exploring how we can make best use of the existing estate.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government are already making the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war; we plan to hit 2.6% of GDP being spent on defence in April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament.
David Chadwick
Britain faces a once-in-a-generation threat to our national security, as Putin’s war continues in Europe and uncertainty grows about the future reliability of the United States. Will the Secretary of State therefore take up the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that we issue time-limited defence bonds? That would allow the public to invest directly in modernising our armed forces, raise billions for new equipment, and ensure strong parliamentary oversight of how the money is spent.
John Healey
I note the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and his party are now making, but it was just in autumn 2024 that the Lib Dems were calling for this Government to set a pathway to 2.5%. We went further than that, with the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, three years before he was calling for it. We have a plan to hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Munira Wilson
I appreciate what the Defence Secretary has just said, but with President Trump attempting to tear apart the international alliances that have kept us safe for decades, and with Putin waging war in Ukraine for almost four years, the world is changing fast. We need to come together as patriots to decide how we can best invest in the defence of our country as quickly as possible. Can I press him again to convene cross-party talks on how we can reach 3% of GDP on defence quickly, and will he ensure that defence bonds are part of the solution?
John Healey
In the first instance, I would welcome support from the hon. Lady and her party for the fact that in this Parliament, we will invest £270 billion in defence to keep Britain safe and our alliances secure for generations to come. This is a Government who are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans of Operation Banner, like all veterans, are benefiting from record levels of investment by this Government. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans with £50 million for Operation Valour and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme.
Joy Morrissey
Today was my brother’s birthday. He was a veteran who died at age 36, and he would be proud that today I am talking about the 250,000 veterans of Operation Banner. Those veterans put their lives at risk to fight to keep us safe and free and they deserve our support, so will the Minister explain why the Government no longer believe those veterans deserve to be protected from more years of lawfare?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I note the service of the hon. Lady’s brother. As she well knows, this Government are bringing in real protections for veterans, and if she wishes to support legislation that gives blanket immunity to terrorists, that is of course her prerogative.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
To deter and defeat aggression, this Government are investing in innovation in the latest capabilities for our forces. R&D is critical to maximising defence ability to be an engine for growth. It is this Government who have ensured that 10% of our equipment plan must be spent on novel technologies, and we have introduced a £400 million defence innovation fund.
Bobby Dean
The Minister will know that investment in defence R&D has tremendous impacts on the UK economy, not only through jobs and crowding in private investment, but through the spill-over effects of new technologies helping Britain to prosper. Is it therefore not clear that if the Government were to issue defence hypothecated bonds, that would make a brilliant return for the British taxpayer too?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that defence innovation has considerable positive spill-over effects for the wider economy. That is one of the reasons why this Government are investing in technologies that have dual use potential—not just to give our fighting forces the equipment they need but to provide benefits for the wider economy. He will have heard what the Secretary of State set out on defence spending, but I welcome his support for defence innovation and investment in R&D.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
For the past few months, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and I have been campaigning for a new drone centre to be designated at the Dorset Innovation Park. The park already hosts a strong defence ecosystem for testing, developing and researching drone technology. Alongside this, the county has a well-established network of colleges and universities, in Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth, offering the skills we need to make this a success. With all this in mind, will the Minister continue to work with me and all relevant stakeholders to establish a drone centre at the Dorset Innovation Park, which I know will help to strengthen national security and, of course, secure good jobs?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow west country MP, I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition and determination to see more of those innovative technologies—autonomy, drones and other types of novel technologies—creating good jobs in his community. He has been speaking not only to me but to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who leads on drones, and I wish the businesses in his constituency and the wider region the very best as they innovate to provide our armed forces with the kit they need.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
This Government have stepped up our support for naval shipbuilding. We have secured the largest shipbuilding export in British history, with the Type 26 being sold to Norway; we have invested in strategically important infrastructure; and we are driving naval programmes in UK shipyards. The shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will set out our future ambitions to support the naval and civilian shipbuilding and maritime technology sectors.
Mr Quigley
Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine in my constituency do fantastic work and they thoroughly welcome the launch of the new dedicated unit to help ensure that small defence companies can access Ministry of Defence contracts. However, given the recent news that a £200 million contract has been awarded to the Dutch firm Damen, what assurances can the Minister offer to companies such as Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine that they will have a fair and credible route into competing for these major programmes?
Luke Pollard
Serco has indeed awarded a contract to Damen as part of its provision of tugs for the UK military. We have set out clearly our intention that more of our rising defence Budget should be spent with British companies, supporting the construction of more naval assets in British shipyards. We will continue to do that, not just through supporting the Type 26s and Type 31s being built in Scottish shipyards but, as we move to a hybrid Navy, through more platforms being built in shipyards right across the United Kingdom.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
We could invest better in naval shipbuilding if the Government paid attention to a report published by the National Audit Office, which estimates that £1.5 billion a year of defence spending is lost to fraud and that the Ministry of Defence recovers only 48p in every £1 spent on counter-fraud work, less than other Departments. What will the Minister do to ensure that more of that funding can be recovered for our national defence?
Luke Pollard
Let us be absolutely clear: any money lost to fraud is money that people have taken away from our national security and our national defences, and that is unacceptable. The Department is looking at how we can continuously improve our anti-fraud measures, and we will continue to do so. As we roll out increased defence spending, it is even more important that we spend the money wisely.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent—only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of the UK’s nuclear weapons, even if they are deployed as part of a wider NATO response—and £15 billion is being invested in the sovereign warhead programme over the course of this Parliament.
Cameron Thomas
If the Government want to make inroads into the EU Security Action for Europe fund via Emmanuel Macron, they could do worse than recognise the foresight of Charles de Gaulle, whose suspicion of the United States has been fully vindicated by Washington’s national security strategy. The French nuclear deterrent is the only truly independent nuclear deterrent. What steps are the Government taking to minimise the UK’s reliance on the US for nuclear deterrent servicing?
Luke Pollard
Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent. It supports thousands of jobs up and down the country. We will continue to invest in the skills and technologies required to keep our continuous nuclear deterrent at sea. We will continue to invest in that sovereign capability, but we will also continue to participate across defence programmes with our partners, both in the United States and in Europe.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Armed forces families play a vital part in supporting members of our armed forces and helping them to perform their role of defending our national security. Our ambition is for our Valour hubs to support not only veterans but members of our wider armed forces communities, including families.
Sarah Smith
Another important factor in support for our brave troops is the provision of military clothing. The previous Conservative Government tied us into a contract whereby about 90% of Army clothing is secured through overseas suppliers, and a significant amount is secured from China. In my constituency of Hyndburn, the home of textiles, many businesses are eager to meet the needs of our British troops. Will the Minister review this and look into whether British companies can meet those British needs?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the Minister weave in the subject of the main question, which is about families rather than the supply of garments? Good luck.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I know that armed forces families will be very concerned about the kits that their loved ones are wearing. I hope that the majority of our clothing is sourced from British companies, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issue in more depth.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is over a year since I raised the subject of the 5,700 women who were wrongly and unfairly dismissed from the armed forces for falling pregnant while in service. Will the Minister please update me on what she has done in that time to ensure that they get their caps and berets back? They absolutely deserve that, because we should be supporting those in the armed forces who want to have families.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Lady is right to raise that important point. I have received updates from officials, and I will push for a further timeline on which to update her.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This month marks four years since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people continue to fight with huge defiance and courage, recently retaking parts of the city of Kupiansk, striking military targets deep in Russia, and reporting a Russian casualty rate of 25 to 1 in some parts of the frontline. Putin is increasingly under pressure. He has thrown 17,000 North Korean troops into the fight, and has recruited thousands more from Africa and other nations. Four years on, the Ukrainian courage will be matched by our UK determination. Next week I will travel to NATO and will co-chair the 33rd meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, where 50 nations will step up the provision of military aid and support to keep the Ukrainians in the fight.
Rebecca Smith
Ministers stress how keen they are to remove obstacles hampering defence innovation, and nowhere is that more important than in my South West Devon constituency, which is home to the majority of Plymouth’s national centre for marine autonomy. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has spent the past 12 months or more looking into how to remove licensing obstacles for autonomous vessels such as underwater drones. Given that Plymouth’s marine autonomy sector is set to receive a share of the £250 million defence growth deal, will the Secretary of State commit to putting further pressure on the Government Legal Service—or whoever else it will take—to get the legislation in place to update the MCA’s workboat code 3 as a matter of urgency?
John Healey
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The doubling in this Parliament of our investment into autonomy will be directed in significant part towards marine technology. Her part of the world—the south-west—plays a leading role in that. She urges action across Government, so I hope she will see that the shipbuilding and marine autonomy plan that we will publish shortly will show exactly what we are doing on a number of fronts.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants
“unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have read it to the hon. Gentleman three times. Do I have to read it to him a fourth time for him to start understanding this? No wonder the Conservatives do not want to admit that they started the negotiations over Diego Garcia. They do not want anyone knowing that because they are clearly not prepared for it, unlike this Government, who are securing that base.
James Cartlidge
It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling
“the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I am not going to read it to him a fifth time—my God! The hon. Member is not being serious. He also knows, as a former Defence Minister, that we do not comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, but I am happy to read it to him again any time he wants, so that he can note the word “weapons” in there.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for Lancashire—I am fully behind her on that—but do it quickly. Go on, Minister.
John Healey
Mr Speaker, you above all people will recognise the importance of the contract we let to Leonardo 10 days ago, worth £450 million, to upgrade British Typhoon radars. As my hon. Friend will understand, those radars will be a big part of how we sell Typhoons, which will be made and assembled in Lancashire, to other nations such as Turkey.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Luke Pollard
As the Secretary of State set out earlier, we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. We are continuing to speak to our colleagues in Leonardo, not just about NMH but about how we are investing in Leonardo’s services nationwide.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Many injured service personnel face prolonged recovery journeys, and access to specialist rehabilitation is crucial. How is the Department expanding the role of allied health professionals in the Defence Medical Services to strengthen rehabilitation and provide joined-up care from injury to recovery?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Allied health professionals play a crucial role in supporting the treatment and rehabilitation of armed forces personnel in the UK and on operations.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
John Healey
I take that as an early indication that the hon. Lady might want to serve on the Bill Committee, in which case we welcome her stepping forward. I think she will recognise that the legislative framework, which allows us to take action to bring down malign and menacing drones over UK defence sites and defence bases, is long overdue. I look forward to her support in introducing that.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The ongoing threat to our nation’s security from grey zone activity illustrates the importance of international associations and alliances, such as NATO. Does the Minister share my concern at what the leader of the Green party said yesterday? In the same sentence, he said that he would both leave and reform NATO. Does that not show how unserious he is?
Luke Pollard
We live in incredibly uncertain and difficult times, so the clarity and strength of our commitment to NATO matters. Labour is the party of NATO; we helped found it. We will continue to support it and to support NATO allies, because the strength of NATO is the UK’s strength as well. We are going to continue to have a NATO-first approach.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, for the first time, we have in place a security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union. That is part of our stepping up our willingness to work with the European Union. He knows that the SAFE negotiations did not come to a successful conclusion. That was quite simply because it was not in the interests of the British taxpayer and the British defence industry. We will do a great deal more to support the wider security of the European Union and European nations through NATO.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Intensifying security competition in the Arctic necessitates enhanced co-operation with our regional allies. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to invite Canada to join the Joint Expeditionary Force?
John Healey
The 10 JEF nations, led by the UK—JEF was established by the previous Government—have stepped up their leadership, with support from Members on both sides of the House. JEF is an important part of NATO and allows us to act ahead of unanimity in NATO. From critical infrastructure to exercising in the High North, JEF has led the way and will continue to do so.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Louise Sandher-Jones
Just last week, we launched the single living accommodation review, which is designed to get at exactly these issues to ensure that our serving personnel have the accommodation they deserve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Following President Trump’s insulting remarks about our hard-working British personnel, a constituent of mine contacted me saying he was very happy to hear the Prime Minister condemn those remarks. His eldest son has retired from the Army following injuries and his youngest son is a medic in the Army. My constituent is here in the Public Gallery today. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to our hard-working servicemen and women and to all our veterans, and recommit this Government to supporting and protecting our hard-working servicemen?
John Healey
I can, indeed; I welcome my hon. Friend’s constituent in the Gallery today. This Government are on the side of those who serve and on the side of those families who support those who serve.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for her interest. It is precisely for those reasons that we established the Armed Forces Commissioner, an independent champion for our armed forces and their families. That legislation has now become law, and the recruitment process will conclude shortly.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Our servicewomen are currently not as well protected by in-service body armour, which is designed around male body types, providing inadequate ballistic protection. With testing of female body armour now under way, will the Minister commend the work of NP Aerospace in improving women’s safety, and commit the MOD to continuing to cultivate vital UK sovereign capabilities such as this?
Luke Pollard
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been leading the charge for female body armour. NP Aerospace is doing a superb job on this, and I know she will be bringing female body armour to Parliament so we can all see that this can be delivered. We have a strong commitment to investigate—and to support our female serving personnel through—better body armour, and I look forward to working with her to deliver that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Luke Pollard
The defence readiness Bill was set out in the strategic defence review. We are looking across Government at how we can bolster readiness measures—not just legislative ones, but policy changes, removing stupid rules and spending more. We are looking to implement the defence readiness Bill later in this Parliament. The Armed Forces Bill is now before the House, and that is our immediate focus.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Taskforce Kindred has been a fantastic success of this Government. Can the Secretary of State outline if there are plans to extend the programme and how defence SMEs can get on board with it?
John Healey
I can, indeed. Taskforce Kindred has been at the heart of the UK’s rapid response and our reliability as Ukraine’s closest ally since Putin first invaded Ukraine nearly four years back. It will continue to play a central role in the future, and it has lessons for the procurement and provision of our own kit and systems for our forces.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a base closure programme from the Conservative Government, with announcements of closures right across the country. We are looking carefully at the bases we have, at how we can use them for military needs, and, where we can dispose of them, at how we can ensure that we build houses for our armed forces and veterans on that land.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?
John Healey
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks before the House this afternoon —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had enough of trying to continue this debate—it now ends.
China and Japan
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on my visit last week to China and Japan, where we delivered for the British people.
With events overseas directly impacting on our security and the cost of living, I made it a founding principle of this Government that, after years of isolationism, Britain would face outwards once again. This was an 18-month strategy to rebuild our standing and we have delivered: strengthening our US relationship with our world-first trade deal; resetting our relationship with the EU; striking a groundbreaking free trade agreement with India; and now, thawing our ties with China to put this relationship on a more stable footing for the long term.
China is the second biggest economy in the world. Including Hong Kong, it is our third biggest trading partner, supporting 370,000 British jobs. It is also an undeniable presence in global affairs. It would be impossible to safeguard our national interests without engaging with this geopolitical reality. Yet we inherited a policy from the previous Government not of engagement with China, but of hiding away and sticking their heads in the sand. While our allies developed a more sophisticated approach, they let the UK fall behind. We became an outlier. Of my three predecessors, none held a single meeting with President Xi. For eight years, no British Prime Minister visited China—eight years of missed opportunities. Meanwhile over that period, President Macron visited China three times, German leaders four times, the Canadian Prime Minister was there a few weeks ago, and Chancellor Merz and President Trump are both due to visit shortly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.
The Prime Minister
In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.
Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.
I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.
I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.
I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.
I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.
My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.
We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.
In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.
We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.
I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.
This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous Government of isolationism—the same Conservative Government who—[Interruption.] The Business and Trade Secretary is laughing, but let me tell him this. That same Conservative Government led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine and signed the vital strategic alliance of AUKUS—[Interruption.] The Business Secretary asks how many free trade agreements we did. We signed Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal—the CPTPP—bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. I know about that deal because I signed it myself.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to collaborate more with our long-standing ally Japan, but let me turn to China. Of course Britain should engage with China. Even though the Chancellor was not allowed to go, even though it is an authoritarian state that seeks to undermine our interest, even though it spies on us—sometimes within the walls of this building—and even though it funds regimes around the world that are hostile to our country, China is a fact of life, a global power and an economic reality. Let me be clear: it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach.
I am sure that the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister had even got on the plane, he had already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China. China, however, uses every interaction to improve its own position. The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip—in fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life.
Apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase—which I hope he has checked for bugs—the Prime Minister has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scotch whisky, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to speak to the whisky industry, as I did two weeks ago, he would know that what it really needs is cheaper energy and lower taxes. The Prime Minister also got us visa-free travel, but China already offers that to other countries. It is not big enough for a prime ministerial visit.
The worst thing was the Prime Minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four Conservative MPs, as if he had done us a favour. Let me tell him this: those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses, and they stood up against a country that is spying on our MPs in a way that the Prime Minister would not dare to do. Those Members do not want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can the British Prime Minister not see that?
I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House that, like with the Chagos islands, the Prime Minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the centre of London—a ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world. His entire economic policy is to tax businesses more, regulate them harder and make energy so expensive that we deindustrialise, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles—all manufactured in a country that builds a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to the Chinese about that?
What did the Prime Minister’s trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? It does not sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Has China agreed to stop its relentless cyber-attacks? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength, and Britain was pushed around, literally. It is no wonder that President Xi praised the Labour party; the Conservatives stood up for Britain—we do not get pushed around.
Britain is a great trading nation. Of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Kyle, you said to me when you were going to China how well you would behave and how you owe me a big thank you. You are not showing it today!
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.
As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.
The Prime Minister
Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.
The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.
The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?
Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.
The Prime Minister
I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.
Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.
The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.
Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?
The Prime Minister
I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important programme. He will be pleased to know I did discuss it with the Prime Minister in Japan, and we will be publishing our defence investment plan shortly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China all those years ago, and you have been very clear that we stand as one in this House. Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this House, but not the one who is not, nor the lawyers, advisers and academics who support the work of this House? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, and an attempt to divide and conquer that we have seen China play against the European Parliament and that, sadly, has tricked our Government too?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this point—I know how much it matters personally to him and to the others that he referenced. I raised this point directly, and the response was that restrictions do not apply to parliamentarians. I accept the challenge and the point that we need to go further, but that does not mean that what we have achieved should be put to one side. I accept that we must go further, and I will work with colleagues across the House to do so. In order to go further, we have to engage, and we have to engage at the leader level.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Can I thank the Prime Minister on his grown-up approach to the UK’s engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? Given that the Conservative party would not have even gone to China, does the Prime Minister agree that the choice is between a Labour Government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and a Tory party that prefers posturing and permanent failure in the channel?
The Prime Minister
Sixty per cent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China, so of course it is right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get this agreement on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines cannot make their way from China to the north coast of France.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I will have another try at the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in his original statement. Can the Prime Minister tell us what President Xi said about the case of Jimmy Lai, and what gave him confidence that we might see movement in the case soon? Can he also let us know what response he received on challenging the bounties put on the heads of dissidents here in the United Kingdom? Did he challenge the transnational repression that Hongkongers across the country fear? Is there any prospect of them being able to walk our streets without worrying about interference from the Chinese state?
The Prime Minister
As I have told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussions, save to say that we have subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai’s family about that. In relation to the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, including Hong Kong: yes, all those issues were raised.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit to us domestically, not least through the disruption of the supply chain for small boat engines. I just wonder, because it is not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal routes, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.
The Prime Minister
We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling. The focus was very much on the engines for small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China, and we need to stop that supply chain if we are going to deal with the crossings.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?
The Prime Minister
No, I did not deliver a written note. I engaged seriously on the issue, as the right hon. Member would have expected me to, and I went into the details of the case that I was making in the way that he would have expected me to.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, the journalist and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, was convicted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, and we have heard that he raised the issue on his visit. Jimmy Lai is now desperately unwell—his health is failing. I have heard what the Prime Minister has to say, and I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Jimmy’s family. Can the Prime Minister share with us his assessment of whether we will see Jimmy Lai free in 2026?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on behalf of her constituents. Yes, I raised this issue in detail and made it clear that we were calling for Jimmy Lai’s release, plus other details of his health and the situation he is being held in. I believe it is the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation—I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is apparently the policy of the Conservative party.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?
The Prime Minister
Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations, the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside it and that, within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU? What we got was a botched Brexit that isolated us from our European neighbours, and now the Tories want to extend that isolation to a global scale. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain would not be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbours and friends if we had adopted such an approach?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that period in our history, because of course, this was 2015 and 2016. The Conservative party had a manifesto in 2015 that dealt with the question of a referendum in relation to Brexit and also set out its position on China. I had a look at that very manifesto this morning; the Conservatives’ position was to
“strengthen our economic links with China”,
including seeking a free trade agreement. That used to be their position, then they veered to the other side of the road, and now they stick their head in the sand and pretend that they can influence events.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives’ position seems to be that if one has concerns in relation to China, the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a bag of sand and put your head in it. I do not think that is going to influence anything—nothing said here has any influence if you do not have a meeting.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on last week’s handsome wins, including on visas in China—I just wondered whether the same issue arose in Japan. I did a brilliant visit to the Japan London school in my seat the other day, but that school is finding the dogmatic visa changes made by the Conservative Government burdensome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that, and also praise the contribution of the Japanese in Acton, from sushi to bilingual education?
The Prime Minister
We had very productive meetings in Japan. Among the discussions was how we open up to more trade between our two economies.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister has said that this visit to China was good for British jobs. Having wrongly granted consent to the Chinese super-embassy, can he confirm that it will be built with brilliant British steel from Lincolnshire, as opposed to Chinese steel?
The Prime Minister
It was this Government who took the action on Scunthorpe to ensure we had British Steel at Scunthorpe—it is one of the proudest things I have done.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which faces into the world as it is. Des Browne, Baron Browne of Ladyton, is retiring from the other place after decades of distinguished public service as the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and the Defence Secretary and in his work on the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia new START treaty comes to an end. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Browne has made. I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?
The Prime Minister
This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he is acting in the best interests of all those living here. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry into transnational repression. In front of us, we had Chloe Cheung, a young Hongkonger from Leeds who had a $HK1 million bounty put on her head. She told us about how she had been intimidated and harassed. Did the Prime Minister speak up for all the Hongkongers in the UK who have had bounties on their heads and who have been intimidated and harassed? Will he ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
With respect to the statement following the Prime Minister’s visit to China and Japan, I thank him for being in the room and challenging China on its appalling human rights record and for fighting for British jobs. With respect to his visit to Japan, did the issue of Toyota come up? Toyota is a significant employer in Derbyshire and worth more than £5.5 billion to the local economy. Can we do more with Toyota, because it is really good for jobs here?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent engagement in Tokyo and the strengthening of our relations with Japan as a key economic and strategic partner. Will he explain how small and medium-sized enterprises in Portsmouth, particularly those in maritime and defence such as Griffon Marine, alongside the creative industries, will benefit from deeper UK-Japan co-operation? My 18-year-old son Archie Cole is a professional wrestler, currently competing on Tokyo TV in “Magic Monday”, so I know at first hand how international engagement can open doors for individuals and Portsmouth’s local businesses alike.
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s son on his achievements. On SMEs and businesses, yes, we discussed how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all our constituencies, including my hon. Friend’s.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not welcome. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. It is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country while also safeguarding our national security. That is what we are doing in a grown-up, mature way.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the anti-dumping measures that we impose on Chinese goods coming into this country protect hundreds of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, whether in the ceramic tableware manufacturing sector or in the retreading of tyres at the Michelin factory. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that as the economic work with China continues, those measures will not be junked? The anti-dumping measures are not abstract: they protect hundreds of jobs in the part of the country that most needs them.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that is the approach we have taken.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?
The Prime Minister
That issue was raised in both China and Japan, because it is obviously a cause of concern. Regional instability matters not just in the region but globally, so I discussed it in both China and Japan.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to protect parliamentarians and others in public life against foreign influence?
The Prime Minister
We have taken a number of measures, including the further powers and tools we have given to our security and intelligence services.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace. He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him.
We have established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who were not in the room in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
It will make a huge difference, which is why I discussed it with Volodymyr Zelensky before I went, in terms, and why I will discuss it with him again in the coming days, in terms.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on his trip, including his words in Japan about the value of the global combat air programme, which is not only strategically important for global security and autonomy, but important for businesses that have grown out of my constituency, including BAE Systems and QinetiQ. Will the Prime Minister highlight the work he is doing to ensure that this critical endeavour makes progress?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because Japan is a key colleague and partner when it comes to defence and security, which is why, across a range of issues, we discussed what more we can do, including on GCAP.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the Government’s support to date. Was he able to discuss Jingye’s ownership with his Chinese opposite number, and can he give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?
The Prime Minister
May I give this assurance to the hon. Member’s constituents? We absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the necessary measures, on a Saturday, as he knows, in relation to steel production in his constituency.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that many excellent west midlands businesses export to China, including great car makers such as Jaguar Land Rover, the Morgan Motor Company and Aston Martin. Collectively, those car exports are worth more than those from any other region in the UK, I would say. Can the Prime Minister outline how the results of his trip to China, including the agreement on 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit those businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported:
“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage”.
Was interference in UK universities raised with President Xi?
The Prime Minister
I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this House with President Xi, as the hon. Member would expect.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Growing our relationship with China could boost our motor manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister will know only too well that small businesses in this sector are the engine of economic growth in my constituency and right across the west midlands. Can he set out how his visit will help small businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
The Prime Minister
This issue is so important, in terms of the opportunities that we have. That is why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They are only too well aware of the great benefits that taking full advantage of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?
The Prime Minister
I have known Helena for many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many things, but not everything.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia’s illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores from Russia, as we know very well in Wales. Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that treacherous activity, and reassure me that he will continue to push China on that important point?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the shocking case of Nathan Gill. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Nathan Gill got 10 and a half years for taking bribes in relation to Russia. The leader of Reform is not even interested enough to start an investigation to see whether that is the extent—which it will not be—of Russian influence in his party.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I just want clarification on the Members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said:
“President Xi said to me that means all parliamentarians are free to travel to China”.
Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?
The Prime Minister
That is my understanding in relation to all parliamentarians. I accept that in relation to others, we need to see how much further we can go.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the security of this country is the Government’s first and foremost priority at all times?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. It is front and centre of everything we do, whenever we are acting on the world stage.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that this was a matter of discussion in Japan, and the defence investment plan will be published very soon.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Mark Carney rightly challenged fellow middle powers to stop “living within a lie”, and to recognise the changes in the geopolitical landscape, because comfortable assumptions about the international order are no longer true, and the system that we once benefited from cannot become the source of our subordination. It was therefore important to hear the Prime Minister’s firm commitment to GCAP in Japan. Does he agree that investment in programmes such as GCAP is essential if we are to address this geopolitical challenge?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the changes in the geopolitical landscape; we have approached our relationship to the US, Europe, India and China accordingly.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s discussions on what he somewhat mildly describes as “areas of difference”, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese-manufactured solar panels? If he did, can he assure us that, rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded that it stop?
The Prime Minister
We raised all the sensitive issues, and we did it in direct terms, and in the room. That, to my mind, is the right way to try to make progress on these very important issues.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It was a privilege to serve with Jim Wallace in Holyrood, and I associate myself with the tributes to him.
We have had trade deals with Europe, China and India worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Scottish businesses, and defence contracts that secure thousands of jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he will build on this success for Scotland? Does he agree that it is about time the Scottish Government showed the same ambition for Scottish businesses?
The Prime Minister
It is astonishing that the Scottish National party is simply not interested in the progress that we have made on the India trade deal, which is hugely beneficial to Scottish businesses, or in the halving of tariffs that comes into effect today in relation to China. Businesses in Scotland know exactly what that means to them, which is why they are celebrating. SNP Members cannot bring themselves to even welcome it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement for Scottish whisky, and for the apparently superior Bushmills whiskey from my constituency, but will the Prime Minister’s visit do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? We have 500 subsidised Chinese vehicles on the streets of our capital city, courtesy of Transport for London, whereas in Scotland and in my constituency, we build the highest-quality buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the Prime Minister is seeking to do?
The Prime Minister
I see that we have opened a whisky competition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: it is really important that we champion the building of buses and so much else in the United Kingdom. We have great examples of that, and we will always put the national interest first.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s report back from his visit to China and Japan. Previous Tory Governments refused to make such reports for many years. He says that the issues discussed included human rights, trade and security. I am particularly interested in what he had to say about the border security pact, because my constituents in Stevenage are very concerned about the small boats crisis. We already have international agreements with France and Germany, and this is a new one with China. How can I learn more about how this will work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to put this as one package, because what we are doing on small boats with China is looking at the source of the engines; what we are doing with Germany involves the transport of those parts through Europe; and what we are doing in France is working with the French to tackle the crossings.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we raised the issues of Hongkongers. [Interruption.] We raised the issues. I find the Conservatives’ position astonishing. They say that they take these issues seriously. They say that these issues are “of great concern”. They stay here and raise these issues, notwithstanding the fact that no one else is listening, and then they say, “This is so important to me, but the one thing I do not want you to do is go to China and have a discussion about it at the highest level.” It is a pathetic, unserious approach to foreign policy.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister may have noticed that the Japanese ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hiroshi Suzuki, was in Manchester recently, trying Boddingtons bitter. The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of brewing to my constituency, and perhaps, in celebration of these trade deals, he would like to encourage the ambassador to come and sample some of the best beer in the brewing capital of Burton-on-Trent.
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly encourage that, and I will take the first opportunity to do so.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am glad that the Prime Minister enjoys a dram as much as I do. For the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly, so he may wish to correct the record on that. However, I want to focus on an issue that is important to employment in my constituency: the Ardersier site, part of the Cromarty Green freeport, in which Mingyang has expressed a significant investment interest. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed, but a decision is long overdue. The issue has been with the Government for a long time, and there is investor jitteriness. The supply chain is vexed about this, and the issue is certainly not helping with the just transition. It is putting important job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be made either to let Mingyang get on with it or to move on to another opportunity?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to his constituents across Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made, and I will update the House as soon as I can.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop’s Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, so I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise the issue. Will he take this opportunity, for the benefit of my constituents, to set out the details of those discussions again? Will he also assure my constituents of this country’s commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here, and reassure them that this Government will listen carefully to their views in the Home Office’s consultation on earned settlement?
The Prime Minister
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance for those from Hong Kong, in his constituency and throughout the country, on the support that we will put in for them.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I explained in my report back to the House, the overarching approach that we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, may I say arigato gozaimasu to the Prime Minister for his visit? I hope that he had a sugoi time.
I think that all of us in the House are proud of the global combat air programme, which holds great opportunities not only for global, regional and UK security but for British jobs. The Prime Minister mentioned that Japan is already one of the main investors in the UK; does he share my hope that this programme, just like the Concorde programme with France all those years ago, will have knock-on benefits for British jobs and innovations in our economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his message over the weekend. Japan is a key NATO ally, is a member of the G7 and, of course, the coalition of the willing, and, as he rightly points out, has key investments in the United Kingdom. That is why we discussed all those matters, and the GCAP, when we were there.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?
The Prime Minister
Of course there are concerns; they are aired in this House. The difference between our parties is that our position is that the mature and serious thing to do is to have leader-to-leader discussions about them, engaging with the issues. The Conservatives’ approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put their head in it, and influence absolutely no one. It is so unserious. They will not be fit for government for many, many years to come.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister will know, many Japanese companies have their British home in my constituency of Bracknell, so I welcome his visit to Japan. Could he set out a little more about how we can further strengthen our relationship with our Japanese friends and allies, and what that will mean for my constituents?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?
The Prime Minister
We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his continued international leadership. I know, however, that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, so what difference will a productive relationship with the second-largest economy and our third-biggest trading partner make to businesses in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a champion for Harlow, and it has been so good to visit it so many times. We had 60 businesses in the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and for all the associated businesses—including in his constituency—that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?
The Prime Minister
We took appropriate precautions, as we do whichever country we visit.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Like the Prime Minister, I am a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. Could he set out to the House a little more about why he took so many creative arts and cultural organisations with him to China? Does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts, that they are good for trade, good for jobs and good for our young people in particular, and that the kind of visit he has been on will help with that, as will investment at home and abroad?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion in advance on the precise terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that, and I will talk to President Zelensky about this again in the coming days. We are working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want: a just and lasting peace.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome his successful trade missions to China and Japan. In particular, I am heartened by the strides made in Japanese co-operation. However, what steps forward remain in terms of the Chinese treatment of Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong and other religious minorities? Was the Prime Minister able to use diplomatic soft power to bring about the changes required to provide human rights protection, to stop religious persecution and to enable successful trade between the two nations?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these really important issues. I raised them myself during the course of the visit, and I thank him.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
As I know right hon. and hon. Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can get the justice that they have been denied for too long.
On Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved many—often powerful—people, who facilitated them by actively participating in those crimes, by failing to hear the victims’ voices, by equating wealth with integrity, and by not using their privileged position to speak out, even against a friend. It is incumbent on those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters rightly expect from us.
Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice are documents that highlight the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a Labour Member of Parliament and later a Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the Government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.
The nature of the documents has also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while a Minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, falls far below the standards expected of any Minister. His behaviour was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered. No Government Minister of any political party should have behaved or ever should behave in this way.
The Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Government Minister, and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labour party, having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action by the Labour party was under way prior to his resignation.
The Prime Minister believes, as do the Government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the Government do not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties—including the Conservatives, as the largest party in the House of Lords—to work with the Government to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better to update those procedures so that they apply to all Members of the House of Lords, instead of having to introduce complex hybrid Bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute.
I recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the Government will of course keep Members up to date. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.
So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the
“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”
That investigation never happened.
In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.
Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that
“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]
Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?
On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.
So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.
The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?
It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.
Darren Jones
The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.
On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given £50,000 by a notorious paedophile and that a few years later he sent on market-sensitive information to Epstein, who worked for JP Morgan, about market bail-outs. He told him about the Prime Minister’s resignation, said that they should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is a matter not of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords, but of whether the police should be involved.
Darren Jones
My right hon. Friend is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable, and cumulatively they are also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds and the passing on of Government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted paedophile, are wholly unconscionable. The House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, Ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be, via the recall petitions available to the House, removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police. As I have informed the House, the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into the released documents, as requested by the Prime Minister, is currently under way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right: we must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of Epstein and his network.
We must also ask what it was that first attracted the politician Peter Mandelson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why it was that that relationship continued after Epstein’s character was well known. At the very least, the forwarding of confidential Government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a Cabinet Minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption; regardless of the outcome of a Government investigation, millions of people up and down the country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.
Is it not time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to the House to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest, so will the Government work with the House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson’s entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government?
Darren Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He is right that it is time for the procedures in Parliament to be updated. While this House has taken steps in recent years to do so, the other place has not; as I said in my statement, the Government are today making an offer to the other place—to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords—to put forward proposals to do just that. If we need to make time available to do so, we will.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The key question here is: who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done so. It appears that questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson were not asked, or, if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that when this is investigated, those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully?
Darren Jones
The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—
Simon Hoare
And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.
Darren Jones
For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am a parent of young children, and I know that he will have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. The conversation here has so far rightly been dominated by the actions of the men. I ask the Chief Secretary seriously what he is doing to ensure that the victims—mostly children—of sexual violence and sexual assault will be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister.
Darren Jones
I am sure that there is not one Member of this House who does not agree with my hon. Friend about the level of disgust we feel in seeing the disclosures from the Epstein files. The House knows that the Government are taking forward radical proposals for tackling violence against women and girls. In respect of Jeffrey Epstein, we are doing all that we can to ensure that people who have information make it available to investigators.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein’s victims were not only women and girls but may have included young men?
Darren Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to entertain that hypothetical question at the Dispatch Box. We obviously hope that that is not the case, but, as I say, I am not here to speak for Peter Mandelson.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This is a disaster, and against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women for such a long time, it fills the House will horror.
I must agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); this House would be minded to bring forward legislation and to do so quickly. It would appear that Gordon Brown was very concerned in September 2025 that there had been a disclosure of information by Mandelson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial gain. He turns out to have been right. How is it that such an error could occur within government and that the information was not known? Can the Minister assure the House that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that, from this day on, there will be full engagement with the criminal authorities, because, as many Members have said already, the time has come for criminal prosecution?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. As I confirmed to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Secretary did respond to Gordon Brown’s request to search for documents in the Government archive in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan at the time. The review concluded that those documents did not exist in the Government archive. It is now evident from the release of documents by the US Department of Justice that the emails we have all seen account for what took place at the time. That is why the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing the archive again, not just in respect of that particular question but in the round during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister. The Cabinet Secretary will report to the Prime Minister as soon as he has been able to do that.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
With the cash for questions scandal or the recent sexual harassment cases in Westminster, the police were called by the Government, proactively. Why, in this case, are the Government conducting an inquiry without informing the Met police? If they are not conducting their own inquiry, will they get on with calling the police straightaway, because it is inevitably going to happen?
Darren Jones
As I have said, the Cabinet Secretary is currently looking at the Government archives to see what documents are available and will advise the Prime Minister accordingly. If the Government can be of assistance to any investigations in due course, they of course will be.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
There are many aspects of this that are hugely troubling, but I will focus on one: the passing on of highly sensitive information by a serving Cabinet Minister to third parties. Clearly, that could amount to misconduct in public office, and I hope that the police investigate it.
The papers reveal a very casual relationship with probity for Mandelson and his apparent willingness to share highly sensitive information with third parties. What concerns me in particular is that he has been in a very senior role in recent times. Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm whether he or anyone else serving in government in a ministerial or advisory capacity has discussed since in recent times—in the course of this Government—information of a similar nature that could have been used to benefit third parties?
Darren Jones
The information that became available over the preceding few days from the US Department of Justice is new information to the Government.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I echo the remarks made in the House this evening that it might be time for criminal proceedings to take place. When the Government have made such a totem of tackling violence against women and girls, it is important that they are seen to stand up for women and girls on this matter, and to encourage everyone mentioned in the files to co-operate with the American authorities and give any information they have to their inquiries.
Darren Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady, and the Government have called for anybody with information to do just that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, like all of us, will be horrified by the revelations regarding Peter Mandelson and the Epstein files, but they will also be shocked to know that the Government do not have the power to remove peerages. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely right to do whatever is necessary to modernise procedures to allow for the removal of peers and their peerages when they have bought the other place into disrepute?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why the Government have written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that that work is now started.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I do not understand why the Minister, whom I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though the Government did not know about the relationship and connection between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I cannot understand why the Minister is not standing at the Dispatch Box saying that this House will sit until whatever hour required to pass legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. I cannot understand why the Minister is acting like the Labour party has been proactive on this, when it has known for months about Peter Mandelson’s revelations and yet has allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. I cannot understand why half an hour ago the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologise for his decision making and lack of judgment and say that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a criminal investigation.
Darren Jones
Neither the Labour party nor the Government, or indeed this House or the right hon. Member, knew about the information that was made available by the US Department of Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the Government have acted accordingly. In respect of the previous decision of the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the Prime Minister was very clear with this House and, indeed, the public that he did so quickly, as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The Prime Minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the Prime Minister acted quickly and removed him from office.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States, given what was known. One would presume he passed some sort of security check or vetting. As well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s appointment, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reassure the House and the public on behalf of the Prime Minister that everyone in No. 10 who advocated for, or had influence in, securing Peter Mandelson’s appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, which is a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country?
Darren Jones
All due process was followed. As the Prime Minister made clear, it was clear that additional measures for political appointments needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the information that became available, both at the time the Prime Minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days, only became available to the Prime Minister and the Government at the same time as everybody else.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?
Darren Jones
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, whether it is Peter Mandelson, Michelle Mone or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute, there needs to be a process for removing peerages. The Government are making it very clear today that this should be conducted on a cross-party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place and our democracy in the future, as it relates to all peers. I encourage Members across this House, and in the other place, to make sure those proposals are brought forward swiftly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Mandelson’s behaviour fell well below the expected standard for a long time, but he was disgracefully allowed to resign very quietly, even though he was sacked as ambassador to the US last year—more action should have been taken last year. I ask the Chief Secretary to do everything he can to expedite legislation to remove all the privileges from this awful man as soon as possible.
Darren Jones
The Government stand ready to work with the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to update its procedures, and as I informed this House, we have written to them today to start that process. We hope to move as quickly as possible.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I want to focus on the victims—the children and young girls who were trafficked. Will the Government confirm that any UK-linked offences will be fully investigated, that all evidence will be acted upon, and that anyone implicated, whatever their status, will be pursued with the full force of the law to ensure that victims and survivors receive the justice and support they deserve?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is right that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be at the centre of all our attention. The Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigations that take place. As we have said repeatedly, anybody with any information should make themselves available to investigators, whether here or overseas.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Gloucester residents will rightly be angry and incredibly disgusted by the revelations in the papers released by the American Government over the weekend. It is in the interests of the whole House that we get this place in order so that those who commit heinous acts, who align themselves with people like Jeffrey Epstein, are no longer in this place, and so the public can have trust that we are acting in their best interests.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government will act at pace to ensure that that man is removed from the House of Lords? Will he update the House on the steps the Government have taken to improve the direct appointments process since Peter Mandelson was removed as ambassador?
Darren Jones
I share my hon. Friend’s disgust at what has taken place. As I have said, the House of Lords must update its procedures to ensure that there are consequences for the behaviour of Members who bring their House into disrepute. The House of Commons has been able to do that in recent years, and there is no reason why the other place should not. The Government stand ready to support the House of Lords in whichever way is necessary to make sure that is put into effect.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Appointing Peter Mandelson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the Prime Minister, given everything we knew about this man. Now we are told that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a Cabinet Minister and took tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace.
Has the Minister really come to the House to say that he does not intend to bring forward primary legislation to deal with this now but will write to the House of Lords to seek support for modernising its procedures in a few months’ time, and that he will not go proactively to the police to demand an investigation when Peter Mandelson has clearly broken the law and now stands accused of serious misconduct in public office and should be tried for his offences?
Darren Jones
As I have said repeatedly, the Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigation and encourage everybody to do so. We stand ready to introduce legislation at pace, if required, and to work with the House of Lords to update its procedures. We agree that that needs to happen, and that it needs to happen quickly.
I gently say that when the right hon. Member was a member of the Conservative party at the point Peter Mandelson was first appointed to the ambassadorship to the United States, the official Opposition did not object in any way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were utterly abhorrent, and our thoughts should always be with the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by him and his network. The revelations over the weekend were utterly disgusting. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Cabinet Secretary should undertake an immediate review of Peter Mandelson’s actions when he was a Government Minister, particularly in relation to the issue raised by the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of the potential and unacceptable disclosure of Government papers and information when this country was battling a global financial crisis?
Darren Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives to see what information is available for that time, not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan, as requested by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but, more broadly, during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister in the then Government.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?
Darren Jones
As I have repeatedly said, neither the Labour party nor this Government seek to defend Peter Mandelson, as the right hon. Lady implies. The Leader of the Opposition has herself called for Michelle Mone’s peerage to be removed. The point I make is that that cannot happen either, because the processes are not up to date in the House of Lords. It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all Members of the House of Lords in these circumstances, whether Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone, and we stand ready to do so.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for coming to Parliament at the first opportunity to address this issue. Epstein’s crimes were vile, and I cannot begin to imagine how these latest revelations must have compounded the pain for all the women and girls who were victims. Many in this House have already spoken powerfully about our collective alarm at the revelations in the last few days of Government information being passed to Epstein in 2009. I fully support the decision to have an investigation, but, for public trust, will the Chief Secretary reassure me that the Cabinet Secretary will be given everything he needs so that his investigation may move at pace?
Darren Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend and again reiterate that if any Minister were found to be forwarding Government information in that way, they would be quickly removed from post under the rules that we have today and could be made subject to a recall petition in their constituencies by the House authorities. In respect of the Cabinet Secretary’s work, officials from the propriety and ethics team and elsewhere in the Cabinet Office are of course supporting his investigations in reviewing what documents are available in the archive, because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he wishes the Cabinet Secretary to report back to him as a matter of urgency.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The files released on Friday are an horrific record of the relationships among the rich and the powerful, including Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and we have seen mention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and of course Peter Mandelson. It is horrific and, as other Members have mentioned, we must keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. We have heard the discussion of the email that Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein about business issues, and there was a second one in 2010 in which he gave a preview of the €500 billion bail-out that was imminent. In the light of that, will the Government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? Are they in discussions with the US Department of Justice about unredacted emails and, potentially, documents that have been withheld and not yet released, which detail the offending further? Will they also republish Peter Mandelson’s entries in the register of interests from his election in 1992 through to 2010?
Darren Jones
I think the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is a matter for the House, not the Government, but I am sure that the House authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. He asked a question about an investigation, and the answer is yes. Everybody—whether it is the Government, individuals involved or those with any knowledge—should co-operate with any investigation. As he said at the start of his question, if the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are at the heart of all our thinking, the answer has to be justice.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The latest information appears to show that Peter Mandelson, when he was a Minister, worked alongside one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles and conspired against the interests of the British people in pursuit of money, power and influence. That strengthens the case for a Hillsborough law to hold those in power properly to account. Under that law, Ministers who used their office to gain a benefit—financial, reputational or otherwise—or who caused detriment to others while knowing that their conduct was improper, would face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough.
Can I ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a simple question? Will the Government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what about Peter Mandelson, before and during his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his tireless campaigning on the Hillsborough law, and I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to bringing that legislation back to the House as soon as possible. In respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, and the Prime Minister’s decision to sack him when more information became available, the Prime Minister has spoken at length on that, both at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere in public.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Labour appointee Lord Mandelson has been a pivotal figure in the Prime Minister’s leadership project, and this is now a damage limitation exercise for the Government. There is deep irony in the fact that a Government can appoint people to the House of Lords, but cannot clear up their own mess. Why have the Government not referred this to the police? Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister admit that this is doing grave harm to the public’s confidence in the accountability of our democratic institutions?
Darren Jones
The Cabinet Secretary, as we speak, is reviewing the Government archives to see what documents we have available on the time when Peter Mandelson served as a Labour Minister. As I have informed the House, the documents released by the US Department of Justice in the preceding few days contained information new to the Government, and we will do all we can to both highlight the information we have and co-operate with any investigation that takes place.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that unless this legislation that we are talking about is brought through swiftly, we run the risk of diminishing any confidence that victims of serious sexual abuse and violence have in Ministers and people who make decisions and laws?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right that the public expect that if we break the law or the rules, there should be consequences. In this House, that is the case, but in the House of Lords, it is not. That is why the Government are encouraging the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to come forward with proposals to change that. If the Government are required to assist in any way, including by making time available in this House, we will.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
There are two issues here, one of which is the connection of a Member of the House of Lords to a convicted paedophile, but let us not forget that he is not the only recent Labour appointee who has been connected to a convicted paedophile; Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has also maintained a persistent connection with a convicted paedophile.
Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough to refer the matter to the Cabinet Secretary, and that the police should be called immediately? We are seeing misconduct in public office, and this goes all the way to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The possibility of the destruction of evidence and the obscuring of a future prosecution is now increasing, and that is being masked by the Government.
Darren Jones
I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the Government would seek to interfere in, or block, any investigation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives from the time in question, and as I have said, he will comply with any investigation that takes place. The right hon. Gentleman must know that accusing me or other parts of Government of misdemeanour in such a way is wholly unsatisfactory and—might I say—out of character.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. Mandelson surely has some sort of self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in The Times this afternoon that Mr Butler, the Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown, said that the memo containing highly sensitive market information allegedly leaked by Mandelson presented an unimaginable breach of trust. Does the Minister agree that this looks like political insider trading on a grand scale, and would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.
Darren Jones
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the Prime Minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister was not aware of that at the point of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, and Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the Prime Minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. On the hon. Lady’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, I will feed what she has said back to the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain what steps this Government have taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and survivors of sexual abuse and violence are heard by those in power?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows that the Government have committed to reducing violence against women and girls, and have recently brought forward a strategy, setting out how we will work across Government to do just that in the years ahead. Specifically on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we will continue to do all we can to support any investigations in order to ensure justice for those victims, and we encourage everybody with any information to do the same.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber, on behalf of my constituents who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed our most senior ambassador at all, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had been, yet the PM did not immediately sack him, and there still was not a full investigation of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Why is that investigation happening only now? The Prime Minister has stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life; how does the Minister square that promise to uphold standards with the delay in investigating this relationship?
Darren Jones
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been any undue delay in investigation. At the time of his appointment, Peter Mandelson gave the Prime Minister a commitment about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but it became evident when documents were released that the reality was different. Within a matter of days of the extent and depth of the relationship becoming clear, the Prime Minister sacked Peter Mandelson from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information has become available, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing what documents are available in the Government archive, and will of course comply with any investigation that may take place.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. His focus on the victims of these terrible crimes is absolutely right. The majority of us in this House, whatever colour rosette we wear, come here to represent our constituency, and I hope I show that I represent my constituency as well as I can, every single day. When we hear of an MP, or in this case a Government Minister, representing the interests of outside bodies—in this case, a vile paedophile —it is absolutely disgraceful, and very upsetting to those of us who come here for the right reasons. What will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister do, working with the PM, to ensure that we have a strengthened ministerial code, so that this can never happen again?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government, and specifically the Prime Minister, have already strengthened the ministerial code that we are all subject to in this House, and have made the ethics adviser independent. That gives the ethics adviser the authority to investigate Ministers freely, without requiring permission from the Prime Minister, in contrast to what happened under the previous Administration. That has already been shown to be effective; Ministers have had to stand down as a consequence of breaches of the ministerial code. It is right and proper that we have robust rules in this House for Ministers and Members, and it is about time that we had similar processes in the House of Lords.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Try as he might, the Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility in this latest scandal to engulf Peter Mandelson. Ordering a very limited investigation into Peter Mandelson’s activities is pretty meaningless. We need an investigation that is fully independent of Government and the Labour party, with the scope to investigate not just Mandelson, but those who put him in the House of Lords, those who promoted him to UK ambassador to the United States, and those who have done everything possible to protect him over several decades, despite his scandal-ridden career. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has acted at every stage with integrity. It is Peter Mandelson who has to be accountable for the actions of Peter Mandelson. To suggest that the Prime Minister should be responsible for the actions of Peter Mandelson is obviously wrong-headed. As I said in my statement, Peter Mandelson, who is no longer a member of the Labour party, should be accountable for his actions, and should account for them.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is disgraceful that the Government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords; it is entirely within their gift to do so. The public know that, and will be not only alarmed by the fact that the Government are not doing that, but questioning the motive for their delay. On what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the Government?
Darren Jones
As the hon. Lady knows from the discussion in the House today, it is not that we do not wish to take action in respect of Peter Mandelson; it is that we expect action to be taken that affects all Members of the House of Lords, including other peers who need to be removed from the Lords as a consequence of their behaviour. We stand ready to act swiftly on that, and have asked the House of Lords to bring forward proposals for doing just that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The revelations in the press that Peter Mandelson was, while Business Secretary, leaking confidential Government secrets to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein should be more than enough evidence to warrant his expulsion from the House of Lords, yet we hear that this will not happen through legislation. Sadly, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. While Labour has promised major Lords reform for over 100 years, time and again it has kicked the can down the road. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree with many in this House that rather than our desperately trying to reform an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords finally to be abolished?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member knows that the Government have stated and believe that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow that action to be taken by the House of Lords. We have written to the House of Lords authorities today to say that this work must begin, and the Government stand ready to support them on that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott’s jam jar was a crab, not a scorpion.
In our system, it is very unusual to appoint ambassadors and high commissioners from outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When they are appointed from outside the civil service, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage, as here, the appointer has to own it, because he made that decision—in this case, against advice. What does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our Prime Minister?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister’s judgment was made clear when, as soon as information that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson became available, he sacked him.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The actions of Peter Mandelson are a disgrace, and I support the proposals to remove him without delay, but he is not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. What are the Government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and any political, public or civic figure are fully investigated here? We should not just co-operate with US authorities but take action on all the crimes committed on our soil.
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady knows that it is not the Government who instigate criminal investigations. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to take those decisions independently of Ministers. Whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the Government have made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations and make any information available, to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s acts can see justice.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When the Prime Minister sacked Lord Mandelson as the American ambassador, Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and I pointed out to them that for the whole time he was our ambassador he had been subject to politically fatal kompromat, which left him open to leverage—as it finally played out. I said that if we had found out he was spying for Russia or China, we would be turning every single aspect of his time in office inside out, to find out the truth, and the Government said, “Well, he’s been sacked.” Does the Minister regret the fact that, following Mandelson’s sacking, the Government did not do the sort of due diligence and inquiries that might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice?
Darren Jones
To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the Government until they were released a number of days ago. As soon as they have become available, we have instigated processes in our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to the Government at the time and to comply with any investigations that may take place.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?
Darren Jones
As far as I am aware, no Member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice, or to the documents that were released at the time the Prime Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has previously been very clear to the House that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Minister indicated that Mandelson assured the Prime Minister that his relationship with Epstein was of a different nature. Can he explain what sort of relationship with a convicted paedophile would be acceptable in that role? Will the Prime Minister come back to the House to make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Mandelson’s conduct?
Darren Jones
The information that became available in September that led to the sacking of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States made it clear for the first time, to all of us and to the Prime Minister, that Peter Mandelson not only remained a friend of Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction but had actively mentored and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction and push back against it. That was one example —there is now a list of examples—of how the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, following Jeffrey Epstein’s conviction, was unacceptable. If the Prime Minister had known that at the time Peter Mandelson was being considered to be ambassador to the United States, he would not have appointed him, and as soon as the Prime Minister became aware of that information, he sacked him.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?
Darren Jones
As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is disturbing to read of Peter Mandelson’s role when holding high office in government. I just remind the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that Mr Mandelson was also the EU trade commissioner for five years. I believe that needs investigating, too, because how far does this go? It is my understanding that the latest releases may have made public the names of victims that had not previously been released. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please assure the House that any British victims who have been made public will have support and help to make their way through what could be a retraumatising experience, with press invasion and interference?
Darren Jones
I was not aware of that issue, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. If there are any British victims affected by the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, whether in relation to the latest publication of documents or otherwise, Government services stand ready to be of support to those victims and to ensure that they can seek justice.
Points of Order
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday 21 January, before my contribution to the debate on the Northern Ireland remedial order, I omitted to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That was an oversight, as it includes a declaration of a major contribution from Sir Michael Gooley in support of the campaign to protect military veterans from lawfare, for which I am the custodian. That was a mistake on my part, for which I obviously apologise to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He has now drawn the House’s attention to his relevant declaration in the register.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last month the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor paid a visit to my constituency without giving notice to me as the local Member. I would be grateful if you could provide me with advice on preventing such discourtesy and disrespect from taking place in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of that point of order. As the leaflet on courtesies makes clear, Members should inform colleagues in advance if they intend to visit another Member’s constituency. It is deeply discourteous to fail to do so.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the last debate carefully, and I wondered whether you could help me with a procedural question. Would it be orderly for the Government to bring forward legislation, as soon as they wished to do so, to relieve Peter Mandelson of his peerage?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. The introduction of legislation is a matter for the Government.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 9
Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Seema Malhotra
I am delighted that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill has returned to this House for the consideration of Lords amendments. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and for the constructive and collaborative approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I also place on the record my thanks to Baroness Chapman of Darlington for leading the Bill expertly through the other place. In today’s debate, we will seek to address the amendments made by the Government there, and I thank all those in that House who have been involved in debates on this Bill.
Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I remind the House that the passage of this Bill is a vital part of delivering the UK’s international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. It will strengthen the global framework for protecting biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, improve how we manage environmental impacts in those areas and help to ensure that the benefits arising from marine genetic resources are shared fairly.
I am pleased to inform the House that the BBNJ agreement entered into force on 17 January. Following Royal Assent, and subsequent secondary legislation to be passed in the coming months, the UK will ratify the agreement. We intend to play a leading role at the first conference of the parties, which will take place at some point before 16 January 2027.
Turning to the Lords amendments, the House is being asked to consider a package of 12, all of which were put forward by the Government. They relate to devolution and are designed to support effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement across the whole United Kingdom, while respecting the devolution settlements and ensuring that devolved Ministers are appropriately engaged, where devolved competence is affected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Part 2 of the Bill contains a specific exception for fishing, and the new regulations do not apply to the use of a UK craft for fishing if it is done under a valid licence under the Fisheries Act 2020. I have been contacted by some of the organisations back home in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that it is essential that the devolved Administrations enshrine this legislation and acknowledge that the fishing industry is reliant on the ability to continue to fish in all current areas? In other words, it is important that the Administrations, and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular, do what this Bill says. If the Assembly does not do that, Northern Ireland fishing organisations will find themselves at a disadvantage.
Seema Malhotra
It is indeed important that all our devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, abide by the agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his interest and his engagement in this important Bill.
I am grateful to all those we have been engaging with throughout the passage of this Bill. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we agreed at the Bill’s introduction that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland to varying extents by parts 2, 3 and 4. The Government have been in sustained discussions with both those devolved Governments to seek consent for the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lords amendments 1 and 4 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 5 provide the procedure for those powers.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As I understand it, the BBNJ deals primarily with matters in international waters, and of course the devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So as to broaden our understanding of the Bill, will the Minister tell me what type of regulations she anticipates the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the local Stormont Department—will be making in consequence of the Bill?
Seema Malhotra
Following ratification of the agreement, we will be participating in future discussions relating to its implementation. There will continue to be further conversations. The important point is that the work we have been doing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland reflects how our UK Government officials and devolved officials are already working together effectively in practice, including in relation to consultation and effective delivery, and I know that those conversations will continue.
Lords amendments 3 and 6 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before exercising powers in clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This duty does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that regulations need to be made urgently for the purposes of implementing emergency measures adopted under article 24.1 of the BBNJ agreement. This approach ensures that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made, enables them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Jim Shannon
I am asking these questions because they have been put to me by fishing organisations back home and I want to put them on record. The Bill enables the creation of internationally agreed marine protected areas in the high seas. If a Northern Ireland vessel were to operate in those international waters, it could face new restrictions on where it could fish, in order to protect vulnerable habitats and species such as sharks and whales. Does the Minister not agree that we need to ensure that MPAs are not created without input from the fishing industry—the sector itself, the fishing organisations and the fish producers—that its opinions carry weight and that this is not simply a tick-box exercise?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member continues to put on record his concerns. He will know that, as we move forward following ratification, we will continue to have detailed conversations. It is important that the rules and regulations are clear for all to operate by.
I was just referring to how we have been moving forward on the Bill to ensure that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and are able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so. We continue to work closely together to support the timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Lords amendment 7 inserts a new clause, after clause 17, that makes changes to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish Government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, Lords amendments 8 and 9 also limit the power in clause 18 to implementing only article 38 standards or guidelines, as a wider power is no longer required in the light of other changes that will be made directly through the Bill.
Lords amendments 10 and 11 ensure that clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords amendments 1 and 4. Instead, the procedures set out in Government amendments 2 and 5 respectively will apply.
Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25 so that the clause introduced by amendment 7 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regard to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended.
The Government’s objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlement and supports continued constructive collaboration with the devolved Governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords amendments to the House, and I urge Members to support them.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully.
We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation?
On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there?
The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio?
The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated?
It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA?
We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill, whose introduction last year involved a happy coincidence in fulfilling one of the Government’s commitments and satisfying one of the Committee’s recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the Government’s “Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss”, published last week, set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing, and the resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict and political instability are highly likely to threaten UK national security and prosperity. It is vital for the UK to take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss and climate change.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to multilateral co-operation on ocean governance and I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which will enable the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It is true to say that the initial indication of Government support for the agreement came from the last Government, although it was disappointing that over the 18 months or so that followed that commitment we never got the legislation back here. I am therefore pleased that the present Government have proceeded with this important measure.
The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, a third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. To date, however, there has been limited indication of the Government’s next steps regarding the five-year international climate finance budget that is due to commence in April. They have also failed so far to invest in the tropical forests forever facility and to leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, thus protecting forests in perpetuity.
Although the Minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international co-operation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK’s hard- earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action? Can she confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including funds for nature projects, in the next funding round?
I welcome this important Bill. This Government have acted where previous Governments merely talked about such action, and I look forward to them continuing in the same positive direction in respect of the other matters to which I have referred.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the Bill, and it is wonderful to hear support for it on both sides of the House.
The global ocean treaty is one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time. It is currently the world’s only viable pathway towards meeting the global 30 by 30 target of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The scale of the challenge is monumental. Right now, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected—less than one penny in the pound of the global ocean. That is the gap that the treaty begins to close.
The ocean underpins everything. It feeds billions of people, absorbs about a quarter of global carbon emissions, regulates our weather and supports livelihoods across the world. However, it is under extraordinary and growing pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution and climate change. I have seen those pressures at first hand. Rowing solo across three oceans, I saw both the beauty of the high seas and the damage that we are doing to them. Out there, beyond national borders, the ocean can also feel beyond human laws. The treaty is about bringing rules, responsibility and stewardship to those waters. It also discharges one of the commitments made to me by the Government during discussions about my private Member’s Bill, the Climate and Nature Bill, and for that I thank them.
While we Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, we regret the delay. The UK helped to negotiate this agreement, and it would have been fitting had we been among the first to ratify it rather than trailing behind. I thank the campaigners who have kept up the pressure, and the colleagues throughout my party who have long championed ocean protection. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has consistently made the case for stronger high seas governance, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings).
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I have spent a fair amount of time on the ocean —not rowing but sailing. When sailing across oceans in a small boat, one cannot help but see the seas of plastic, whether left by fishermen or simply thrown overboard, that are carried on currents. Does my hon. Friend think the treaty goes far enough to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our oceans?
Dr Savage
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The treaty does not yet go far enough on plastic pollution, and I hope that the countries of the world will bring their best endeavours to achieving an international agreement in that regard. So far, sadly, those negotiations have not succeeded.
I also want to recognise the serious, constructive work of our Liberal Democrat peers. They chose not to delay ratification, but they worked hard to strengthen the Bill. Lord Teverson pressed Ministers on enforcement gaps, flags of convenience, illegal fishing and human rights at sea, reminding us that the high seas cannot be a legal vacuum for either nature or people, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer pushed strongly on plastic pollution, especially the plastic pellets that now turn up throughout the marine food chain. Those issues have not gone away, and they now form the implementation agenda.
As Lord Teverson observed during the debates in the other place, this may be one of the last major environmental agreements that we see from the United Nations for some time, given this era in which respect for international law appears to be under strain in a way that we have not seen for many decades. That makes the treaty not just important but precious. We are under a moral and existential obligation to make it work. This ratification must be the start, not the finish. If the UK wants to lead, the Government should aim to arrive at the first Conference of the Parties with a clear plan for implementation, and I suggest that the plan should include the publication of a proper implementation road map including timelines, responsibilities and funding, so that delivery does not drift.
We should back our world-leading scientific institutions, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the British Antarctic Survey and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. They should be fully supported to provide the evidence, training and technology transfers on which this treaty depends. We should strengthen enforcement using our satellite-monitoring capability and our experience in monitoring vast protected areas in the overseas territories. As a priority, we should get our own maritime house in order. We cannot in good conscience call for protection overseas while allowing destructive practices like bottom-trawling in our own MPAs. Credibility must start at home.
At a time when multilateral co-operation often feels fragile, this treaty shows what is still possible when countries work together to protect the global commons. The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but future generations will not judge us on whether we ratified the treaty; they will judge us on whether the oceans are healthier because we did something. Let us match warm words with hard action, and show that Britain still leads when it matters, not just by signing agreements but by protecting the blue parts of our planet, which give us food to eat and oxygen to breathe. To quote Sir David Attenborough, who turns 100 this coming May:
“If we save the sea, we save our world.”
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, I am delighted to see the Bill’s swift passage through Parliament, and I look forward to its full ratification, but I have some specific questions for the Minister. Can she outline the timeline for the next steps to ensure ratification? Specifically, will it happen ahead of the first ocean COP, expected later this year? If the Minister is unable to give that detail today, would she be willing to meet the APPG for the ocean to discuss the timeline, particularly given that we are now five years away from our 30 by 30 commitment?
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, tabled an amendment in the other place that would have ensured that the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles, alongside other principles in the Environment Act 2021, must be applied by UK authorities when they exercised powers or duties under this Bill relating to the high seas. As that amendment was not passed, there are concerns across the ocean sector that there is no statutory requirement in the Bill to extend those environmental principles beyond the UK’s territorial or domestic jurisdiction. Can the Minister comment on that? Will she also offer assurances that, when representatives of the Government or public authorities act under the Bill in relation to the high seas, they will apply the UK’s existing environmental principles so that we do have that coverage?
Seema Malhotra
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will make a couple of comments about the timing of amendments in the other place. There have been ongoing discussions with the devolved Governments. It is important to recognise this Government’s respect for the devolution settlements and our adherence to the principles underpinning the Sewel convention; we aim for them to be our core considerations and to inform how we work. We have been working closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get agreement on moving forward with this legislation together, and that was part of the reason for the delays.
Seema Malhotra
I will make some progress.
I acknowledge the importance of moving ahead quickly with the Bill to ensure that we have a seat at the table for discussions with other parties to the agreement, including on MPAs. We wanted to ensure that the Bill’s provisions in devolved areas were watertight, which is why we had constructive conversations with the devolved Governments.
Part 2 obligations do not apply to fishing. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has left his place, but he can be reassured that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have concurrent powers to implement provisions in areas of devolved competence. Under part 3 of the Bill, the UK will be involved in MPA decisions and will carefully consider the impacts on fishing.
In relation to the comments raised regarding multilateral co-operation, I want to mention some ways in which we continue to work with other states to support ratification. We continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation of the BBNJ agreement, and we are committed to partnering with others, including the global south, to ratify and implement it. Indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has worked with the Commonwealth Secretariat to support smaller member countries with their implementation work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also published research that developed a shortlist of potential area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, that could be proposed once the agreement is in force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked about the process of the Bill. Following the passage of the Bill, we will be laying two statutory instruments, one of which will define digital sequence information for the purposes of the BBNJ legislation. The other, along with an associated Scottish Government SI, will amend the marine licensing regime, where needed, to implement part 4 of the BBNJ agreement on environmental impact assessments. Those will be progressed as soon as the BBNJ Bill has received Royal Assent. Once the SIs have been passed, we will be able to ratify the agreement by laying the instrument of ratification formally at the United Nations in New York. We are keen to see that happen as quickly as possible, as I know my hon. Friend is.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), asked about legislative consent motions. While foreign affairs and treaty making are reserved matters, implementing international obligations in domestic law is not reserved where those obligations concern devolved areas. Several provisions in the Bill, particularly in parts 2, 3 and 4, relate to matters such as environmental protection and scientific research, which fall within devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the legislative consent motion process is engaged to varying degrees. The assessment of whether legislative consent motions are required for this Bill has been agreed across the relevant UK Government Departments, including the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales Offices, and in consultation with the devolved Governments.
The shadow Minister also asked whether there is a risk that requirements in Scotland for an environmental impact assessment for marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction might be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the case that Scotland could choose to implement the requirements slightly differently. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that differences are kept to a minimum and that the United Kingdom as a whole takes a consistent approach. That is very much in the spirit in which we have been working, collaboratively, to respect devolution settlements while recognising the importance of this agreement to both the Scottish and UK Governments. That has been an important part of how we have progressed.
Mr Snowden
I thank the Minister for answering my question on the potential for the Scottish Government to take a different approach to implementing the Bill. If ongoing conversations are under way, will the Minister tell us whether an indication has been given by the Scottish Government that they want to implement the Bill in a different way?
Seema Malhotra
We are at the start of the process. The spirit in which we have been working, and the way in which we have reached agreement on how to work alongside the Scottish Government, are important to how we will continue to work going forward. In the light of those conversations, I believe that a collaborative approach will continue, because it is in all our interests.
Let me make some further comments in response to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. I know that it is important to Members on both sides of the House that there is a separate process under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty. Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue with its source on land, and it is appropriate for it to be addressed by a bespoke treaty for the full life cycle of plastics, including the phasing out of problematic products, improving waste management and reducing leakage. The BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and is therefore not best suited to addressing plastic pollution across the life cycle. However, the hon. Lady makes an important point, and it is a matter of concern across the House.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Government’s showing commitment to global leadership on protecting the oceans by bringing this Bill through Parliament so quickly. Last week I joined Greenpeace on board its vessel Witness, which was docked nearby in London, and I heard about the devastation that bottom trawling can wreak on marine ecosystems. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to regulate, or preferably ban, this destructive fishing practice in our marine protected zones and elsewhere? It is a particular area of concern for my residents in Exeter.
Seema Malhotra
That is indeed a matter of concern, and it has been raised in debates by Members from across the House. Although my hon. Friend will know that bottom trawling is not within the scope of the agreement, he will also be aware that we are consulting on restricting bottom trawling in more vulnerable marine habitats. It is important that the consultation and that work continue.
This is a landmark piece of legislation. It ensures that the UK can ratify the important BBNJ agreement and take full part in the conference of the parties. It contains measures that will not only safeguard marine ecosystems, but deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. In January, I was pleased to visit the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, to which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds referred. It is a world-leading institution, and it highlighted the value of this agreement in improving the visibility and transparency of UK-led marine research, as well as in strengthening international research collaborations. I want to put on record my thanks to the centre for its work and leadership.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the health of our oceans is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us and on the wider international community. The BBN J Bill is the UK’s opportunity to rise to that responsibility, to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development, and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 12 agreed to.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the motions in the name of Secretary Heidi Alexander relating to (i) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill: Carry-over and (ii) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill: Select Committee shall be brought to a conclusion no later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those motions; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those motions may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).
Suspension at end of qualifying Session
1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).
2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);
(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;
(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;
(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
3. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;
(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.
6. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
7. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;
(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session
11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on the Select Committee:
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):
1. The Committee is to have five members.
2. The members of the Committee are—
(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and
(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.
4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—
(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and
(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.
Heidi Alexander
The motions we have before us today are vital for the delivery of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill. It is important that I am clear at the outset about what these motions do and what they do not do. This is categorically not about reinstating HS2 north of the west midlands, and neither are these motions about addressing the longer-term capacity constraints of the west coast main line between Manchester and Birmingham. Instead, the motions are simply focused on ensuring that the Government follow the speediest and most logical consenting route to progressing plans for a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester—a line that will also call at Warrington and Manchester airport. This new line, which will connect two great cities in the north of England, is part of the second phase of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which this Government committed to last month.
Before turning to why it is important to maintain the Bill’s momentum via today’s motions, it may be helpful if I set out a brief history of the Bill’s passage. Hon. Members will recall that in His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, this Government announced our commitment to carrying over this Bill from the previous Parliament. The Government recognise the importance of rail infrastructure in driving economic growth, enhancing productivity and unlocking opportunity in all parts of the country. The Bill itself is the mechanism by which planning consent for the eastern part of the new route between Liverpool and Manchester can be granted. Given our ambitions for the north of England, it is important that we crack on and get it done.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The classification of Northern Powerhouse Rail as an England-Wales project is short-changing Wales of up to £1.5 billion. Plaid Cymru is clear that we need an immediate devolution of rail to end this funding scandal, and even the Labour First Minister of Wales has claimed that she wants rail to be devolved. Will the Secretary of State tell me how many official requests the Welsh Government have made for the devolution of rail in Wales?
Heidi Alexander
I constantly speak to my counterpart in the Welsh Government, Ken Skates, and we have a very good collaborative working relationship. I simply remind the hon. Lady that this Government committed £445 million to Welsh rail in last year’s spending review. That is a very significant investment, which is going to result in improved stations and in more reliable and more frequent services for the people of Wales. It addresses the historical lack of investment seen in Wales.
I was explaining why it is so important that we agree to these motions and maintain momentum in gaining planning consent for a new rail route between Liverpool and Manchester. We need to reconstitute the hybrid Bill Select Committee, with its membership determined in the usual way, and we need to provide for the carry-over of the Bill between Sessions.
This Bill was first introduced in Parliament in January 2022. Since then, its purpose has been refined. It was initially intended to provide powers for both HS2 from Crewe to Manchester and for the section of the NPR route that would deliver east-west connectivity. The previous Government’s Network North announcement in October 2023 cancelled high-speed rail north of the west midlands, so the HS2 element of the Bill was no longer required. With the support of local leaders, in May 2024—just before the last general election—this House passed an instruction that the Bill should be adapted to focus on delivering the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. That is the Bill now before us.
All elements of the Bill that pertain to sections of the route south of Millington will be removed. It is the Government’s intention to table an amendment to remove these powers formally during the Select Committee’s proceedings. The Bill will, however, have the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester via Manchester airport, including new stations at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester airport itself. We are now seeking to progress the Bill to make the best use of the significant progress it has already made.
This Government are investing up to £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, transforming inter-city rail in the north and driving economic growth. Northern Powerhouse Rail will ensure that the people of the north no longer have to tolerate second-rate rail infrastructure. We are delivering a turn-up-and-go railway on which missing one train no longer means waiting an hour for the next. That means more frequent and reliable commuter services will be the norm. This will help more people access good jobs, lead to more housing and offer greater opportunities for businesses to expand.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I welcome the Government setting out the plan, the Bill’s purpose and the economic boost it will bring, which nobody here is going to say is wrong, but I am concerned about the acquisition of land. Both the National Farmers Union and farmers and landowners through the Country Land and Business Association have concerns about the acquisition of land to enable this project to go ahead. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, which represent a great many people and whose members’ land may have to be used for this purpose, are consulted and given the right money for the land they are giving up for this railway, and that everything is in order for them?
Heidi Alexander
I will ensure that the organisations the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are appropriately consulted throughout this process. We as a Government are determined to work in partnership with all stakeholders —landowners, businesses and individuals—who are affected. The hybrid Bill Select Committee is of course a quasi-judicial process, but on behalf of my Department I undertake to make sure that all appropriate conversations are happening.
Alongside this Bill, we are undertaking development work for the connection to Liverpool via Warrington Bank Quay. We will work in partnership with local stakeholders throughout the development process, and the detailed route from Millington to Liverpool will be subject to future consultation. We will determine the consenting route for this part of the line in due course. We will ensure that work on both the eastern and western section of the new Liverpool to Manchester line is fully integrated, and that we do everything we can to ensure that the new line is open for use as soon as possible once phase 1 of Northern Powerhouse Rail in Yorkshire is completed.
Before I close, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for their valuable work to date on the hybrid Bill Select Committee in the previous Parliament.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee.
This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again.
Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on.
The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works.
Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today.
It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate?
We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what I believe is a really important debate. I am delighted to support the Government’s motions, as we continue to invest in and transform our rail network after decades of hollow promises and mismanagement under the Conservatives.
The Bill will allow the Government the powers necessary to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail, therefore supporting our economy, creating better jobs, delivering new and much-needed opportunities right across the north-west of England. As a frequent user of rail services in the north of England, it is important to me and my constituents that the Government continue to focus on building capacity, reliability and resilience on one of the busiest rail corridors in the country. The importance of our rail network and infrastructure cannot be overstated. Indeed, its success will have a direct impact on economic growth and productivity.
I take the point about the need for or desirability of cross-party consensus, particularly when looking at such large infrastructure projects. On 14 January, the Government announced that Northern Powerhouse Rail represented the biggest investment in rail connectivity in the north for a generation—some £45 billion. More generally, I am pleased that the Government are looking at the three-phase approach. Its sequencing will ensure that our communities benefit as soon as possible. I note that in phase 1—beyond the scope of the Committee—in my own region in the north-east, work on the business case for the Leamside line is to be taken forward. This is a vital project for connectivity, creating new transport links and promoting wider access to the wider regional and national rail network. I also welcome the proposed upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, focusing on electrification, an issue that was of great interest and importance during my time as a member of the Transport Committee.
I am pleased by the Government’s overall scale of ambition and real focus on regional rail services. The Bill represents an opportunity for new rail investment and infrastructure, delivering new stations and routes as well as major regeneration projects, leveraging private sector investment and creating better links across the north-west—not only north-south, but east-west.
After many years of raised hopes, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assure the House that the Bill is the most effective means of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail without any unnecessary delay? This is just a thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been here a little while now and I have served on a number of Joint Committees, mostly pre-legislative Committees, with Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised valid concerns about representations from the National Farmers Union and others in respect of the route. However, my experience, having served for a number of years on the previous Bill Committee, is that a hybrid Bill Committee, which this Parliament has adopted not just for HS2 but previously, is a very, very onerous and time-consuming method. It makes vast fortunes for the bureaucracy, the lawyers and the lobbyists. Then the whole process has to be repeated in the House of Lords. I just wonder—it is beyond my pay grade, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether someone further up the tree might give that some thought.
A couple of years ago, Members of the Transport Committee had the opportunity to go to Japan for five days. We saw the Shinkansen, the high-speed bullet train. The Bill for that was passed in the Japanese Parliament, the National Diet, in 1959, and was constructed by 1964, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. We cannot say that Japan is not a democracy, or that the country does not have problems of topography, earthquakes and so on, because it is and it does. There is a method that does not take 10 or 15 years.
We are approaching a period of transformational change in public transport, on the railways in particular. Increased capacity and an improved role for freight in taking heavy goods vehicles off our road network is really important. I fully support today’s motions to carry the Bill beyond the end of this parliamentary Session and to establish the Bill’s Select Committee, so we can get Northern Powerhouse Rail charging full steam ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for clarity on what the this is and what it is not. It is welcome that it is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and its Manchester to Liverpool core—a scheme that the Liberal Democrats continue to support. We hope this time that the dreams for Northern Powerhouse Rail will become a reality, given the very slow journey they have been on since 2014, when first proposed.
I understand what the Secretary of State said about this not being about Birmingham to Manchester, but I hope she agrees that we will eventually need to find an effective solution for transport between the west midlands and the north-west, given the very congested rail network and the M6 being something covered by Chris Rea in one of his songs. I appreciate that that is a debate for another time, but perhaps I can tempt the Secretary of State to reveal when the Government intend to bring forward proposals for Birmingham to Manchester improvements.
I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and thank him for his work. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has a concern that the Bill advocates a similar legislative approach as the rest of HS2 to consent, planning the route, mitigations and so on. I wonder what lessons have been or will be learnt to ensure that the existential despair that is HS2 will not be repeated when attempting to use this procedure to advance Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to object to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill carry-over and Select Committee motions.
Why is there any need to carry over the Bill? To paraphrase Monty Python, this project is no more: it has ceased to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a stiff, bereft of life, so why won’t everyone accept this project is dead, finito, finished? By continuing with this charade, the Government are giving false hope to those who want it to happen, just like they did with the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, and are causing needless anxiety to those in my constituency who do not want it to happen. Rather than faffing about with carry-over motions—acting more “Carry On”, than carry over—why do the Government not just announce this project is dead and buried, and put it out of its misery once and for all?
The Government need to dispose of the properties they have bought and are holding on to, and take them out of safeguarding. It seems the Government are only proceeding with this carry-over motion to try to appease the windbag of the north, Andy Burnham. If they think this futile gesture will ensure he plays nicely and supports the Prime Minister, they are sadly deluded. This is another example of the Government making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. They should have learned by now that such a tactic will always backfire.
My constituents were extremely grateful to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for cancelling this white elephant project. This Government would do well to follow his lead.
Heidi Alexander
This has been a good debate and I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. As I said in my introductory remarks, I believe that these motions represent an important step forward in delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, these plans will deliver faster, more frequent rail connections between fast-growing city regions in the north, which will enable more jobs, new homes and a greater number of opportunities for businesses to invest and expand.
I would like to pick up on some of the remarks that have been made tonight. I welcome the recognition by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), that this is a practical mechanism for taking forward work on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the north-west of England. I have to say, however, that I fundamentally disagree with his characterisation of this Government’s commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail. I would say gently to him that it is a bit rich for someone from a party that first talked about Northern Powerhouse Rail in 2014 to criticise this Government for investing more than £1 billion in this spending review, which is significantly more than the hon. Gentleman’s Government ever did in the years since 2014. It was his party that was guilty of dither and delay when it came to improving rail infrastructure in the north of England.
The shadow Minister claims that the Government are going to be spending significant money on consultants, but the money we allocated in the spending review is to acquire land and do preparatory works on the Yorkshire schemes—those three corridors improving links into Leeds from Bradford, York and Sheffield—as well as to plan properly. To pick up the point made by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), we will not be making the same mistakes as the previous Government—we will not be letting contracts when we have not defined the scope of works. If the shadow Minister wants to understand why billions of pounds-worth of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on HS2, he needs to ask some of his colleagues some serious questions as to why his Government gave the go-ahead to HS2 when they did not know what they were asking the contractors to build.
Jerome Mayhew
I am the first to accept that there are serious lessons to be learned from the delivery of HS2. However, the Secretary of State has so far failed to mention how she proposes to deliver all that she has promised within a financial cap of £45 billion, given that the estimate for the works back in 2019 was, I think, £46 billion—from memory. What is she not going to do in order to stay within the Treasury’s £45 billion cap?
Heidi Alexander
As I thought I made clear when I gave my statement on Northern Powerhouse Rail to the House a couple of weeks ago—the shadow Minister made some sarcastic comments about my visit to each of the directly elected mayors along the northern growth corridor—we have agreed that those mayors and areas will be making local contributions to this scheme. We are ambitious with our plans for a “turn up and go” railway in the north of England, and we are going to get on with it—unlike his Government, who never did.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) gave us some colourful descriptions of what she thinks this rail scheme is all about, but she could not be more wrong. As I said, we have worked closely with leaders in the north of England and have a sequenced, credible, phased investment plan for how we will improve those rail services so that people are not stood on platforms when they miss a train, worrying that the next one is going to take an hour to arrive.
Esther McVey
According to the Secretary of State’s announcement, the money being put forward was, I think, £1.1 billion out of a £45 billion cost, which was to be delivered in decades to come, when the Secretary of State and her Government will no longer be around—hence, it is a charade to keep the mayors of the north happy at the local elections.
Heidi Alexander
We have been clear that we expect work to start on the Yorkshire package of improvements in this Parliament. We have also said that we expect work to start on the link between Manchester and Liverpool in the 2030s. The right hon. Lady will recall that Crossrail in London was granted consent back in 2007 and the line was opened in 2022—I make that 15 years. Railways are not built overnight.
To conclude, the Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. Progressing the Bill today is the most efficient approach as it makes use of the work that has already taken place. Today’s motions will allow the Bill to continue its passage through Parliament and will allow the invaluable work of the hybrid Bill Select Committee to recommence. This is a vital step in the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Question put.
A Division was called.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).
Suspension at end of qualifying Session
1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).
2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);
(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;
(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;
(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
3. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;
(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.
6. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
7. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;
(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session
11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):
1. The Committee is to have five members.
2. The members of the Committee are—
(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and
(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.
4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—
(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and
(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)
Business without Debate
Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have secured a debate on this issue, which I have campaigned on consistently since becoming the Member of Parliament for South East Cornwall, and which has existed for many years before my time in this House. It is an issue that I hear about daily because of its impact on almost every aspect of local life. I want to thank local residents, community groups—including the Tamar Toll action group and Safe38—previous MPs, local councillors and Tamar Crossings for their efforts to improve our local transport connectivity.
South East Cornwall is a place that bridges the old and the new. Our communities continue to bring life to historic fishing villages and welcome thousands of tourists annually, while also looking to the future, with advanced defence capabilities, artificial intelligence and digital industries, and world-leading regenerative agriculture. To fully play our part in the next decade of national renewal, we must bridge the gap, both physically and metaphorically, between Cornwall and the rest of the country. That includes the seamless integration of my communities with the new Plymouth defence deal in order to unlock opportunity in one of the poorest areas in western Europe and ensure that South East Cornwall is fully connected to the growth, security and prosperity that the deal will bring.
At its heart, this issue is about how we connect to places and services, how communities function, and how nationally significant infrastructure is sustained. It raises a fundamental question about whether our current connectivity policies reflect the lived reality in rural and coastal areas like mine and whether historical funding models still work in a modern economy.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that a real devolution deal, similar to those enjoyed by our Celtic cousins, must include a roads budget that is equivalent to the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network? Equating to around £95 million a year, it could easily make the Tamar toll free, at around £15 million a year, and leave further funds for urgent upgrades such as the A38 in her constituency, a Camelford relief road and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions must be brief, but as it is so long before 10 pm, Members could make a speech if they so wish.
Anna Gelderd
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to that point later in my speech.
There is a clear and well-established link between transport and inequality. Research undertaken in 2019 for the Department for Transport shows that transport shapes life chances through three factors: where people live and their socioeconomic position; where opportunities such as jobs and education are located; and how accessible the transport system is in terms of cost, reliability, geography and journey time. The research also shows that transport does not affect everyone equally; experience changes due to income, location and personal circumstance. In rural and coastal areas such as South East Cornwall, transport that is affordable and reliable could expand our opportunities.
Cost is consistently identified as one of the most significant barriers to opportunity. Policies that reduce transport costs help people to access and sustain employment, particularly those on lower incomes. However, that same Department for Transport research makes clear that transport policy works best when embedded in a place-based approach that is linked to the skills, housing, employment and economic opportunities on offer locally.
South East Cornwall is shaped by rivers and coastline that define our landscape and our communities. Our connectivity depends on a number of strategic crossings that function as everyday routes to employment, education, healthcare and social connection. Those are not optional journeys; they are essential links within a tightly connected economic and social region.
What makes South East Cornwall unusual is the concentration of tolled crossings that residents rely on daily. The Tamar bridge, Torpoint ferry, Cremyll ferry, Polruan ferry and Bodinnick ferry are part of daily life. For many local residents and businesses, one or more of those crossings are used routinely, sometimes multiple times a day. The total cost is significant, and that is simply to participate in ordinary life. This has shaped my constituency for decades. It affects where people can work, which services they can realistically access and how businesses operate. Despite the scale and impact of the crossings, we still have not found a workable long-term solution.
Travel from towns and villages in South East Cornwall to Plymouth—our nearest city—often takes far longer than distance alone suggests. Short journeys on a map can become long, expensive and uncertain in practice. The Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry are the only viable crossings linking South East Cornwall with Plymouth and up-country. Around 16 million vehicle crossings take place each year, with thousands of residents relying on them daily to reach work. There is no practical alternative direct route, meaning that the crossings function as essential infrastructure to local people.
The Tamar bridge is publicly owned and jointly operated by Cornwall council and Plymouth city council. In the 1950s, both authorities sought national funding for a fixed crossing. When that funding was not forthcoming, they proceeded with a locally financed scheme funded through tolls. Parliamentary powers were granted through the Tamar Bridge Act 1957, which established the joint committee that continues to operate both the bridge and the ferry as a single business unit, with all operations, maintenance and improvements funded entirely through toll income.
The Torpoint ferry is the busiest vehicle crossing of any estuary in the United Kingdom, carrying nearly 2 million vehicles each year, including mine many times. The TamarTag has helped some regular users, including myself, but minimum top-ups, usability issues and recent proposed increases in admin fees have undermined its purpose. The infrastructure must be maintained, but affordability, transparency and trust are also essential.
Research in 2019 for the Department for Transport examined the relationship between transport access and life opportunities, and the findings were stark. Access to a personal car makes someone nearly four times more likely to be in employment than not in employment. Access to services follows a similar pattern: those who have access to their own car are twice as likely to reach essential services.
Transport also shapes social participation. Car access makes people more likely to maintain social connections, particularly those with mobility impairments and those living in rural areas. Transport therefore affects isolation, wellbeing and quality of life. Geography amplifies those pressures. Water boundaries fragment travel patterns and isolate communities. Where tolls apply, they add a financial barrier on top of the physical separation. For many households, the costs are unavoidable.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there would also be an environmental cost to not using the crossings, because vehicles have to travel longer distances, since usually the crossings present the straight and most direct route?
Anna Gelderd
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the environmental impacts, which I will come to later. Geography amplifies the pressures, and the water boundaries bring a particular problem.
For a standard car journey, it costs £3 to leave Cornwall on both the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry. The Cremyll ferry charges £3 per adult for a single journey, and other crossings in that area charge a similar amount. Some local resident concessions exist, but recent proposed increases in admin costs triggered significant concern, because the total amount is unaffordable for many people.
The Tamar Toll Action Group, along with myself and other MPs, called for a rethink, and there was an extraordinary meeting of local authorities. Some may argue that the prices are not extreme, but they add up quickly. I was glad that the meeting happened and that changes were considered. Average incomes in South East Cornwall are around 20% below the national median, and residents cross have to use the crossing frequently, so the costs do add up for those in the local communities.
There is clear evidence of isolation across parts of South East Cornwall and wider Cornwall. Some communities fall within recognised measures of poor accessibility in both travel time and services. Digital connectivity adds to the pressure, as broadband and mobile coverage remain inconsistent, which limits remote working, access to online services and business development. That reinforces physical isolation rather than easing it.
Digital connectivity is increasingly important alongside physical transport. Research by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport highlights the negative impacts of poor broadband on farmers, including reduced productivity, compliance challenges, and limited market access, which is really important for South East Cornwall. High-speed broadband supports economic growth, productivity and educational outcomes.
We have the foundations for a modern, flexible economy in South East Cornwall. People want to live there, work there and build businesses there. The well-known “surf and code” model seen in places such as California and Portugal reflects a real opportunity to combine the quality of life in the coastal and rural areas of Devon and Cornwall with work, but that depends on sustained investment in physical connectivity and other types of connectivity, including digital.
Currently our public transport does not bridge the gap. Bus services are often infrequent, and ferry services are essential but shaped by the costs that I have mentioned. When disruption occurs, the system offers little flexibility. Bus services in South East Cornwall fell by around 50% between 2010 and 2023. The Conservatives stripped those in our rural and coastal communities of the ability to get around, and then systematically dismantled our public services too. Those pressures have gone on for far too long and communities like mine need support.
Cornwall’s rail connectivity depends on a single line through Dawlish. Recent storm damage again highlights the fragility of that route, following the collapse of the sea wall in 2014. Climate change is accelerating faster than our adaptation, and resilience must be built into long-term infrastructure planning. Phase 6 of the Dawlish resilience work and the reopening of the Tavistock line remain shared aspirations for Cornwall and Devon. What comes next must be credible, long-term and capable of carrying the confidence of south-west communities. Existing Department for Transport investment should be leveraged alongside local and regional funding to improve resilience and open new routes.
Anyone who has visited Cornwall will know and understand that our road network remains a challenge. Country lanes are often narrow, overgrown and dangerous. The A38, which remains the main route in South East Cornwall, has claimed too many lives—the recent safety upgrades are welcome, and I pay tribute to all involved in making them possible for our area. The transport constraints we face carry economic consequences. Businesses face higher operating costs and reduced labour pools. Tradespeople absorb toll charges that competitors elsewhere simply do not face.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate. We have a slightly similar issue in Northern Ireland with the connectivity between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If those crossing the border to go to work come to a toll, they have to pay that toll—it is the only way to get there. If people want to go to the airport or on a tourist trip, they have to pay the toll. Does she agree that information and an easy payment system must be in place to ensure that people from all areas, especially tourists, can access these roads without undue charges? We cannot control the charges, but we have to pay them.
Anna Gelderd
I agree with the hon. Member that the impacts on communities are difficult.
The situation is not a new one, and we continue to use historical funding models that reflect the priorities of their time. Over the years, there have been reviews, consultations and partial reforms, but no holistic restructure. Residents and businesses have continued to pay year after year while the underlying system remains unchanged. Elsewhere in the UK, similar situations have been resolved. Tolled crossings have been reduced, capped or removed. South East Cornwall now has a clear opportunity to act, firmly aligned with the national interest for growth across the UK.
The Tamar crossings are critical to our local economy and national defence. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport and supporting sites rely on a large mobile workforce and complex supply chains crossing the Tamar daily. Long-term Ministry of Defence investment depends on reliable connectivity between Cornwall, Plymouth and the wider region. Cornwall has deep ties to the armed forces. South East Cornwall has a high number of veterans and serving personnel, with almost 14% of the residents of Torpoint having served. Communities that contribute so directly to our national defence should not face barriers to their daily life. Local residents and businesses effectively support significant infrastructure, and Cornish waters are used for Navy testing and training. Twenty-three per cent of Babcock’s Devonport workforce live in South East Cornwall. As we look to the future, this connectivity must also be considered.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes the important point that regional connectivity, including tolled crossings—especially between her constituency of South East Cornwall and mine in Plymouth —is integral to our nation’s defence and our ability to carry out its taskings. Does she agree that this type of regional connectivity needs to be looked at across Departments, especially by the Ministry of Defence?
Anna Gelderd
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. This interaction between defence, regional connectivity, transport and what we are looking to achieve down in the south-west really needs cross-governmental consideration.
This goes beyond defence, with Cornwall reviving its mining heritage through the development of critical minerals, recognised through Labour’s Kernow industrial growth fund, supporting cleaner energy supplies and economic independence, and backing British business. Cornwall also has major international cultural and tourism value, from our historic landscapes and mythical legends to world-leading attractions, such as the Eden Project. Our food culture, from cream teas to Cornish pasties, has global appeal—something I have seen at first hand.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on Cornwall’s economic potential and particularly the role of critical minerals. Does she agree that in an ideal but not unimaginable world, we would have electric ferries, ideally powered by Cornish lithium batteries, which would reduce the operating costs of those ferries and therefore the subsidy effectively paid by Tamar bridge users to support that service?
Anna Gelderd
My hon. Friend’s intervention goes to the heart of this question: how do we move communities like ours into the future, taking advantage of cleaner, greener and cheaper sources of energy, and bringing down costs for local residents?
The Plymouth defence deal presents a real opportunity. The tolled crossings are enabling infrastructure and backing resilience. Addressing them alongside defence investment aligns local fairness with our national priorities. Such strengths deserve an infrastructure that enables growth, rather than one that holds it back.
Cornwall is modernising, our economy is evolving and our ambitions are forward-looking. That brings me to my first three points, which are focused on improving fairness and future-proofing the Tamar crossings. First, we need to devolve the necessary powers. Current legislation limits the ability of local authorities to reform tolling structures in line with modern use. Devolving those powers would enable local decisions aligned with our national objectives. Secondly, we need grant funding to support long-term reform. Removing or reducing tolls without replacement revenue risks shifting the burden on to local authorities and council tax payers. Grant funding would recognise the national benefit and avoid unintended consequences. Thirdly, we need debt relief linked to historical financing. Existing debt structures drive continued reliance on toll income and restrict future options. Addressing this legacy debt would allow the crossings to come into the 21st century.
On the wider picture of unlocking our potential, my fourth point is on safety and resilience of the A38. This is the main road through South East Cornwall. With continued action and investment following recent safety upgrades, we can ensure that the route is even more resilient. Fifthly, we must strengthen rail resilience and access through Dawlish. Cornwall’s rail connectivity depends on that single, climate-vulnerable line. To ensure regional growth, we need a strategic rail plan and phase 6 of the Dawlish resilience programme. Finally, we must improve digital connectivity across South East Cornwall. Reliable, high-quality broadband and mobile coverage are needed throughout the area.
Together, the measures I suggest provide a credible route towards resolving a long-standing issue. I urge the Minister to engage with myself and with neighbouring colleagues, many of whom are here today, to recognise the role that the Tamar crossings play in regional connectivity in terms of national defence, food production and regional economic growth, and to work with local partners to deliver fair and modern reform. With those powers held locally, fair funding and a long-term vision, we can move at pace to fulfil the potential that we see through the infrastructure that we, on both sides of the Tamar, rely on day by day.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I take up your kind invitation to make a short speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for making an excellent speech and raising this important issue.
I want to make a few brief points, particularly while we have the Roads Minister here. The national focus in recent times has been on train connectivity in the north, so I am pleased to see Cornwall, Devon and the wider south-west getting a proper share of the debate this evening. One point I want to make while the Minister is here is that National Highways does not currently contribute any maintenance moneys to the Tamar bridge, despite the fact that the bridge is a critical part of its roads network. I understand that it recently cost as much as £6 million to resurface the bridge, because the method used is complex, but not a penny spent was from National Highways; it used the tolls generated.
Noah Law
The hon. Member makes an important point about the lack of National Highways funding for the bridge, but does he share my delight at the £220 million investment coming into Cornwall’s roads from national Government? We are seeing record-breaking investment in our roads, but that is not to detract from the point he makes about the lack of funding for the Tamar bridge.
Ben Maguire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and hopefully he and I can make the argument to the Minister and her colleagues that some of that money should go to the Tamar bridge.
There are certainly other road projects across Cornwall. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall spoke passionately about the A38, which my constituents frequently raise with me, and hopefully that is another project that can be funded from the large amount of money we are hearing is coming to Cornwall’s road network. There are also much-needed safety upgrades at Plusha in my constituency. I have met the Minister on numerous occasions, so I know she is aware of the upgrades to the Camelford relief road, which have been promised for many years.
As I have mentioned, I really hope that a devolution deal will now be forthcoming in which we see the equivalent of the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network, which is around £96 million a year. This evening, we have talked about making the Tamar toll crossing cheaper for local residents, or potentially removing the toll altogether at a cost of around £15 million a year. In their devolution deals, our Celtic cousins enjoy a budget equivalent to the amount of the road network they have in their nations, and that would leave plenty of money left over for the A30 upgrade that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall mentioned, and for lots of other upgrades across Cornwall.
Anna Gelderd
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. It is important to recognise that the future costs of these projects in Cornwall include maintenance, electrification and lots of other elements. That means we must work together with concrete resources to make sure that cheaper tolls are delivered for local people.
Ben Maguire
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
Finally, my Launceston constituents in North Cornwall frequently use the Tamar bridge crossing, on which they rely to access healthcare at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, so they absolutely have to make that journey. It is not a shopping trip or a leisure trip; they really need to make that journey. It takes around two hours by public transport to get to the hospital, and it takes almost one hour to get there by car, which is still quite staggering. On top of the fuel costs and the costs of running a car, they have to pay this £3 charge, and that is before we get to the extortionate cost of the hospital car park once they arrive. I urge the Minister to factor that into the Department’s thinking, because this is not just about leisure trips. We are talking about vital healthcare.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I want to make a few short points to expand on a couple of things that have been mentioned. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for securing this important debate.
As I have said to several Members, particularly from this part of the world, we are currently closer to Middlesbrough than to my constituency in Camborne. Indeed, when people in this country think about the south-west, they think of Bristol, which is closer to Manchester than to my constituency. That gives an idea of the scale of where we are.
When it comes to the important question of regional connectivity, I gently say to the Minister that, over the last 18 months, the Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish metals, Cornish lithium and, as we have heard, the Kernow industrial growth fund. To maximise the potential of that investment, it is essential that we have the transport infrastructure to support it, including in the Tamar crossing.
Perran Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Tamar bridge should form part of our needed package of transport support, including mainline rail, upgrades to the A30 and, importantly, a complete review of the funding model for our one regional airport at Newquay, which needs to be considered in the round.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall spoke about car ownership in Cornwall. One of the gross distortions of the Westminster funding modelling is that we look at car ownership as an indicator of affluence. In Cornwall, it is quite the opposite. Our public transport systems are so poor that we have one of the highest car ownership rates in the country per capita. The reason is that many people in large swathes of Cornwall—particularly young people who need to get to college, or who need to develop the skills to work in some of the organisations I have mentioned—are completely housebound and isolated if they do not own a car. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it also contributes to the real problems of loneliness and lack of access to social groups, which is important for people’s mental health.
There are wide-ranging issues with the lack of connectivity across Cornwall. That is why it is so important, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) mentioned, that our devolution arrangement considers the implications of our remote coastal geography for business development, for young people and the skills they need, and for the social aspect as our population ages and more young people sadly leave Cornwall because they cannot find work, particularly driven by our acute housing crisis. We need a holistic strategy for the whole of Cornwall, and a very important part of that is the Tamar crossing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate, and on speaking so enthusiastically and eloquently about regional transport connectivity, inequality and the cost of toll journeys such as those on the Tamar bridge and the Torpoint ferry in her constituency. She is a powerful advocate for the people she represents.
I recognise the importance of high-quality transport links and infrastructure, and the challenges people face with the cost of travel, especially those living in coastal and rural areas such as South East Cornwall. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these key topics with Members today, including many from the south-west—the far south-west—of England, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and, of course, for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). It is good to have the opportunity to explain the Government’s position and ongoing approach.
Improving transport connectivity is a top priority for this Government. For too long, people living in rural areas like Cornwall have felt isolated and cut off from essential services and facilities, and we are determined to take steps to change that. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I am no longer the Roads Minister. However, I certainly agree that roads matter, and I am delighted that in the spending review we have provided £24 billion of capital funding for 2026-27 to 2029-30 to maintain and improve roads across England.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on her great speech and on securing this debate. On the Government’s spend on transport infrastructure, those present and the Minister may know that I remain a very strong supporter of the lower Thames crossing project, which will, when built, hugely reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing and make the quality of life and the air quality for my constituents in Dartford massively better. I thank the Minister and her team for the progress made on that project. We expect spades to be in the ground this year, which is wonderful. Does the Minister agree, however, that when the lower Thames crossing is built, and we have it and the Dartford crossing over the Thames east of London, it will be particularly important that the tolls for both crossings are equalised so that there is no financial incentive to use one rather than the other, and traffic can flow freely through both across the Thames?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will make a diversion to the south-east of England to say that the Government are committed to delivering the lower Thames crossing, which is the most significant road-building scheme in a generation. It will provide access to more than 400,000 jobs within an hour’s commute of local communities, and of course it will ease congestion at the Dartford crossing. Although the charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, like other crossings in England, such as the Dartford crossing, it will have a charge applied in order to cover the cost of providing the infrastructure, and the development consent order made clear that it is our intention that both tolls will be equal when the lower Thames crossing opens.
Turning back to the south-west, a question was raised about the role of National Highways. The A38 on either side of the Tamar bridge is the responsibility of National Highways as part of the strategic road network, but the bridge itself is not. However, while the Tamar crossings themselves are not the responsibility of National Highways, it does make an operational contribution each year towards the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system, which is monitored by the board that manages the bridge and the ferry.
We saw the completion of the essential major road network scheme in Cornwall linking St Austell to the A30 last July and look forward to progression of the Manadon interchange scheme in Plymouth, which will benefit so many people using the road network. The Government are committed to supporting local authorities in maintaining and renewing the local highway network, which is why by 2029-30 we will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair and renew their roads and fix potholes, doubling the funding since we came into office.
Ben Maguire
I humbly ask the Minister to write to the Cornish MPs so we can see what proportion of that £2 billion—I think she said by 2030—might come to our region. Perhaps then we can see how it might contribute to reducing, or maybe even removing, the tolls on the bridge.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that Cornwall will benefit from up to £221 million of that £2 billion over the next four years, alongside over £24 million of local transport grant capital for maintenance and enhancements.
Of course we do not just need better roads; better links through high-quality public transport are also essential. People have a right to expect cohesive, reliable bus networks, enabling them to travel easily and comfortably to get to work, to school, to social clubs, to shops, and to see friends and family, and of course to visit hospitals and other health facilities, as a number of colleagues have mentioned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, under the previous Government many thousands of bus services were lost, leaving communities cut off and reducing people’s opportunities for travel and all that that means. That is why, despite the challenging financial position this Government inherited, we are investing over £3 billion for the rest of the spending review period to support local leaders and bus operators across the country to improve bus services for millions of passengers, including those living in rural areas. This is additional funding to the more than £1 billion we are already providing this financial year. We are also giving the certainty that local authorities and bus operators need to build their networks longer term through multi-year allocations under the local authority bus grant, totalling nearly £700 million per year. That puts an end to the previous short-term approach to bus funding, enabling councils to plan their spending more strategically, ensuring that outcomes for passengers are always the top priority.
Cornwall council will receive over £30 million of this funding from 2026-27 to 2028-29, in addition to the £10.6 million it is receiving this financial year. On top of that, we continue to see the benefits yielded by our decision to extend the £3 national bus fare cap until March 2027, making bus journeys consistently more affordable for passengers. As my hon. Friend has said, in many of these areas people have low incomes, and that is why it is so important that we are cutting the cost of bus travel.
Additionally, we are funding bus franchising pilots to test the viability of different franchising models so that we can understand how these can deliver better bus services, including in rural locations. That includes a pilot in Cornwall, and I await the results with interest.
Active travel infrastructure to improve walking, wheeling and cycling routes remains essential. Following on from almost £300 million that the Government provided for active travel schemes up to 2026, we announced an additional £626 million for such infrastructure in a four-year settlement to help local authorities further improve active travel facilities and support network planning. Cornwall council will benefit from over £4.5 million of this funding.
Connectivity through reliable rail services is equally important, and I acknowledge hon. Members’ concerns about resilience on the rail line in Cornwall and Devon, particularly given the recent adverse weather. Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the railway network and has established processes in place for ensuring that it is safe to use when incidents happen. It continues to work closely with rail operators to help affected passengers and restore services as quickly as possible.
We announced in the November Budget that for regulated fares rail, passengers will not be faced with the increased cost in rail journeys that they have become accustomed to year on year. We are freezing regulated rail fares until March 2027 for the first time in 30 years. Meanwhile, 26 class 175 trains are being introduced on to Great Western Railway routes in Devon and Cornwall during this year. They will replace older diesel units, improve capacity and reliability, and free up rolling stock for wider use across the south-west, providing resilience across the network. The introduction of these trains on the Newquay branch line is part of mid Cornwall metro, doubling the frequency of trains on this branch and connecting rural communities to employment and education in Truro and Falmouth. As part of our commitment to improving digital technology for passengers, we secured funding to fit all mainline trains with low-earth orbit satellite technology to upgrade on train wi-fi.
My hon. Friend rightly brought to my attention in recent correspondence road safety issues—in particular, the need to reduce speeding in rural areas. The Government recently released the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. This strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, with measures to protect vulnerable road users, updated vehicle safety technologies and a review of motoring offences. I know that these are particular concerns in rural areas, which are disproportionately places where fatal collisions occur.
In overarching support for delivering everything I have mentioned today, and to gain and maintain momentum in driving forward better transport for everyone, our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy has been informed by extensive engagement with the public and our stakeholders. It will set out this Government’s vision of putting people at the heart of everything we do, better connecting places and working in partnership with local leaders and experts to deliver. It will help drive improvements in the experience for all users of the transport system and empower local leaders to deliver good transport that is right for their communities—place is at the heart of our strategies.
I would like to turn now to tolls and, in particular, the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry, which I will refer to as the Tamar crossings, as these are tied together under the Tamar Bridge Act 1957. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for continuing to support local people who have understandably expressed concerns about increasing toll charges and network congestion, as many of them pay these charges to access essential services, which can be a financial burden. I recognise that the Tamar crossings are a very important issue for her, her constituents and the constituents of my other hon. Friends here this evening.
As we have already heard, the Tamar crossings are jointly owned and operated by Cornwall council and Plymouth city council, and between them they carry 16 million vehicles on the bridge and 2 million on the ferries each year. The crossings are operated together as a joint service and funded by users through toll income. No funding is received from the owners of the crossings, and there is no specific central Government funding stream for the upkeep of tolled crossings such as Tamar. In fact, over 20 road and ferry crossings in England have tolls or charges, and it remains Government policy that river and estuarial crossings normally be funded by tolls, recognising the extra cost of their construction and maintenance, as well as the benefits for users in connecting places that would otherwise require lengthy journeys.
Although increases in toll charges are understandably disappointing for the public, they remain essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the crossings’ operation, which itself is essential to secure strong regional connectivity. The Tamar crossings are not alone in this; tolls and charges have increased or been introduced in many places over the past 12 months, including across the Humber, Mersey, Thames and Tyne.
Raising tolls is not done lightly. Rigorous processes are in place for assessing proposed toll increases. Applications can be made by asset owners to the Secretary of State not less than 12 months from the date of the previous increase, or a refusal to approve an increase, and the proposed change must be advertised in the local media before public consultation. Where objections are received but not resolved, a public inquiry is arranged, after which the inspector in attendance submits their recommendation to the DFT for a decision.
Issues relating to the crossings, including the tolls, are determined locally by the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee, established by the 1957 Act. The joint committee’s view is that, owing to inflation and other issues, there is a need for additional income via the toll. Given the cost of living pressures for so many people, I recognise that this is challenging, but it is vital to the future of the crossings. My fellow Ministers and I welcome any suggestions from the joint committee for improving the operation of the bridge and ferry services, and I commend its ongoing work in developing and delivering the Tamar 2050 plan, which aims to provide users of the crossings with a more stable and certain future.
I know that the Tamar crossings will become even more essential following the announcement last September that Plymouth had been named as one of five key national defence growth areas in the UK defence industrial strategy. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall and for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), in particular, welcome the fact that DFT officials are working collaboratively with the councils of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall, alongside National Highways, Network Rail, Peninsula Transport—the sub-national transport body—and many others, to ensure that transport challenges in the south-west, including those concerning the Tamar crossings, are identified and addressed over the coming years through a joined-up approach, which I support and welcome enormously. I am sure that colleagues will have heard the call for more cross-Government working on these issues, and I hope that my remarks today will assure them that it is happening.
I will close by sincerely thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate and allowing me to address the House on such important issues for communities in South East Cornwall and, indeed, across the country more widely. I wish to reassure the House that this Government are providing record levels of investment in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. We will continue to drive forward improvements in transport, demonstrated by our multi-year investment to help support economic growth and our wider plan for change. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friends in delivering our integrated national transport strategy, and to continuing to make transport provision better for everyone, right across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.
Dan Tomlinson
The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which the new retail, hospitality and leisure and high value business rates multipliers will apply.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—[Hon. Members: “No!”] No? Oh, that is totally wrong; who have we got in the Chair? [Hon. Members: “Mr Mundell.”] Mr Mundell—that’s right. Forgive me for my sins; I know not what I do. Members will be glad to know that I do not plan on speaking for 15 minutes today, as I did in the Chamber the other day.
The regulations give effect to the new business rates multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure and high-value properties. This is the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget we announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, fairer system with permanently lower multipliers for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. The scope of these new multipliers is broadly the same as that of the current RHL relief. These new multipliers will be 5p below their national equivalents, but when combined with the outcomes of the revaluation, the tax rate that RHL properties on the small business multiplier pay next year will fall by nearly 12p and the rate for RHL properties on the standards multiplier by 12.5p.
It is important that we make support for the high street sustainable, so we are funding these new multipliers through higher rates on the top 1% of properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will be only 2.8% above the national standard multiplier, meaning that properties in its scope will pay a reasonable tax rate too. These new rates will be worth almost £1 billion a year and will benefit more than 750,000 RHL properties. They will mean that from April, the most valuable properties, such as large distribution warehouses occupied by online giants, will pay a tax rate 33% higher than that for small high street properties.
The new business rates multipliers being brought into force by these statutory instruments are the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I commend them to the Committee—and forgive me, Mr Mundell.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell.
The two sets of regulations together set out the new tiered business rates system for the 2026 financial year. In plain English, the first set of regulations defines who gets which business rates multiplier under the new system, and the second sets out how much large premises will pay.
Of course, ahead of the election the now Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. Indeed, the Chancellor said at the Budget, referring to these measures, that these business rates were at their lowest level since 1991. The reality is proving somewhat different. Businesses are facing major increases, and claims to the contrary are false. Their bills are going up. That is why I, along with the shadow Housing Secretary and shadow Business Secretary, have written to the Office for Statistics Regulation, as it is statistically misleading to make the claim of record low taxes on the basis of the multipliers, as those are not the tax rates. I was pleased to have confirmation on Friday that the Office for Statistics Regulation is looking into this matter as we speak.
I will now turn to the regulations. In their first Budget, the Labour Government chose to cut back retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief introduced by the last Conservative Government from 75% to 40%. That was a tax raise of £1.1 billion a year. Through these measures, they have axed that relief in its entirety, which means higher bills. The Government have also locked in automatic inflation-linked rises every single year. What will the result of that be? The Office for Budget Responsibility expects business rate receipts to increase by £3.5 billion next year, a 10% increase in a single year. For small and medium-sized businesses, that is incredibly challenging. The bill of the average independent pub will rocket from £4,000 in 2024-25 to nearly £10,000 by 2028-29, a rise of 144%. The position of shops, hotels and restaurants is even worse than that.
At this point, it is usual for Ministers—indeed, for this Minister—to claim that the last Conservative Government would simply have abolished the relief overnight. Of course, that is utter nonsense, and I welcome the opportunity to get that on the record. It is simply a desperate attempt to deflect from what we can see are the bad political choices that the Chancellor and her Ministers have made. As the Conservative Party manifesto said, we would:
“Continue to ease the burden of business rates for high street, leisure and hospitality businesses”,
and our record is one of supporting the sector and the people creating jobs across the country.
Under the new system set out in these regulations, combined with the revaluation, businesses across retail, leisure and hospitality face much higher bills, and fewer will benefit compared with the 40% relief, because under that scheme, as is set out in the explanatory notes, local authorities had more discretion over which premises benefited from the relief. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s estimate—the Valuation Office Agency will undoubtedly have provided one to the Treasury— of the number of businesses that will not get the relief under the discretionary powers that were there in the first place?
The rates of the small and standard multipliers are set in separate regulations, so I will not dwell on those, but two months on from the Budget, we have already seen a partial reversal of the plans the Chancellor set out, despite the promises of lower multipliers and lower bills. Ministers may point to their pubs and live music relief as if it solves the problem, but it does not: it is a sticking plaster when there is a major wound that the Chancellor has caused. It covers just 38,000 out of 750,000 hospitality and leisure businesses—barely one in 20—and it excludes restaurants, cafes, shops, hotels, theatres and all the venues that will have been in touch with members of the Committee. One in four pubs will still pay more overall, even after that relief, and guess what? That relief is only temporary—indeed, a sticking plaster. The Minister previously said there would be no further support for the wider sector. We all hope that he has to come back to the House with that package soon enough, or perhaps the Chancellor will actually do it herself when she delivers her spring update.
The draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 set the rate for the new high value multiplier. The standard multiplier will be 48p, and the high value multiplier will be 50.8p—an extra 2.8p in the pound.
Big online warehouses, with a rateable value of at least £500,000, are supposedly the target, but twice as many retail sites, often acting as anchors for our high streets, will now face this higher rate. That is not what Labour promised before the election. It said it would replace the business rates system, raising the same revenue in a fairer way and levelling the playing field between high streets and online giants. Will the Minister explain why the Government are targeting anchor retail stores that are so important to our wider high streets? Of course, these higher rates come on top of higher employment costs, increased alcohol duties and the new tourist tax on hotels and bed and breakfasts, which UKHospitality warns could cost consumers £518 million, if the mayors take up the powers given to them by the Government.
We would take a very different approach. We would deliver permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses of up to £110,000, helping around 250,000 small businesses, and we would pay for it by controlling the welfare budget. We believe in backing those taking a risk, employing people and investing.
Dan Tomlinson
In response to the points raised by the shadow Minister, it is worth emphasising that the decision to introduce new tax rates to the system means that, for the first time, a typical high street business now has a lower multiplier—a lower tax rate—than the online giants and the larger properties. The tax rate on larger properties is 33% higher than the rate paid by a smaller property on the high street. That significant difference is the first step in the reforms that we have implemented to business rates.
I will not make the point that the previous Government would have removed the reliefs overnight, but I will say that if they were planning on keeping them, I do not understand why that information was not in the documents that the OBR published in advance of the general election. If the shadow Minister will not concede that his Government would have got rid of the reliefs overnight, he seems to be suggesting that there was a multibillion-pound unfunded tax cut that they did not tell us about before the election. I am not sure which he would prefer.
In advance of the Budget, we considered the inclusion of large retail stores within the high-value multiplier. It is really encouraging that Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Iceland and other large retailers have welcomed our getting the balance right in the business rates system and setting the multiplier at a rate that has allowed some shops to reduce prices, or at least hold down price increases for consumers, because of the changes that we made and the proportionate way in which we went about making them.
We are committed to going further to reform the business rates system. At the Budget, we published a call for evidence on how to remove further barriers to investment. Transforming business rates is a multi-year process. The Government remain firmly committed to collaborating with stakeholders and with businesses small and large to achieve further meaningful change in the business rates system.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Safety of the A525 near Meadows Primary School
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
Indefinite Leave to Remain
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance.
The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse.
My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. Many of my Slough constituents, especially healthcare workers, have signed these petitions about indefinite leave to remain. Many feel that the goalposts are being moved and that this policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on their lives. Does he agree that there should be no retrospective implementation of the change? That would be truly unfair on them and on the rest of us.
Tony Vaughan
I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make.
Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a compelling case. The position is particularly acute in island communities, where we need to bring people in to be part of our community. Their role is welcomed, as we cannot just ship workers in from another town or village 10, 15 or 20 miles down the road. This extended period of ILR will make it less likely that people will want to settle in communities like mine, because they will not want that extended period of uncertainty in their lives.
Tony Vaughan
The situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is similar to that in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, where there has been a long-term recruitment and retention crisis. As a coastal area, workers can only go one way. There are massive problems and, as he said, they will be worsened by this proposal.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I thank him for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 60% of internationally educated staff without ILR have said that it is very likely that extending this qualifying period will affect their decision to remain in the UK. That equates to 46,000 nursing staff at risk of leaving the UK. Does he agree that this policy would worsen the retention crisis? Also, does he agree that the Government ought to produce an NHS-specific impact assessment for this policy?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree, and will go on to make those very points.
That was the deal. The Government are now considering doubling the wait for settlement from five years to 10, and up to 15 years for care workers. One of the most contentious elements of the consultation is that that will apply to people who are already here. I fundamentally oppose that rule change. Migrants entered this country on a contract, and the deal was simple: if they came to work in the sectors where we needed them, obeyed the law and paid their taxes, they could stay. Changing the terms of that contract after people have spent years building a life here is not just bad policy but a breach of trust. It makes Britain look unpredictable and like a country that does not keep its word. We cannot talk about earning settlement if we keep moving the goalposts after the game has started. In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. The position of the two petitioners who sit in the Public Gallery is that it should be abandoned, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend’s mother is very proud of him. My constituents, a same-sex couple with a child, fled from Russia because of fear of persecution. They work here, they pay tax and their child is in a local school. They are fully integrated into the community, but have written to me to say that they are 10 months away from gaining ILR and feel that changing the rules retrospectively does not honour the commitments that were made to them when they were granted refugee status. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very shameful for our country to row back on what was promised to my constituents when they first arrived here?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, as a fellow lawyer, that it is rather unusual to bring retrospective legislation into effect? There have been previous cases where legislation has been made retrospective, but that has been to punish crime. We are talking about ordinary, decent people who have come to this country to better not only their own lives but our lives and those of the rest of the community. Does he agree that it is absolutely wrong to have the law applied retrospectively, and that it puts the legal system to shame?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change.
I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?
Tony Vaughan
Those are exactly the points made by the first petitioner, who works in the care sector and is sitting in the Public Gallery.
I am also concerned about the proposal to place lower earners, including most care workers, on the 15-year route to settlement. We have heard about the problems of recruitment, and that will certainly make the position worse. During that limbo, people cannot progress. As one of the petitioners, Mr Weerasinghe, told me, he must complete the entire qualifying period on the same job code, meaning he has to stay, essentially, in the same job. He cannot progress and move beyond the job that he originally came here for so, at the end of the 10 years, ultimately he pays less tax. That is not in the interest of the public, and it makes no sense. If we tell a care worker they must wait 15 years for security, while Australia offers it in three and Canada in five, they will simply vote with their feet. We risk becoming a training ground for economic competitors: recruiting talent, training them up and then watching them leave for jurisdictions that offer them a stable future.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. I apologise if I frightened people with my very loud voice—[Laughter.]—but I wanted to be heard.
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal is both unfair and dehumanising? The Government need to halt it immediately. More than 1,000 of my constituents signed the petition. I have met care workers in my constituency and here in Parliament and they are very frightened for their livelihoods and their futures. Does he agree that the proposal needs to be halted?
Tony Vaughan
I do agree. The people already in the system who do not have stability, who do not know what will happen and who made a huge investment fear for their future, which is at stake. I want to address very briefly—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.
Tony Vaughan
I will press on quickly to the end. I just want to address very quickly public funds and integration. Mr Weerasinghe’s petition does advocate for restricting benefits for new ILR holders, but in my view that is a political choice, not an economic inevitability. If we raise core care worker pay by around £4,000 a year, that is a step towards the sector-wide fair pay agreement that Unison is calling for. Then we could bring a single care worker up to the level where they are a net contributor in tax, reducing churn in the sector and finally rewarding people who hold our health and care system together.
Under the no recourse to public funds system, many migrant families are just one crisis away from disaster. Depriving migrant families of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled contradicts the Government’s own child poverty strategy. If we want sound public finances, we need integration. Integrated families are stable—they are renters, homeowners and taxpayers. We do not build stability by keeping people on the edge of destitution for over a decade.
I do not deny that the Government’s consultation is based on the potentially legitimate aim of ensuring that the path to settlement for non-nationals is fair and serves the public interest. But on the key consultation points, I would say abandon retrospectivity, integrate those who are already here and honour the contract. Secondly, I understand the fear of so-called leakage, where care workers get ILR after five years and then immediately quit for better pay in other sectors, but a 15-year trap is not the answer—it is a charter for exploitation and modern-day slavery. Instead, let us look at time-limited, sector-specific conditions, possibly requiring people to remain in a sector for a period of time. Thirdly, we must recognise care work as a valid social contribution, and fourthly, not overcomplicate the penalty system. We already have robust good character rules; we just need to apply the rules we already have.
I urge the Minister to listen to the voices we have heard in the petition and today in this debate. Let us drop the retrospective measures and rethink the 15-year wait. Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but remain one that always honours its debts—not just its financial ones, but its moral ones, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Many Members wish to speak. We will try to get you all in, but I have to impose an immediate three-minute time limit. Every intervention means that somebody at the back of the queue might not get in at all, so do bear that in mind, but we will try and get everybody in, starting with Cameron Thomas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Let me begin by thanking my constituent, Pulasthi, whose petition has led in part to this important debate. I believe that when we make a deal with somebody, we honour it. We are honour-bound to keep it.
Ayana does not understand politics, nor should she have to. She began her education at nursery here in the UK, where she began to learn how to interact and play with others, and she made her first friends in that nursery. Almost four years since her father made a deal with the UK to uplift his family and come here to work, Ayana now has many friends at school, where English is one of her strongest subjects. Everything that Ayana has come to learn about the world, she learnt here in the UK. She has no meaningful connection anywhere else. Like any other child, she imagines growing up together with her friends and completing her GCSEs. When she grows up, she wants to be a dancer or a lawyer, as is the nature of childhood.
Almost five years ago, Ayana’s father made a deal with the UK: the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain gave him enough certainty to justify bringing his family here, plan their futures and guarantee stability in Ayana’s formative years. I am glad that she is yet unburdened by the instability that her father now feels. The changes to indefinite leave to remain announced by the Home Secretary in November 2025 have caused unnecessary stress to many who have already lived here for several years, and who have paid visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, income tax and national insurance.
On 2 September 2025, I invited the Government to demonstrate true leadership over the issue of immigration, rather than follow the Conservative party and Reform UK into the abyss. If the Government have the moral courage to navigate this sensitive issue with compassion, they must honour the deal they made with families such as Ayana’s before the goalposts were moved. Regardless of whatever else changes, will the Government honour the timeline to indefinite leave to remain, as was promised to those who are already here?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
There are few people who are opposed to a robust and fair immigration system, but sadly these plans are not that. They would rip up the promise on which people built their lives. For workers who were asked to come here to fill skills gaps in our public services and industries, the route to settlement would double from five years to 10. Lower-paid public service workers could be forced to wait 15 years, longer than the new standard, while those earning six-figure salaries are offered a fast track of three years. It is contribution measured by wages, rather than care given, lives saved or children taught.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I am sorry, but I want everybody to have time to speak.
Worse still, the changes would apply retrospectively. Nurses, social care staff and council workers who came here under one set of rules would suddenly find the goalposts moved or, worse, find they could be deported due to harsher income thresholds, with their public sector employers unable to meet the increased salary requirements and their colleagues left behind, stressed and overworked.
Even after gaining indefinite leave to remain, people would have no recourse to public funds—settled in name, but excluded in reality. For women fleeing domestic abuse, disabled people, and the LGBT communities, the impact will be cruel and profound.
The problems reach beyond skilled worker routes. Charities and clinicians in the asylum system warn that prolonged insecurity deepens trauma and drives people into destitution. Earlier access to work, settlement and citizenship improves outcomes for individuals and the communities they join. A humane asylum system, with safe routes and timely decisions, is not an act of charity, but an investment in social cohesion.
Another community unfairly affected is the British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. For them, the five-year path to settlement must be protected and made permanent. Retrospective rule changes or excessive salary thresholds and language barriers would simply betray the commitment that this country made to people seeking safety and freedom. Children born here should have automatic and secure status, not years of uncertainty.
I urge the Minister to stand for dignity, fairness and humanity. Retain the five-year route to settlement, end retrospective changes, protect refugees and BNO families, reform skilled worker visas so that they prevent exploitation rather than enable it, and above all, recognise the simple truth that those who care for Britain are part of Britain.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Last week I held a meeting with the Nigerian community in my constituency. Around 30 workers were present, many of whom work intolerably long hours performing vital tasks for scandalously low pay in the healthcare and social care sectors. These people are scared: they are scared that the state will arbitrarily deprive them of their security and their ability to plan for the future with any certainty.
One of those individuals—her name is Uzoamaka—wrote to me outlining her concerns. Uzoamaka came to our country in 2022, and works in the NHS. She wrote:
“I am an immigrant, a taxpayer, a worker, and a human being. But the new immigration white paper strips me and others like me of dignity, stability, and belonging”,
She goes on to say that proposals to extend indefinite leave to remain
“to make someone live in limbo for ten years, despite working hard and paying taxes, is cruelty in slow motion. Ten years of exclusion, from a future. This is not about integration. It is about humiliation.”
How can a Labour Administration who profess to care about social justice participate in such performative barbarity against immigrants—a group already vilified in the media and subject to acute marginalisation in wider society? As Uzoamaka writes:
“this entire system treats immigrants as disposable tools. We are good enough to pay into the NHS, but not to benefit from it. We are needed but never welcomed.”
Similarly, a proposal that workers could still qualify after five years if they earn over £50,000 is
“a gatekeeping tool. Most healthcare assistants, carers, cleaners, and laboratory technicians will never meet this bar. Yet we clap for them, we depend on them, we call them key workers. Now we discard them.”
Carla Denyer
On that point, last week more than 45 migrant rights groups described the earned settlement proposals as “fundamentally racist and classist.” Does the hon. Member share my deep concerns that the proposals will hit the most vulnerable the hardest, and create a discriminatory, two-tier system in which wealth and certain jobs or nationalities are prioritised over others?
Iqbal Mohamed
I wholeheartedly agree. We must have equal compassion for all in our society, whether they were born here or came here to build a life for themselves and support our country and the prosperity that we all share in.
Uzoamaka concluded her letter by asserting that
“we do not want favours. We want fairness. We do not seek sympathy. We demand justice.”
If Labour politicians did not go into politics to give a voice to the otherwise powerless, such as Uzoamaka, and to fight for a humane state, why are they here? That is why Labour Members must vehemently oppose any changes that would extend indefinite leave to remain or unjustly penalise those on low incomes.
I urge the Minister to examine the Home Secretary’s proposals, which would marginalise even further the lowest earners and the most marginalised in our society, who make a key contribution to our society. They will destroy the fabric of our country, our NHS, the care sector and many other industries that rely on people from outside Britain to keep our country running.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing the debate.
Legislation should be clear, and the people to whom it applies should know where they stand. Retrospectivity and arbitrary or subjective criteria make for bad law, precisely because they destroy clarity and certainty. Many of my constituents in Brent West are deeply concerned by the Government’s consultation.
I welcome the Government’s saying that they will not change the status of those who already have settled status here. To do so, they admit, would be unfair. They say:
“These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here…and have been contributing to our society…. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 891.]
Ah, but we do break our deals, it would seem. Take the family in my constituency who came lawfully to the UK 16 years ago. They did not meet the requirements for other settlement routes, but after 10 years, they have put down roots: they have had two children, and were earning just enough to apply for the 10-year path to settlement under the long residency rule.
So far, this family have paid a further leave to remain application fee of £1,321 per person, plus an immigration health surcharge of £2,587.50 per adult, reduced to £1,940 for their children. That is a total of £14,363—paid not once, but twice, because the fee is due every 30 months. Can the Minister tell me whether next year, when the third payment is due, and having scrimped to save the £28,726 they have already paid, this family should double down and pay the third instalment of £14,363 so that they can go on to make the final ILR fee payment of £12,126? Or will they suddenly find that their pathway has been blocked by a new requirement that one of them cannot fulfil, and that the £43,089 they have already spent is lost, or that the process has been extended so that they continue to pay for another five years under what looks like indentured service?
These people, too, have been in our country for years, even decades; they have families here and have contributed to our society. We held out a promise to them, too—that of a 10-year pathway, which now looks more like a road to nowhere except penury.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I represent a constituency that is proud of its diversity, and I see at first hand how welcoming talented, hard-working people from around the world enriches our society. That is why the Government’s proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain hit so close to home and threaten to up-end the lives of many in my area.
Few in this Chamber will truly understand the insecurity that comes with moving to another country—of building a life while your future, family plans and financial stability rest on political decisions that are beyond your control. It is no surprise that so many who contribute enormously to our communities and economy feel frustrated as the goalposts are moved yet again.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
One of my constituents is incredibly distressed: they are a dependant of a local business owner and they contacted me about the European Community association agreement route. They are concerned that the proposed earned settlement skilled worker metrics cannot be applied to ECAA entrepreneurs, who must demonstrate a genuine business rather than meet salary thresholds. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to indefinite leave to remain must properly consider those on the ECAA route, and any other specific routes?
Ayoub Khan
I totally agree. These changes are simply unfair—not just unfair, but economically short-sighted. They risk driving away the very people our country depends on—highly skilled professionals who make up a small group of fewer than 70 specialist occupations, yet who are critical to productivity, innovation and competitiveness. Employers already struggle to recruit domestically, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Raising the salary threshold to £50,000 ignores the labour market reality and places further strain on businesses that are already paying visa fees, skills charges and the immigration health surcharge. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) mentioned how much people pay, but there is an added cost: that of legal fees, which can run into thousands of pounds.
These workers are not burdens on the state: they pay tax, national insurance and over £1,000 per adult each year through the health surcharge. Many have partners who are also highly skilled and work full-time, yet whose contributions are simply overlooked. Most concerning of all is the proposal to extend the settlement route from five years to 10, potentially applied retrospectively. People—doctors, carers, engineers and teachers—came here in good faith, having been recruited during shortages and given a clear promise of settlement after five years. Changing that promise years later breaks that trust and undermines confidence in an already punitive system. If the Government truly want a controlled and effective system, they must value contribution over political expediency. I urge Ministers to rethink this proposal, protect existing routes and ensure that the UK remains a country that keeps its word.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his expert advocacy on this issue.
As a former lawyer who worked in immigration before being elected to this House, I can say with confidence that the changes announced last year, and expected to emerge from the consultation, represent some of the most complex and far-reaching reforms in decades. We are told that this is a moral mission to restore order and control and create a system that is fair and firm. If that is the aim, why are we proposing changes that strip away certainty for people who are already here—people who believed that ILR was a transitional route to stability, and not a moving target?
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
So many families in Reading, including my own parents, decided to accept positions in the UK and bring their children over on the promise of a stable educational future. We know how transformational education can be for children’s ability to contribute to the economy in future. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that stability for those who are already here?
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree entirely. Many people uprooted their lives, accepted jobs, bought homes, enrolled their children in schools and planned their futures in good faith, on the understanding that settlement after five years was the agreed pathway. They are now being told, midway through that journey, that the rules have changed. Retrospective application of this policy would be not only deeply unfair, but entirely unjustified.
At the same time, the uncoupling of joint routes to settlement would leave families separated for longer periods. Consider a family where the primary breadwinner is fast-tracked to settlement, while their spouse—the primary caregiver, perhaps working part time—is left on a longer and more precarious route. Where are the impact assessments for those on maternity leave, part-time workers, carers or people with disabilities? We cannot announce a two-dimensional approach to migration and work out the consequences later—not when it concerns some of the most life-altering decisions that people will ever make.
I know that the proposals are under consultation, but we must be clear about the direction of travel. They risk recreating the very conditions that defined the hostile environment: long-term uncertainty, barriers to stability, and communities living with the constant fear that the rules could change again. When my constituents hear migration described as a destabilising event and migrants framed as a burden to be managed, and see policies recycled from failures of the past, they know that this is not reform, but a road to insecurity and division.
The congregations of St Mark’s and St Mary’s in my constituency have also presented me with a petition that urges the Government to show compassion and make suitable transitional arrangements for those who are already here, building their lives and contributing to our communities in Sheffield. They, like many of my constituents, know that the proposals lack humanity. They know that they will impose extraordinary hardship on friends, neighbours and the wider community. And they know that a country that truly believes in sanctuary does not make belonging something that has to be earned again and again, over a lifetime. I urge the Minister to end any retrospective changes, and to retain the five-year route for people who are already here.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
Of all the grotesque and grim things that have been conducted by the Labour and Conservative parties in the race to the bottom with Reform, this is by the far the grimmest and most grotesque. In my constituency, I have met countless families who will be on the wrong side of this—families who do not deserve any of it, and have done everything asked of them. They work, they study, their children speak with a Scottish accent, and Scotland is the only home that many of them have ever known. They are cherished members of our community, yet many of them still wake up every morning unsure whether the life they are building for themselves and their family will be taken away. That is why indefinite leave to remain matters: it is the difference between planning for the future and simply enduring the present.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I will quickly add the voices of the Hong Kong BNOs in my constituency who feel just like that. One said:
“We have built our lives—our careers, finances, childcare and caring responsibilities”
on the rules that were promised by this Government. Does the hon. Member agree that this limbo and instability is a disgrace?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. When people are given security, it takes away that limbo. I do not know whether many people around this room can imagine that type of uncertain status, but that is what people have to live with every single day of their lives.
Because of the proposed changes, people will remain for longer in the immigration system, where they face repeated applications, fees, health charges and often legal costs. Illness, injury or redundancy can throw everything into question, and it might even be penalised. What is most unforgiveable, though, is that the Government have left open the possibility that the changes could apply retrospectively to people who have already started their journey towards citizenship in the UK, and who are building their lives under the current rules. This is a profound betrayal of those who trusted the system and have made the UK their home.
I have a large Sri Lankan community in my constituency. They are partly—almost exclusively—responsible for keeping our social care service together. I met them a couple of weeks ago, and they told me they are going home, just because of the threat of this. They have had enough. They do not want to be treated like this any more. They are refusing to go along with this, and I have to say I do not blame them, but I worry: where we will get the staff to replace them in a Scotland that is in the early stages of depopulation and has some of the most challenging demographics in the whole of western Europe? They are irreplaceable.
Migrant families are already in survival mode, working long hours in low-wage jobs, saving for Home Office fees and living in insecure housing. Some risk destitution simply to keep up with the cost of maintaining lawful status. These pressures leave them with little time or energy to contribute to the volunteer initiatives that will be required of them. They have grown up here, and they have no home but this.
It is so encouraging to see so many Labour Members here today. I say to them: “Get down to the PLP this evening and put your case forward. Let’s make sure that they know the voice of the Labour Members of this House—and please, for goodness’ sake, get another one of those famous U-turns.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Through you, Sir Edward, may I address the Minister? Just read the room. The only other times it has been as packed as this when I have been here in recent times have been for debates on the two-child limit and on welfare benefits. I do not want to see our Government make another embarrassing U-turn like that.
The reason we are here is that every one of us has a case that, if the proposed change goes through, will be absolutely tragic. Families have settled, sold their accommodation and everything in their home, worked hard and delivered everything asked of them, and we are going to deny them and their children the right to the future that they hope for. If this goes ahead, every one of us will report social care collapsing in our constituencies.
I remind people that it was many of these workers, with their experience, who delivered us through covid. Some of them sacrificed their lives. This is just unjust, and the Minister needs to recognise that, take the message back to those who are developing our strategy as a Government and say, “This isn’t the route to go down.”
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
John McDonnell
I would rather not, because other people need to come in.
Let me just make a point about parliamentary process. If this is to be done not through primary legislation that we can debate and amend, but via a statutory instrument, it needs to be done under the double affirmative process, so that we can have a debate and the opportunity for amendments. Otherwise, I think the Government are going to run into opposition of a scale that they have seen on other issues, frighten people and undermine our support, completely unnecessarily. If there are issues around immigration that we have to deal with—if people can remember, we did it with the bogus colleges—we should do it through proper legal process and prosecution. If there are abuses in the system, let us address the abuses, but do not harm people in this way as a result.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate.
This morning I met a constituent, Petra, who has been in the country for three and a half years. She works in the care sector. She works extremely long hours, which are not in her control; sometimes she is loaded with work six days straight from 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 o’clock at night, and sometimes she gets no work at all. When she talks to her employers, they say, “Well, you and the rest of your team are on visas, and if you report us and we go out of business then you’re all going to be leaving the UK.” We are creating this enormous class of indentured servitude.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Those were exactly the words of my constituent Arshad Khan when he came to see me at my constituency surgery this weekend; he made that point about indentured servitude and visa licences, and how these employers operate. I just want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, because this is a serious point. People are living with the power of their employer over their head. Sometimes, they are held on poor rates of pay and poor shift patterns, and they cannot challenge it because their employer has all the power in the relationship.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
The situation I described is obviously cruel, and this moving of the goalposts will make it miles crueller. To the point made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I really hope that the Minister is reading the room, because the country is up in arms about the proposed change, and we should not allow it to be made. I ask him to reconsider.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
Controlling our borders is a basic function of the state. The Government inherited open borders and are now undertaking the serious work required to fix them, so I welcome the Minister’s efforts. However, I think there are some tweaks we could make. I have spoken on this issue several times, in particular in respect of Hong Kong BNO visa holders, and I am grateful that the Government have committed to keeping the five-year route for that group. Today, though, I am going to focus on how the proposed changes will affect families, especially those I have been speaking with in the Morley Indian community.
Around 30% of the families I have spoken with are due to receive their ILR within the next six months, so they are understandably very anxious about what the changes will mean for them. The vast majority are high earners or work in key sectors. Many of the people I have spoken to earn well over £50,000, do not claim benefits, and contribute significantly to our economy and our public services through their taxes.
Because at least one member of those families is earning a high salary, their spouse or partner has been able to move into part-time work, often so that they can help raise and care for the children. They are very worried that, as a result, they will not meet the new criteria at the same time as their partners. They came to this country under one set of rules, which allowed dependants to move to the UK with them, and now they are very concerned at the prospect of being unable to qualify together and being broken up entirely.
Have the Government considered putting in place strong transitional arrangements that do not punish families who are already here and contributing far more to the UK than they take out? Alternatively, would the Government consider allowing a family to qualify for ILR together where the family—not an individual—meets the salary threshold?
Many of the Morley Indian families I have spoken with came over here knowing that they would pay international university fees while they were waiting for ILR. They accepted that those were the rules. However, under the proposed changes, they might wait a lot longer —and, worse still, if they went back to India, they would find that they are no longer considered home students for fees purposes there. They would find themselves trapped in a situation where they cannot pay the fees here and they cannot pay the fees back at home.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the speech he is making. Does he agree that although the Government seek through their proposals to increase integration, by limiting ILR to those who stay beyond 10 years we are actually going to reduce integration in exactly the sort of instance that he has outlined? That risks undermining the integration that I see in workplaces, churches and community groups in Sunderland.
Mark Sewards
I completely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. The people I was speaking about just before he intervened will find themselves trapped, and effectively shut out from university education altogether, even though they are already integrated into this country.
I urge the Government to consider the full impact of the implementation of the proposed changes for people who are already here, working and contributing more than they ever take out, who came in good faith, and who have followed every rule we have set for them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I have much to say in this debate, hence it is very difficult for me to know where to begin. However, I will begin by thanking the petitioners.
For this MP—indeed, this is also the case for many of the MPs in this room, and for Cabinet Ministers and shadow Ministers, and even for a Prime Minister—I am what I am because of the manner in which this country treated me when I came here. I had two parents who could not speak a word of English, yet the support that we received means that now we have a dynasty of academics, entrepreneurs, professionals and even a parliamentarian—although I know, for some people, that might be enough to create a policy to make sure that it never happens again. [Laughter.]
We have a sense of belonging to this land, even though we are far away from our ancestral land. That does not happen by chance. It happens by design, and it can only happen in a country that promotes integration based on the values of decency, respect and contribution, rather than contempt, impatience and transactional values. It works when a society respects values that should be woven into its fabric—when we value our care workers, our frontline health workers, our teachers and our transport workers, not because of how much money they earn but because they are the foundation of our society.
Iqbal Mohamed
A lot of people who have come here have been branded “the Boris wave”, but one of my Nigerian constituents told me they came here under “the covid wave”, to care for people in this country.
Shockat Adam
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Having a policy like the current one also flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s pre-election pledge. It is a betrayal of his sixth pledge, which we were told was:
“an immigration system rooted in compassion and dignity.”
I, and I am sure many others, feel the betrayal most sharply when it comes from an Asian Home Secretary—someone whose own journey reflects the promise of migration, but who now advances policies that punish people who are just like her own family and mine once were.
Apart from the policy being morally bankrupt, it also flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. We are told that this issue is all about cost, and that migration is a burden. Yet those claims collapse under scrutiny. The widely cited £234 billion “ILR emergency figure” has been discredited even by its own authors. Correct the errors and migration delivers a net fiscal gain of £100 billion.
Shockat Adam
I am sorry, but I cannot do so, in the interest of time.
Security results in integration. Insecurity results in chaos, not to mention the serious possibility of exploitation of people by employers; colleagues have already made the point about indentured labour.
When did modern Britain become such a transactional country? If we truly want an integrated Britain, the last thing we want is longer waiting times, uncertainty and a broken promise. What we need is certainty—five years’ maximum for the process, with fast decisions—and a real acknowledgement that migration, when it is organised with respect and fairness, strengthens a country rather than weakening it.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The proposed changes to ILR and the consultation on earned settlement have far-reaching consequences, so it is essential that they are delivered with fairness and compassion. I support the Government’s mission to restore control of and confidence in the immigration system, including the clear objective of reducing net migration and ensuring that the rules are properly enforced. Public trust depends on a system that is coherent, that is consistent, and that works, but it is worth remembering that the people who have come to the UK have come through legitimate means, and they have come to fill the Brexit work gap, to support our public services, and to contribute well to our society.
I must reflect the real anxiety that I am hearing in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes from people who are already here, already working and already paying tax, and who entered the system in good faith under the existing framework. They have built their lives around these rules—our rules—and it would be wrong if the goalposts were moved halfway through the match.
I want to add to this debate the voice of one of my constituents, Victor Olubumoye, a care worker who has described living under what he called “visa fear”. He told me that every day he went to work fearful that a single mistake could cost him not just his job but his immigration status, and that managers repeatedly reminded him that his visa depended upon them; we have already heard about that situation from other Members. In Victor’s own words:
“You cannot give what you do not have. People who are treated without dignity struggle to give dignity.”
That testimony matters, because it goes to the heart of what fairness looks like in practice. If we want a system that commands confidence, we must not create incentives for silence, exploitation and instability in our essential services. Making changes for future arrivals can probably just about be explained, but making retrospective changes for those who are already here, and who often work in our essential public services, risks undermining workforce stability and basic fairness.
In my constituency, the issue of immigration is a topic of interest, to say the least, and there is no point in pretending it is not, but that interest is not about those who came on a proper visa, through a proper scheme from the Government. Concerns about the over-reliance of employers on overseas labour are not the fault of those individuals; they are here because we asked them to come and help. As the consultation progresses, I ask for the careful consideration of transitional protections or differentiated arrangements for existing workers, so that their contribution is properly recognised, their integration is supported and their concerns are reflected in the final policy.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. On Saturday, I met with 200 members of the Paddock Wood Hong Kong community. You are probably wondering, Sir Edward, why 200 people would give up their early Saturday evening to see me. They did so because they were worried, for themselves and for their families. They came to voice their fear that their pathway to settlement had narrowed, and they came because the conditions under which they uprooted their lives in Hong Kong and came to Britain are being changed. I am deeply disappointed that the promise made by the British Government on which they came here is now potentially being rewritten.
Let us go into some detail. I am grateful that the Hong Kong BNO route will continue to allow settlement after five years, but there have been two changes: one on language requirements, and one on earnings thresholds. On language, many BNO families came here as three-generational units, in which there of course are quite elderly people. Obviously, it is more difficult for those people to achieve a much higher standard of English proficiency—any hon. Member who has learned a language in their life will know that it is easier to do at 20 than at 80—so what are they to do? If a person is 80 and fails a higher language requirement, would they get sent back to Hong Kong while the rest of their family remained? The Government need to look at that in more detail.
On income requirements, three-generational family units have come, as I said. Some 70% of BNO visa holders are degree educated, and they are working in jobs that are significantly below their professional level and standing.
Mike Martin
I will not take any interventions, as so many hon. Members are seeking to get in. The combination of highly skilled individuals and three-generational families means that, quite rightly, not everyone in a family goes to work, so what about the carers, part-time workers, the elderly and students? If a person is studying at university and is not earning, do they need to meet the income threshold? There is a complete lack of clarity.
When I attended the Chinese new year celebrations in Paddock Wood last year, which were held jointly with the congregation of St Andrew’s church, I saw at first hand just how deeply the Hong Kong community enriches our community, and how the native Paddock Wood community reciprocates that. The British Government have made a promise, and they should stick to their promises. I urge them to reconsider.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
St Mark’s gospel says:
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
With the political discourse of today largely focusing on blaming immigration for the societal ills our country faces, that commandment is sadly not in fashion.
The Government’s proposal for pathways to settlement introduces a new 10-year baseline for people, including those granted refugee status, with time added or taken away for circumstances seen as favourable or unfavourable to the Home Secretary of the day. If someone was to arrive via illegal routes, that adds 20 years to the baseline, meaning it would be 30 years before they could apply for citizenship. Bear in mind that arriving by an irregular route is almost unavoidable due to the virtual nonexistence of safe and legal routes. It must be acknowledged that claiming asylum is a human right; it is not an abuse of any system. Proposals that differentiate between regular and irregular arrivals are unequal at their very core. Differentiating would create an inferior class of people, whose need for protection might well be internationally recognised, but whose long-term status is kept deliberately precarious.
In a Scottish context, the Scottish Refugee Council has said that in Glasgow last year there were over 2,000 children from refugee families in temporary accommodation. Scottish local authorities are already at breaking point, with over a decade of underfunding—equating to over £1 billion these last 10 years from the SNP Scottish Government. We all know that children growing up in poverty has a huge long-term impact on life chances, health outcomes, our local and national economies, and the condition and functionality of our public services.
I say to the Minister: Labour must do better than copying the right-wing parties and demonising immigrants and asylum seekers. This country does not want or need us to be some diluted version of Reform. Whether we are talking about immigration, welfare, education, the environment, industry, or all the rest, ultimately, the question is always the same: what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in one that looks after the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and destitute, or one that looks to scapegoat and point the finger at these people for the political decisions that have led to growing poverty and inequality? As a socialist, and someone who believes in the commandment of love thy neighbour, I know what I want my Government to do.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important matter to Parliament, and to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for leading the debate.
The Government are right to say that settlement should be earned through contribution—few would dispute that principle. The consultation documents point to a system that contradicts those stated goals. I am sure the Minister will say that no final decisions have been made, but the direction of travel is clear. A 10-year baseline for most routes—15 years for care workers, as many Members have mentioned—with complex reductions based largely on salary, fundamentally misunderstands what settlement is for.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a good point about salaries and how income levels are not necessarily a good predictor of usefulness to society and economic contribution. We have heard that point made clearly about social workers, but does he agree that in high-tech sectors such as space, biotech and robotics, we need global talent and that only by pooling that talent will we succeed, which is why we should not be putting in place these barriers to indefinite leave to remain?
Ian Sollom
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will shortly cite an example of that from my constituency. The key distinction to make is between selection and settlement. Our visa system is the selection mechanism; we judge whether someone has the skills we need, meets the thresholds, and fills a genuine vacancy. Settlement is about whether people can actually plan a future here and commit to staying. Five years of working, paying taxes, learning English and staying out of trouble is earning it. Extending it to 10 or 15 years does not raise standards; it just makes Britain unattractive to exactly the people our visa system should be welcoming.
I will give a concrete example. I have a constituent who came in on the high potential individual visa, which is a route explicitly designed to attract the world’s best talent. He is a skilled engineer; he chose the UK based on the clear five-year pathway. He tells me that had a 10-year route been the policy, he would never have come. That is the reality when we are competing for talent.
The Government also claim that the changes will improve integration, but uncertainty is the enemy of integration. Someone who knows they can settle after five years will invest fully in their future here; someone facing 10 to 15 years of uncertainty will keep their options open elsewhere. Another constituent who has been in touch is an orthopaedic surgeon, a professional serving our NHS. He has three children in British schools. He tells me that if the rules change, he cannot wait for another six years. He will leave, and our NHS and our country will lose him and his talent.
The moral stakes are clearest when I hear from Hongkongers in my constituency. While they may be exempted from the extension to 10 years, the consultation leaves unclear what “earned settlement” actually means for them—higher English requirements, income thresholds, whether any exemption is permanent. That is for people who fled political persecution based on our word to them. When we create uncertainty for people who follow the rules and contribute, it damages trust in British commitments.
By all means, use the visa system for selection—we can have many separate debates on that—but settlement terms should enable the people we decided to welcome to commit to staying. The current direction undermines both our economic interests and our reputation for fairness, and I urge the Government to change course.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to raise my concerns about plans to require skilled workers, health and social care staff and those fleeing persecution to wait 10 or even 15 years, instead of the current five, to secure indefinite leave to remain. I echo the concerns of many in the Hong Kong community in Harrow, who are concerned about their status and their route to indefinite leave to remain.
As they stand, the changes will make it more difficult to attract to the UK the key staff and talent to help grow our economy and run vital public services. Of course, we need to do more to help those born and bred in the UK to access the jobs market and to prevent abuse of the existing immigration system, but to ask those in the UK who are already here to have to wait another five years or longer would be the height of unfairness.
Multiple constituents of mine in senior roles in engineering, the tech sector and other professional services have written to me with their stories, which underline their personal commitment to the UK and the expectation that Britain—of all countries, with our respect for the rule of law—would honour the implicit promise that we would hold true to that five-year commitment. At the very least, there must be transitional protections for those on the current ILR pathway.
I am concerned that too often we shy away from recognising the economic and cultural contribution that those from outside our country make to our communities. They make the UK home. It is not Britain being exploited; we gain from the talent, imagination and hard work that migrants bring to our country.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
My constituent Aminbhai is a pharmacy dispenser—a skilled worker from India whose work is essential to our community. He raised concerns about recruitment and retention in health and social care roles. Alongside our investment in home-grown talent, does my hon. Friend agree that changes to ILR qualifying periods must not risk impacting sectors where we currently rely heavily on the talents of dedicated international workers?
Gareth Thomas
I very much agree, and I add that surely we have a responsibility to stand with refugees fleeing appalling conflict, including those from Ukraine, and those fleeing increasingly authoritarian regimes such as those from Hong Kong.
Gareth Thomas
Forgive me; I have taken one intervention already.
Overwhelmingly, migrants from Pakistan, the Caribbean, India, Sri Lanka and across Europe—wherever they are from—have benefited my constituency. Are we sure we want to lose those vital workers from crucial public services, such as the NHS or social care?
International students make a positive contribution to our economy and our country, too. I am certainly proud of the many Indian students who were attracted to the UK and who live in my constituency, and I do worry for our universities. The fees of international students helps to fund research. Cutting-edge universities in Britain need to attract international students, so we should not demonise those students who come here, and drive them towards other countries’ universities. I recognise that the choices before my hon. Friends in the Home Office are not easy, but I urge them none the less to recognise the particular responsibility we have to those who are already here and are already on the ILR pathway.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Last week, I met 30 or so members of the Hong Kong community in Horsham. These people are professionals: they are teachers, students, engineers, doctors, business owners and directors. They are in work, paying tax, buying homes, raising families and contributing to local life. They came here legally. They came because the British Government made them a promise.
In talking to them, what struck me most was not anger but fear—fear that the basis on which they uprooted their lives is now shifting beneath them. Given the strength of feeling, the numbers affected and Hong Kong’s unique historical context as a former colony, I trust that the Government recognise that the recent proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain will have unintended consequences, and that they will want to address this matter urgently.
In Horsham, nearly 90% of BNO households are homeowners. Clearly, they are not a drain on public resources, and are financially stable, yet some will nevertheless struggle to meet the new income threshold. Some family groups include older applicants, carers or non-working spouses, just as we would expect in any household. Many cannot simply earn more to bridge the gap, and others will take time to move into higher-paid work and transfer their skills and qualifications. Will the Government consider taking account of assets and long-term stability, not earned income alone, when assessing ILR applications for Hong Kong BNOs? My constituents are also deeply concerned about the English language requirement: four in five of them say that they are worried about passing the exam, and they are people who seemed quite fluent when I spoke to them. Obviously this affects older applicants in particular.
These families moved across the world on a promise from the British Government, and there is now a genuine risk that that promise will be broken. In all honesty, I do not think that this new law was ever intended to affect them at all. My asks from the Minister are straightforward: exempt Hong Kong BNOs from the new earned settlement criteria, provide transitional protections for those already on the five-year settlement pathway, and assess household income, not individual income, to keep families together.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
I place on record my firm opposition to proposals to dramatically extend the timeline for the route to settlement, and in particular to the deeply unfair plan to apply the changes retroactively. To now withdraw that promise is, as the Work Rights Centre has rightly said, an
“extraordinary betrayal of migrant communities”.
The proposals risk fuelling exploitation, deepening poverty, destabilising already fragile sectors and doing real harm to the wider economy. Under the new system, so-called medium-skilled or lower-paid workers, including nursing, healthcare and social care staff, could face a staggering 15-year wait before being eligible for settlement. That is not a pathway; it is a prolonged period of insecurity.
Last Thursday, I met a group of local Unison members —all migrant care workers. Their dedication to our community is unmistakeable. One told me that he regularly completes a long shift at Newtown hospital, volunteers at Newtown Food Surplus afterwards, sleeps for four or five hours, and then begins his next shift. I cannot think of a clearer example of someone who gives wholeheartedly to their community.
At a time when our care sector is already facing critical workforce shortages, the proposals will drive people away. Research from the Royal College of Nursing indicates that up to 46,000 nursing staff could leave the UK in response to the measures. That would be catastrophic. What assessment has been made of the impact on staffing levels in our public services, particularly health and social care? Does the Minister recognise that forcing care workers into 15 years of temporary, precarious status risks destabilising the workforce even further, increasing delayed hospital discharges and placing yet more pressure on unpaid family carers?
We must retain the five-year route to ILR, halt the retrospective application of these changes and honour the terms that workers originally signed up to. We must invest properly in social care, advance the fair pay agreement and protect the rights and status of existing international recruits. It is not migrants who have weakened our public services; it is successive Governments who have done so through underfunding and privatisation. Our migrant workers keep our health and social care system afloat. Punishing them with prolonged insecurity will only deepen the recruitment crisis and harm families and communities across the country.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate the petitioners on bringing forward this important debate. The Government’s immigration White Paper has caused no end of confusion, anxiety and distress since its publication last year. To me, and to countless constituents who have contacted me because they are worried for their livelihoods, it is profoundly and inexcusably unfair. Some people do not know whether they should prepare to leave or continue with plans to invest in a new house, a job or marriage. Others are seriously worried about the status of spouses and dependants under the new rules. They are facing the reality of being entirely displaced and forced to abandon careers, personal lives, colleagues, friends and homes.
I have written to the Home Office about the fear and distress of my constituents and to urge it to at the very least offer some certainty on indefinite leave to remain. Yet, time and again, I receive the same formulaic lines from the Minister, who refuses to provide the assurance that changes to ILR will not be applied retrospectively to those who arrived under the five-year rule. Instead, my constituents are told that they must now earn their right to settle by attaining a minimum income level and proving their worth through volunteering.
Numerous individuals have been in touch to tell me how, upon their arrival in the UK, they spent time to complete degrees, including master’s degrees, and on-the-job training to secure their places in valuable sectors such as science, innovation and our NHS. Now, they are unsure if they can stay or if they can trust that even an extended ILR term will ultimately ensure their settlement. Others with jobs in areas such as adult social care putting in long, unsociable hours doing invaluable work in to ensure that they are on track to settled status do not have the time to further prove themselves by volunteering.
Women are particularly disadvantaged—a fact the Government are yet to acknowledge. Whether it is due to limited access to skills, the gender pay gap, greater caring responsibilities or taking maternity leave, they too fear that they will not meet the Government’s standards to earn their settlement.
The Government’s planned changes to the immigration and settlement system are wrong, and treat with contempt the countless people who came to this country fairly and planned their lives around the rules at the time. At the very least, I urge the Government to treat those people with the respect they deserve. Will the Minister now rule out, once and for all, any retrospective application of changes to ILR and the addition of any new requirements to those already on the path to settled status?
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The proposals to retroactively extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain create considerable insecurity and disruption for migrants living in the UK. Contrary to what many believe, the process of getting ILR is difficult and costly, so there is no need to make it even more difficult by increasing the eligibility period. We are not talking about new arrivals. These changes will impact those who have lived in the UK and contributed to our economy for at least half a decade. They are nurses, doctors, train drivers, construction workers, cleaners, carers and others who keep our economy working. Thousands of migrant workers in these sectors are now being told that we do not value their contribution. We risk losing those skilled workers, which would undermine our public services and our economy.
I declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthcare workers. The NHS and social care sector employ thousands of people on work visas to cover workforce shortages, including one of my constituents, who is a healthcare assistant living in limbo due to these proposals, with a salary just £60 a year under the arbitrary threshold. Although we do not have robust data in that area, conservative estimates suggest that about 25,000 doctors and 50,000 nurses will be impacted. As others have asked today, will the Minister confirm what data modelling or impact assessment has been conducted to assess how these changes will affect the health and social care sectors?
After many years of failing to provide enough medical school places, apprenticeships or other appropriate career training, we face labour shortages in many industries across the country. We rely on immigration to fill those gaps. These changes make the UK a far less desirable and fair place to live and work. To those who have made their home here, these changes say, “You’re not welcome.” Let us show those who have built their lives among us that they are supported, they are valued and they are truly welcome in the country they also call home.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the 344 and 511 signatories from Taunton and Wellington who signed the petitions, including Adekunle, who is in the Public Gallery today.
Everyone recognises that the immigration system needs to be controlled and workable, but this debate is not about the immigration system. It is not about people who may come here or are thinking of coming here; it is about people who are here, who have answered our call to come and work in our health services and in our country. They have settled here, and they are already providing that vital work.
These changes—extending ILR requirements from five years to 10—would remove from my constituency the care workers and potentially the care services that people need and rely on. I do not know who the Government think will vote for the removal of care and care workers from their constituencies. It cannot be right to change the rules after people have made that big decision to uproot themselves and invest their lives halfway around the world to be here.
It is absolutely correct to say that we have had a period of chaos in immigration. The Conservatives lost control, post Brexit. Net migration jumped from 300,000 to 1 million in 2023. They loosened controls. They made promises about settlement, and now they—and, apparently, the Government—want to break promises made by the Government to those workers who responded to Britain’s invitation to be here, to move their lives here and to build their families and their futures in this country.
Faith must be restored to the immigration system after that period of chaos, but the Government cannot restore faith in a system by breaking the promises on which it was built. They cannot restore faith by casting people out. To do so would be a breach of promise and a breach of trust.
Patience is a care worker in my constituency. Her family of three chose to be here, and were thrilled by a new life. Since the announcement, she says their family “have turned quiet” and their two-year-old son is constantly asking what is wrong. Adekunle has two toddlers, who were born here and know no other country. They have no recourse to public funds. He now even feels unable to raise concerns about the people he cares for and the quality of care they receive, because of the risk of exacerbating the indentured servitude we have heard about.
[Emma Lewell in the Chair]
Effectively sending people away and breaking that promise would have massive impacts on older and vulnerable people in Taunton and Wellington. If 50 care workers are expected to leave, 100 people could lose vital care. The Government should instead honour the promise made, and not move the goalposts after the game has begun. They must maintain the rules, including for Hongkongers based in the UK, and build on the success the workers have brought us.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I stand here as a proud daughter of immigrants, proud to represent a constituency where we celebrate and cherish the contributions of migrants from all walks of life from all around the world, including many frontline workers and carers, and reject the hatred, division and intolerance of the far right who continue to target our area.
In debates and discussions about the proposed measures, the Government continue to point to the public consultation, which is closing on 12 February. However, on behalf of my constituents who have been in touch with me, I must take the opportunity today to ask the Minister the following questions. When will the impact assessments be published? Given the potentially wide-ranging impacts on all our communities and the economy, including on local authorities and voluntary service providers, how does the Home Office reconcile the potential impacts of the proposals on migrant families with the Government’s wider commitments to reduce child poverty and homelessness in particular, as laid out in their respective strategies published last year?
How can the Home Office justify retrospective applications of the changes to more than 1 million people who came to the UK on the understanding that they would be able to settle after five years? For the educators in my constituency, many of whom contacted me over the weekend, I ask: will the changes apply to all staff in the education sector? As we know, professional services staff in the education sector play an essential role, but their salaries make alternative settlement routes inaccessible.
Like many of my constituents, I am alarmed by the harm that the changes will inflict on our population. They will undermine integrity, integration, workforce stability, efforts on child poverty and our ambitions to tackle violence against women and girls. In the short time that I have today, I urge the Government to pause immediately the implementation of any changes. The number of Members in this room, the petitioners in the Gallery and the queues outside this Chamber today should send a loud and clear signal to the Government to pause and to ensure that they support transitional protections so that people in the UK are not retrospectively moved on to longer routes.
I also urge the Government to undertake an independent assessment, ideally by the Migration Advisory Committee, covering areas such as exploitation, domestic abuse, child poverty, workforce retention and local authority costs. Finally, I insist on a wider parliamentary debate and a vote, rather than major reform through immigration rules.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate. I speak today because Ilford South ranks second in the country in terms of the number of residents who signed the petition calling for the five-year ILR route to be maintained. In short, I say: “Don’t change the rules—don’t move the goalposts mid-game.”
When I was seven, my parents left the life they knew in the Punjab so that their children might have a better future. Life here was tough. We had to work hard. The values of sacrifice, hard work and contribution are still alive in families across Britain today: families who have come here lawfully and fill vital skills shortages, who give up stability, work hard, pay their taxes and contribute fully to British life. Let us not let them down.
I accept the Government’s diagnosis that our immigration system is no longer fit for purpose. It was allowed to fail under a Conservative Government that lost control of the system, left people waiting in limbo and offended our sense of fairness. Now, in government, we must restore order—but restoring order must never mean abandoning fairness. British fairness is clear: when people play by the rules, we honour our side of the bargain.
Changing the five-year ILR route retrospectively for those already on that pathway breaks that principle and is wrong. Since the White Paper’s publication I have had countless constituents asking for just one thing: that we do not change the rules for those who have already complied with them. That was the framework they relied on when they uprooted their lives, and changing it after the fact plunges families into uncertainty.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that the change to this rule could also have an impact on children? We have to make sure that, whatever the changes are, they take into account those children who are growing up in this country and could be adversely impacted if we do not look at the proposal carefully.
Jas Athwal
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I absolutely agree with what she has said. We cannot overlook the fact that children will be adversely affected.
Nearly 3,000 residents in Ilford South signed the petitions. They are not asking for special treatment; many have never claimed benefits and do not intend to. They are simply asking that the rules they came under are upheld.
A constituent of mine called Amandeep, an engineer, told me that his employer will not sponsor him for 10 years. He has a young baby and—a point one of my hon. Friends made—forcing him to leave would destabilise his family. Pranav, aged 19, has an offer from the University of Oxford but, because he and his mother fall months short of the five years, they now face waiting another five years for settlement. He planned his future around the existing rules; now that future is in doubt. Those are the human consequences of shifting the goalposts mid-game. My constituents are asking not for leniency, but fairness.
Britain succeeds when it rewards contribution, values fairness and keeps its word. It is true that we must control our immigration system, but control must never come at the cost of fairness, because a country that changes the rules after people have kept to them is not restoring trust, but breaking it.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Let me start by saying something I suspect most Members across the House will agree on: our immigration system requires reforming. It needs to be fair and clear and it needs to command public confidence. That includes securing borders, proper enforcement and rules that people can understand, but we have to be honest about what today’s debate is about; it is about people who came here through legal processes that Parliament set.
These people have made life-changing decisions based on the rules as they stood at the time. They came here to work and are working, doing jobs our communities rely on every single day. They are contributing—paying taxes and raising families—and their contributions really matter.
I want to focus particularly on care workers. The care sector is under immense pressure. Many of the people affected by the change are doing demanding, often lower paid, but essential work: caring for our parents, grandparents and some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Removing certainty from that workforce risks deepening existing shortages and undermining continuity of care.
This debate has been prompted by petitions, including one started by a constituent of mine. It is, in part, because of him that this debate is happening, and I thank him for that. Laurence Bansil is a care manager with 15 years’ experience across health and social care. He came to the UK from the Philippines, with a nursing background, and later became a British citizen through the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain.
He has spoken of his deep gratitude for the opportunities that this country has given him to build a great life, to lead in care and to support vulnerable people. He is also crystal clear about what is at stake in terms of the workforce. Speaking about care workers on health and care worker visas, Laurence says,
“This is not simply an immigration issue.”
In his words, it is
“one of stability, dignity, and the ability to continue caring for people who rely on them every day”.
He told me that the workforce “remains fragile,” and he is clear about the risk of extending settlement timelines:
“losing experienced staff…disrupting continuity of care”,
and
“ultimately harming the vulnerable people the system exists to protect.”
Laurence is here today with the Hesley Group, alongside its chief executive officer Virginia Perkins. He says it is time to
“cement stability in social care”,
and urges the Government to
“ensure full impact assessments are completed”.
There is, though, a wider point here about fairness and trust in Government. My ask for the Minister today is modest and straightforward. It is about clarity and reassurance, so for the sake of those affected I ask the Minister to provide clear guidance for people with an open application pending in the very near future. People who are waiting to be told imminently about their right to remain should not be left in limbo, unsure whether they will be swept into a new regime partway through a process that they entered into in good faith.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This debate is necessary because it goes to the heart of fundamental fairness. The petitions before us reflect the deep sense of betrayal felt by the people who came to this country legally, followed the rules, contributed to their communities and are now being told that the goalposts are to be moved.
The Government’s proposal to double from five years to 10 years the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain is not just a technical policy change. It represents a broken promise to people who did exactly what was asked of them. We are talking about people who have come here and chosen to make our country their home. Indeed, they have been asked to come here by successive Governments to support our public services. In the city of Durham, these are our neighbours, our teachers and the care workers and NHS staff who keep vital services running, day in, day out.
Last summer, I attended a Unison migrant workers event at which care workers spoke to me directly about the uncertainty caused by the proposed changes. Migrant workers, particularly in social care, are too often trapped by sponsorship rules that tie their legal status to their employer.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I was at the same conference. There is a real issue with certificates of sponsorship because of abuse and exploitation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the certificates of sponsorship should be decoupled from employers, to avoid any exploitation by bad employers?
Mary Kelly Foy
Yes. The meeting that my hon. Friend and I went to was fantastically informative, and I could not agree more with his intervention.
In practice, sponsorship rules mean that migrant workers and particularly care workers are living under conditions that resemble indentured labour. When settlement is pushed further away, that vulnerability is prolonged. By extending the route from five to 10 years, we are effectively handing a bad boss 10 years of leverage instead of five.
I heard directly from John, who is in the Public Gallery today. John is a care worker who lives in my constituency. For three years, he has cared for vulnerable residents in understaffed care homes, working long hours without complaint. Even when he was treated badly by his sponsor or placed in an emotionally demanding situation caring for people with advanced dementia, he carried on because he believed that there was a fair end point. John has described the shock that he felt when he learned that the route to settlement could be extended to 10 years. The change affects not just his immigration status, but his child’s stability, his family’s wellbeing and whether he actually feels wanted in the country he serves.
The Government argue that settlement is a privilege. I argue that it is a common-sense investment in a stable society. When people feel secure, they invest in their homes, put down roots, integrate and contribute more fully to their communities. I urge the Government to think again, protect the five-year route and ensure that the UK remains a country where, if someone works hard and follows the rules, they are met with fairness and compassion.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. My word is my bond, and when we break our word we break our bond—not just with those people who have trusted our country, given up their lives and come to serve us, but across society as a whole. It is a particular challenge at this time, so we have to build trust. That starts with how we respond to this White Paper.
The problem at the heart of the White Paper is the wrong diagnosis and the wrong prescription. Prescribing the wrong medicine makes a patient sicker, and that is exactly what will happen. We have a serious skill shortage across our country. Our health and care systems are creaking. We cannot get the right care in the right place at the right time. For our children, we need teaching in our schools, we need a generation’s worth of houses built and we need infrastructure across the country. If we put skills at risk and create insecurity, our economy will not function, our public services will continue to crumble and our society will be worse off, causing more pain across those communities that desperately look to Labour to find solutions.
I therefore say to the Government that the only place where this policy belongs is in the bin. It has completely misread what the country is saying. Having gone through the detail—I will be putting in a submission to the consultation—around the earned settlement, I have to say that it is gendered. It is built on a premise that we know to be biased against women. It is built on the patriarchal belief that someone with higher pay or status is worth more. Instead, we should be thinking about justice and fairness for everyone, no matter how much someone earns or what language they speak—of course, the report does not once mention our second English language, British Sign Language. It should not matter what contribution someone makes. For some disabled people who come here, just being is being part of our communities. Of course, the paper then gets into the prejudicial rhetoric around recourse to public funds. We must be a country that shows our standards, compassion and morals, and this paper certainly fails on each of those criteria.
In response to this paper, I say to my constituents that my word is my bond. If these proposals progress, I will vote against the Government and ensure that many of my colleagues join me in the Lobby, because this is not a Labour policy.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate.
In my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, there is profound anxiety about the changes to indefinite leave to remain. The Minister knows that, because I have written to him on the subject already. The Government’s May 2025 White Paper sets out proposals to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years, with some groups potentially eligible earlier, depending on criteria that have yet to be developed.
I support a consultation on tighter restrictions on indefinite leave to remain for people who have not yet arrived in the UK, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the principle of changing the rules for people already in the UK who have so often experienced huge upheaval to settle in the UK. They described to me having made decisions about work, housing, education and family life based on the existing five-year pathway. Many have shared the emotional toll of the uncertainty that they are now experiencing. Are they working hard and paying their taxes in the UK, only for the goalposts to move and for the terms under which they came to the UK to change? I am afraid that that is not right. It is not keeping our word. It is not fair play. Dare I say it, it is not British.
Many of the people I have talked to in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—like the people in Folkestone and Hythe and in the highlands who have been mentioned—work in the NHS, social care and hospitality. In Cornwall, we already have chronic shortages of those types of worker. As the Cornish population ages and birth rates fall, it seems counterintuitive to present barriers before the very people we need more of. What we really need is a frank, honest discussion about immigration. While Reform—and, I dare say, what is left of the Conservatives —will always use this issue to promote their dog-whistle dogma, it is simply a fact that the UK needs immigrants to fill our skills gaps and increase UK productivity and innovation, or we will not achieve our economic goals and targets.
Concerns relating to spiralling welfare costs and wage undercutting can and should be addressed directly, as separate issues. For people already in the UK, we need to honour the terms under which they came and end the pain and anxiety that they are suffering.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my constituent Favour Deedam and her colleagues in Unison’s migrant worker network for sharing their experiences, views and concerns about the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain. I am grateful to the many constituents in Glasgow West who have shared their histories and their concerns, and of course I am also grateful to the petitioners.
One of the most important but too often undervalued roles in our society is that of the care workers—the people who look after our elderly family members and the most vulnerable people in our communities. Many of those carers are skilled, and they are often studying and achieving national vocational qualifications to equip them to do their job to the very best of their ability. In spite of their qualifications and dedication, they are just not well paid. As 31% of those employed in the health and care sector are now from overseas, it is clear that our NHS and the care sector could not function without them.
As we have heard, the Government’s proposals would mean that for lower-paid workers in the public sector, the waiting period for indefinite leave to remain will increase to 15 years. I suggest that a person’s value to our country should not be measured just in terms of their salary; it should reflect their value to our society. People working in the health and care sectors should be judged on their contribution to our society. Let us remember that the people we are talking about pay taxes, pay national insurance and are often very constructive members of our communities too.
Research by Unison indicates that, of the more than 3,000 people who have come to the UK recently to work in the care sector, 15% paid money to an employer for the privilege; 31% had problems with their pay not being given to them on time; and some were not paid for travel times between care visits or were penalised when they were ill. Many reported racial abuse, including verbal and physical abuse.
I suggest to the Minister that a reform that we could usefully put in place for these people would be to establish a better way of granting visas to such staff. Too many have visas linked to their employment but arrive to find that there is not actually a job for them, or else the company holding their visa fails and staff find themselves in financial hardship. Often, the threat of a visa being revoked or of a worker being returned to their home country is used to stop people speaking up about poor conditions. As Unison argues, a sector-wide sponsorship scheme, run by a public sector body, would take away those fears and reduce the costs incurred when a worker moves jobs. Looking at the Government’s proposals—
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I want to keep this simple: the issue today is whether or not the Government should change the settlement rules for people who are already here. I wish to add my voice to the chorus who are saying that they should not. The Government can change the system for the future—that is fine; Governments do that all the time—but they should not change the rules for people who have already come here under one set of conditions and are now being told, part way through, that the deal has changed.
A lot of the people affected are doing the jobs that this country relies on. Rhey are in hospitals. They are in care homes. They are in kitchens and warehouses. They came here legally. They were told that if they worked for five years, paid the taxes and followed the rules, they could apply to settle, so they made decisions on that basis. Now they are being told that it will not be five years after all. It might be 10; it might be 15. That is a whole extra chunk of someone’s life left in limbo.
In the interests of time, I will cut my speech short. None of this has to be this way. If the Government want a 10-year route for people coming to the UK in future, I am fine with that. That is one thing. People can make the choice to come to this country knowing that those are the rules, but the people who have already come here on a five-year deal should have that deal honoured. I am asking the Government to draw a clear line on this issue. New rules for new arrivals are fine, but do not move the goalposts for the people who are already here doing their bit for this country.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I find myself declaring an interest, because I am an immigrant myself. I was born in east Africa. My parents moved to this country with my two elder brothers: we came to Wolverhampton, and I am very proud to call myself a Wulfrunian and to have the privilege of representing the amazing people of Wolverhampton West, a community in which one in four people, like me, were born outside this country.
This debate is not just about politics; it is about humanity. It is about people who have fled persecution. It is about people we need in this country to work in our NHS, care homes, shops, universities and other places. They are not just seeking a better life for themselves; ultimately, they are contributing to our communities and our economy, just as my family have done. The changes that we are discussing today will have an impact on real lives. We must remember that throughout our discussions.
Over a thousand of my constituents have signed the petitions. They wonder why people who have made this country their home and who live as model citizens—earning a living, paying their taxes and giving a huge amount back to their communities—are now having the rug pulled out from underneath them. One of my constituents, Subhranshu Kumar, is a highly skilled worker who completed his master’s degree here in the UK. Just 14 months away from reaching his settled status, he now finds himself in limbo. He was planning to buy a house next year, but now feels he cannot do that. He is not asking for special treatment; all he wants is for the rules that existed when he decided to come here to remain in place.
Making the proposed immigration reforms retrospective not only undermines the basic premise that the law should be stable and understandable but destroys confidence in the entire system and betrays those who came to this country in good faith. To apply these rules to those who are already here and working towards their settled status is inherently unfair. The strength of feeling about the issue is obvious, as evidenced by the number of people in the Chamber today. On 17 December last year, more than 800 migrant members of the largest trade union in this country, Unison, attended one of the largest lobbying events in Parliament’s history, engaging with more than 100 MPs.
These people are here legally; we should be making it easier for them to become settled citizens, not more difficult. Our diversity and multiculturalism are what makes our country great. We should protect legal migrants, not only to enable them to better their lives but to better our lives, too, so that everyone who lives in this country and who calls her home can prosper.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I spoke in a previous petition debate on this topic last year. At that point, the plans had not been published, and I asked for details of how the changes might affect my constituents, many of whom were very worried and had written to me about their concerns.
In that debate, I talked primarily about doctors and medical staff, because my constituency is home to Cornwall’s only acute hospital. However, I have also been contacted by accountants, chefs, an electrical engineer working in tidal energy and academics—people who make valuable contributions to their communities and who call Cornwall home. We now know that under the consultation proposals, the changes will be applied retrospectively. Some of those people have been living and working in the UK for three to four years, and they assumed that they would soon be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. Now, however, healthcare assistants and care workers in my constituency potentially face 15 years of uncertainty.
These people came to the UK on expensive work visas with an understanding that they could apply for settled status after five years. As other Members have already said, one of my constituents described his reaction to the proposed changes as feeling like the goalposts were constantly being moved. These people have invested their hearts and their families in this country, as well as their money.
I have encouraged my constituents to respond to the consultation and to make their voices heard. I hope that if significant concerns are raised about the proposals being applied retrospectively, the Minister will look at them again.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Like many colleagues, I believe we need a migration system that is robust and fair. It must be robust because, like any sovereign state, the UK needs to be able to exert control over its borders. However, it also needs to be fair, because we are a state that defends and cherishes a rights-based order.
I wanted to speak in today’s debate because I have concerns about the unfairness of some of the proposed changes to the current settlement system. I do not dispute the fact that some changes are necessary. For example, I strongly agree that we need a complete overhaul of the way in which we issue visas to those coming to the UK to work in the health and social care sector, as many colleagues have already alluded to. Unison’s proposal for a sector-wide visa system to replace the current one in which individual employers issue individual visas is a very good one, and I am pleased to welcome Unison members from Colchester to the Public Gallery this afternoon. That change would do a great deal to safeguard the rights of all those who work in that vital sector.
However, other proposed changes to settlement routes give me and others cause for concern. The extension to the settlement qualifying period and the raising of income thresholds will impact much more heavily on the vital public sector workers who we have heard about today—workers on whom we all rely—than on others. I encourage the Minister to consider extending the exemptions to the proposals, and I also add my voice to the argument that these changes should not apply retrospectively.
The Justice Committee, on which I sit, recently had a productive exchange with the Justice Secretary on the matter of exemptions. He assured us that those who have come to the UK to work as prison officers will be exempt from the proposed income thresholds. I understand that parliamentary colleagues who previously worked in the allied health professions—in physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy and social work—have also made a similar case for income threshold exemptions in those vital sectors, so I encourage a very close look at that.
As well as being robust and fair, our migration system needs to be in step with other aspects of Government policy. It needs to offer migrant workers and their families the kinds of protections that we seek to offer to citizens across the country through our Employment Rights Act 2025, child poverty strategy, violence against women and girls strategy, gender equality strategy and homelessness strategy. If I may, I will write to the Minister separately to set out my concerns about what I see as a poor alignment of the current proposal with those elements of our mission as a Government.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
You will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I start by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who introduced this debate, the hundreds of my constituents who either emailed me or took part in my survey, and, above all else, the 350,000 immigrants who work in our NHS. I refer Members to my registered interest.
I am speaking today because I am concerned that these proposals will damage our ability as a country to attract and retain talent. I think that we can all agree that the UK must continue to attract and retain world-class talent in every sector of our economy. Although it is vital to support our British-born doctors and nurses into good jobs, we must also be aware of the reliance our health and social care system has on those from overseas. In 2015, I experienced that at first hand, when a doctor born overseas saved my life. His nationality was the last thing on my mind, but I do have to admit that I asked what his success rate was.
Through my work on my Rare Cancers Bill, I have also seen how vital the contributions of immigrant doctors, nurses and researchers are to cancer care in the UK. I met representatives of Cancer Research UK today, and they say that they spend just under £900,000 a year on visa costs. Would it not be fantastic if, on Wednesday—World Cancer Day—the Home Office waived those costs?
In my past life at Heriot-Watt University, I was lucky to work alongside fantastic academics from around the world, each of them contributing to research and teaching that enriched the academic experience of students at the university. In May, an old colleague wrote to me with concerns about the changes. He moved with his family to Edinburgh in 2006 to take up a lectureship at Heriot-Watt University. Since coming to the UK, he has graduated over 100 MSc students and 35 PhD students, sharing his experience with others who will go on to benefit our country. His wife also works on infrastructure projects for the NHS and Scottish Water. That couple could choose to live anywhere in the world, so of course they live in Edinburgh South West. I am proud that they do. It is really important that we continue to attract people like him and his wife. Although he is now a British citizen, he tells me that these changes lead him to question how valued he and his children are in the UK. Others in his network feel exactly the same.
I want the immigration system to work, but the first step in getting it to work is for the Government to listen to what people are saying today. Above all else, the Government should look at the consultation responses without any preconceived notions, and think about what is best for our country.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
I start by thanking the hundreds of my constituents who took the time to sign the petition, and who have spoken to me about this issue. It is essential to have a serious discussion about the positive impact on society and the economic benefits that immigration brings for the prosperity of our country. In my constituency, we see those benefits every day. Whether they are a Nigerian carer, a Spanish cleaner or an Indian doctor, they play a vital role, and they are valued. Many of them are working in sectors where we have a skills shortage, so things would quite literally not move or progress without them.
Skilled people come into our country to work in the UK and make financial contributions to the state. As workers with a form of temporary leave to remain, they will have paid thousands of pounds in fees to be in the UK, and that is before taking into account any taxes they pay. Many of my constituents who have made Edinburgh their home have been in touch with me to express the uncertainty that they now face.
The situation is unfair. That is not just my view but the view expressed in court. In its 2008 judgment on R (HSMP Forum Ltd) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the High Court considered changes to what was then the highly skilled migrant programme. The changes would have retrospectively extended the qualifying period for any person to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In its ruling, the High Court said that applying new rules retrospectively was unfair and unlawful, and that migrants had a legitimate expectation that the rules that they were initially granted would continue to apply. If the changes proposed by the Government are enacted on a retrospective basis, it is likely that the High Court will take a similar view on applying the changes as it did in 2008.
Established practice, backed up by the High Court, has always protected those who are already in the system from the effects of any new rules. I urge the Government to uphold that principle. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that those who entered the UK under the five-year indefinite leave to remain framework will remain eligible to apply after five years of lawful residence, in line with the visa conditions that they were originally granted, and that any new policy will not be applied retrospectively.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate so thoughtfully. I also thank the petitioners for enabling us to debate this issue.
Some 96% of my constituents in Cannock Chase were born in the UK, yet immigration is one of the issues most frequently raised with me. It is a topic of debate that matters to and affects people right across the country. In recent years, rhetoric around immigration has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of many people who choose to make Britain their home. At the same time, legitimate concerns about the impact of migration on communities, particularly when that migration is rapid, have been dismissed as bigotry. That leads only to resentment, entrenchment and toxicity, so I am glad that we are having an open and respectful debate.
As always, I am keen to hear a range of views, particularly from those who will be affected by the things that we discuss in this place. Two weeks ago, I met faith leaders and members of the congregation of the Victory church in Rugeley, most of whom work in health and social care. What they shared with me was not opposition to reform but a need for clarity and reassurance. They could see why change is needed, and they support the concept of contribution—they believe that they are making a contribution in many different ways—but the proposal that people in so-called “lower-skilled roles” could face qualifying periods of up to 15 years is causing concern, particularly for those in social care.
The people I met pointed out that social care requires extensive training, safeguarding responsibilities, emotional resilience and compassion, but often is not well paid, meaning that they will not reach the income thresholds under the Government’s contribution proposals. They are not asking for special treatment. They made a constructive suggestion: could those who demonstrate a long-term commitment to care work and continued professional development have access to quicker settlement? I hope that the Minister will say something about how the contribution of social care workers, in particular, can be recognised.
The issue I heard about loudest, though, was the need for transitional arrangements. People have understandably planned their lives around the expectation of ILR after five years, so I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on when we will know what the arrangements will be. Uncertainty is affecting families’ ability to plan. My constituent Solomon works in social care. His daughter is currently doing her GCSEs and recently won an award for academic excellence. He fears that, on the brink of getting ILR, his family could face a decade or more of uncertainty.
Josh Newbury
In the interests of time, I will not. Communities such as mine ask for a system that is fair, rewards contribution and provides a clear pathway for those who have put down roots and serve our country. I left Victory church in no doubt that the people who I met are making an immense contribution to our community; I am sure that my constituents would be proud that they want to make Rugeley their home. Although I support the Government’s objectives in reforming the settlement system, I ask the Minister to ensure that clarity, dignity and stability are baked in and spelled out as soon as possible.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Although 116 people in my constituency have signed the petitions, the story of one constituent—I will call her Jill—stuck with me. It is a story of anxiety and uncertainty for Jill, who works in social care on a health and social care visa. She described the reality that many face: low pay, unsafe workloads and a fear that speaking up about conditions at work could put her visa at risk. She made the point that those pressures have been pushing people to breaking point across the country for years. She captured exactly why this issue matters.
People like Jill moved here in good faith. They brought their families. They got jobs in health and social care roles, filling the critical gaps that we have in the workforce. They are contributing to society and dutifully paying their tax. Now the goalposts are potentially being moved. Will the Minister commit to protecting those already on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain from retrospective changes? For workers like Jill, settlement is not just a petition or debate; it is whether they can plan a future in the country for which they are helping to care, whether they will have to uproot their families and leave the homes where they have created connections and communities, whether they can speak up about unsafe conditions without fear and whether their financial and emotional sacrifices will ever lead to the security they were promised.
Many on this route organised their lives around the existing five-year pathway.
Kirsteen Sullivan
In the interests of time, I will not.
Those people budgeted for visa fees, planned family life and made long-term decisions on the understanding that after five years they could apply for settlement. Extending that to 10 years means five more years of uncertainty and thousands of pounds in additional costs. For families, it means children growing up with prolonged insecurity and uncertainty. For workers, it means remaining tied to temporary status for a decade, severely limiting their bargaining power at work. For our public services, it risks driving away exactly the people we can least afford to lose.
I am not arguing that immigration policy can never change; I think most people here agree that it can and must change. However, there is a fundamental issue of fairness when changes are applied to people who are already here, already contributing to local and national economies and our public services and already well along a pathway that was clearly set out to them. We should not and must not pull the rug from under them now.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
We have a health and social care system built on the commitment and skills of workers who are too often underpaid, overstretched and undervalued, yet they contribute not only to the wellbeing of our society, but to the strength of our economy. In December, I met with one of those care sector workers, who was also a Unison representative in my constituency. We discussed their campaign for fairer visa rules for migrant care workers in the UK. For transparency, I put on record my membership of Unison.
Many of those working in social care are migrants who care for some of the most vulnerable and elderly in our society. If settlement is to be earned through contribution to the UK economy and society, few have earned it more than social care and health workers. Those who came here with hopes for a better life and have spent years supporting the health and care of the nation should have that contribution recognised and valued.
Progressive reform to the system is needed. Currently, as others have mentioned, a migrant care worker’s visa is tied to their employer, which opens up the potential for abuse. It creates a situation of dependency where a bad employer can exploit their staff knowing that those staff will not risk speaking out because their visa relies on that employer. That power dynamic strips migrant care workers of their bargaining power. We need to rebalance the power dynamic between migrant care workers and their employers. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to look seriously at the potential of a sector-wide visa that avoids the pitfalls of employment-tied sponsorship in this sector.
In any new immigration rules, those working in the social care sector should be given due status in decisions about indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. I urge the Government to ensure that care workers are treated not as insignificant temporary labour, but as skilled and valuable contributors to society and the economy. Whatever changes we make to our immigration system, we must ensure that those contributions are recognised and respected.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
As part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently visited some of our Army training centres and met with a few international recruits who are concerned about the future of their life in this country. Last week, as chair of the APPG on adult social care, I had the pleasure of hosting an event in Parliament to mark the launch of a new report by the Social Care Institute for Excellence. The report examines what national standards of care should look like in future national care surveys. Crucially, the report makes the point that national standards alone will not address some of the deeper challenges faced by adult social care.
One of those challenges is workforce shortages. Across adult social care, workforce shortages have a direct impact on the quality and continuity of the care that people receive. Consistency of staff is fundamental, and delivering high-quality, long-term care without a stable workforce cannot guarantee that consistency. I support the Government’s ambition to reduce long-term reliance on international recruitment. It is right that we focus on building a strong, sustainable domestic workforce, but as we do so, it is essential that we do not lose the skills of those who are already working in the sector.
It is equally important to acknowledge the invaluable contribution that overseas workers have made and continue to make. After the pandemic, the previous Government specifically encouraged overseas recruitment into social care. Many of those who came into the UK uprooted their lives and left their families. They made sacrifices to serve in a sector that holds the wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens in its hands. As we look to encourage domestic workers to think about pursuing a rewarding career in social care, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider allowing those overseas care workers who are already in the country to complete the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain?
In its last annual report examining the healthcare and social care sectors, the Care Quality Commission stated:
“Vacancy and turnover rates in adult social care have continued to fall”.
While that is to be welcomed, it also pointed out that vacancy rates in the sector are still
“3 times higher than those in the wider job market.”
We should do everything we can to encourage both the recruitment and retention of workers. After all, retaining trained care workers is significantly cheaper and more reliable than replacing them. But if overseas workers who are already working in social care will have to wait 10 or 15 years to get indefinite leave to remain, they may be tempted to move to other countries such as Australia or Canada that offer quicker routes to similar settlement status.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I will confine my remarks to the impact of the ILR proposals on social care in my constituency in Scotland.
Around 25% of social care workers come from other countries. We need social care staff who live, work and breathe care, and, with an ageing population, we need more of them. Most of those staff have diligently, and with a smile on their face, taken care of our families. None of them have received a good deal—or one that reflects their contributions—over the last few years, with inadequate pay offers often limited to the living wage.
I held a roundtable in November on that subject with Falkirk’s care sector. I thank the fantastic local social care workers who travelled down to London to speak with me before Christmas. The concern they have is simple: employers typically only sponsor when they need to, and the recent rise in those coming on social care visas is due to the pay being unattractive to domestic-born workers. Every employer at my roundtable cited immovable difficulties in recruiting locally as the reason that they were pursuing sponsorship. That is unlikely to improve radically given the setting of successive paltry living wage levels at well shy of £15 an hour, well short of a sustainable wage for attracting domestic workers en masse reliably, and morally insufficient for anyone who contributes by working in such a valuable profession. This is a push without a pull.
As MPs, we are hearing directly from providers—and workers—that a blunt transition to 10-year to 15-year ILR timescales for social workers before further work is done to recruit a sustainable workforce risks leaving one of the most important sectors in our country exposed in terms of recruiting critical workers.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Many people in my constituency who are on the skilled worker visa programme have written to me. They are being told, if they are already on a five-year programme, that it will be changed retrospectively to a 10-year programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an inherent issue of fairness in retrospectively making changes, and that, at the very least, the Government should have transitional arrangements?
Euan Stainbank
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and am glad that he managed to get it on the record. I also reflect that there will be an economic impact on social care if we are not able to attract a sufficient domestic workforce to compensate for those who would leave the country.
Those changes would risk deterring those already in the sector from staying. Failing to be able to replace them risks worsening standards for those within the industry by extending their unbreakable tie to a sole sponsoring employer or occupation. The Government are right to pursue measures that reduce net migration, and to address the lack of public consent in the immigration system due to the scattergun rise in net migration under the previous Government, who promised the exact opposite for years. But as we seek to invest in upskilling a generation, we must invest in increasing social care pay to a competitive level, so that we can deliver for that sector, and not risk the sector by trading off the short-term welfare of those who work in it as we pursue reducing net migration.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will speak for my constituents who did exactly what this country asked of them. They came here legally, they worked hard, they paid their taxes and they built lives on the clear understanding that after five years they could settle. Now, part-way through that journey, as we have heard time and again in this debate, the goalposts are being moved.
I have met and heard from NHS clinicians, care workers, engineers, researchers, academics, teachers and other skilled professionals, some only weeks away from being able to apply for settlement under the current rules. These are people who kept services running through covid and who pay thousands in tax, yet many are now living with anxiety and despair. Parents have asked me how they explain this to their children—children who feel British, because Britain is all they have ever known. These are households already paying more into the system than they take out.
I understand the Government’s desire to reward contribution and support integration, but my constituents are struggling with a system that feels increasingly detached from the reality of their lives. Government power comes with responsibility, especially when people have arranged their lives around our decisions. We cannot invite people in on one set of rules, benefit from their labour and commitment, and then rewrite the contract halfway through.
I recently attended a community meeting at the gurdwara in Warrington, with constituents who arrived in the UK from south Asia—members of the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities, all of whom came here in good faith. Every person in that room was at a different stage of the journey, and every single one would be affected by these changes. Some of the concerns that came up were about a single national income threshold that ignores regional pay differences. People working full time in vital jobs in Warrington cannot simply magic their wages up to a national figure. Many described normal career progression in highly skilled roles, with salaries starting lower and growing quickly, while others explained how visa restrictions limit their ability to move into higher-paid work.
I have spoken to couples where both parents work and pay tax, yet neither earns enough individually to qualify.
Sarah Hall
I am going to carry on because of time.
I have spoken to highly skilled public sector workers who are being told that their day job is somehow not contribution enough. I have heard from researchers and lecturers who are strengthening our universities and innovation base, yet are falling short of blunt thresholds.
To be clear about what fairness looks like, it means no retrospective changes for people already on the route to settlement, clear guaranteed transitional protections, and recognition of regional pay differences. We should manage and control migration, and our constituents rightly expect that, but they also expect fairness. They expect a system that recognises the contribution of hard-working, tax-paying people who now call Warrington their home. I ask the Government to match that same sense of fairness, protect those already on the five-year route, recognise real contribution and give families the certainty they deserve.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
The Liberal Democrats and I are completely opposed to these sudden and retrospective changes to entitlement to indefinite leave to remain. Families who have worked hard, paid taxes and integrated into British society should not face more years of insecurity and additional costs.
Munira Wilson
As well as the uncertainty caused by the extension from five to 10 years of the qualifying period for ILR, many families in my constituency have contacted me with another concern: where, at the moment, one parent stays at home to look after the children, if they are forced to go out to work in order to meet the £12,500 minimum threshold for permanent residence, they will face massive childcare costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are right to be concerned?
Mr Forster
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds.
As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking.
The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.
James Naish
The hon. Gentleman mentions Ukraine. Obviously, most Ukrainians will not be eligible for ILR as we are discussing it, and this may be an area where we do need rule changes. A lot of young people who have come over from Ukraine with their families will now know nothing other than our education system and our ways of life. Does he agree that it would be good if the Minister looked carefully at the approach we take with Ukrainians?
Mr Forster
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will talk a bit more about Ukraine in a minute. I thought I would be generous to him, compared with some of his colleagues, who were a bit less keen to hear from him this evening—a little more cross-party working is in order.
I want particularly to talk about Hongkongers. Several elements of the earned settlement proposals are causing serious concern for the Hong Kong community in my constituency, in particular vulnerable BNO families and young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who have been forced to seek asylum here. Many BNO arrivals are full-time students, retirees, stay-at-home parents—as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned—or family carers who do not meet the conventional salary thresholds. Any new sustained or measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents, who are already fully integrated into our communities and contributing to British society.
Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and be eligible for settlement in 2026. It is appalling that that is the point that the Government have chosen for the rules to come in. A sudden increase in the language requirement to B2 level without adequate notice or transition arrangements will throw many of those vulnerable individuals off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots here for a decade. That would be yet another betrayal of Hongkongers, after the Government’s recent approval of the Chinese mega-embassy.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned Ukraine. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take necessary steps to provide Ukrainian refugees in the UK with the stability and security they deserve by establishing a clear pathway to ILR. Later this month, it will be four years since the appalling and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and many Ukrainian families have built meaningful lives here, yet their futures remain precarious because of the temporary nature of their current settled status.
Reports suggest that Ukrainians are missing out on job opportunities, loans, mortgages or lease renewals because they do not have a pathway to permanent settlement. Not only does that put them at a material disadvantage, but the pressures of securing housing or financial security under the current visa system put refugees through huge anxiety. Their country is already at war, and it is deeply unfair to put our allies through further stress. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian scheme that does not include a pathway for settlement. Ukrainians in this country should not be in that position at all. Yes, we need control, but we need to have a fair and robust system, and a frank discussion about who stays and how we support our friends and allies.
The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that elements of Labour’s proposed changes to ILR risk adding unworkable red tape for businesses and for people who came here legally, undermining integration and damaging our economy. Britain is already becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000—around 20 times more than in our competitor countries. Cancer Research UK alone spends almost £1 million a year on visas. I know where I want its money being invested, and it is not in visas for the Home Office. Any changes aimed at control must go hand in hand with a serious plan to boost domestic skills and get more people into the jobs that our NHS, social care system and economy desperately need.
Before I come to my asks for the Minister and a summary, I want to mention the elephant in the room—or not in the room. Where are the Reform Members? They are missing yet another debate on immigration. The Government want to change ILR requirements to look tough on immigration because they are running scared of Reform. I urge the Minister and the Government to speak up for our immigrant communities, highlight the benefits of immigration and agree that our constituents are much more likely to be seen by an immigrant in the NHS than to be behind one in the queue.
What assessment has the Minister made of the economic costs and the social costs of these changes? Does he think they will make Britain a more competitive place when it comes to securing the workforce on which our NHS and social care system are so dependent? Has he considered how they may damage community cohesion and integration? Does he agree that retrospectively extending indefinite leave to remain, without the provision of any specific transitional arrangements, will hurt the many hard-working members of our society who have played by the rules and contributed greatly to our economy and culture?
Since taking office, this Government have performed many U-turns on high-profile issues, whether because they are financially foolish, morally wrong, or impossible to deliver because of a political rebellion. Unfairly and unreasonably changing the ILR rules retrospectively would meet all three of those reasons. I urge the Minister to announce today that the changes will not be retrospective, so that immigrant constituents of mine, his and everyone else in the room who have served our communities and fled conflict can sleep soundly at night without worrying about their future. That is what the Minister can do this evening. I urge him to do it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Lewell, for chairing the debate today.
The House has had a great many opportunities to discuss indefinite leave to remain and its impact on people, including debates in this Chamber on consequential matters such as those working in the healthcare sector and BNOs. Underpinning all these debates is the principle of what constitutes a fair migration system and what does not.
Many Members have made impassioned arguments about what they believe would make a fair system. However, Members who have participated in previous debates on this matter will be well aware that I must respectfully disagree with some of their proposals, particularly any that would create weaker criteria around indefinite leave to remain. The petitions seek either to maintain the five-year period or to provide exemptions to the rules that the Government have set out regarding potential changes to the receipt of benefits. If we were to follow the suggestions in the petitions, the Government’s proposals on settlement would be left in tatters and wholly ineffectual.
When the proposals were announced, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said that there was much in them that we supported—partially because much in them was familiar from the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Having spent many hours in the Public Bill Committee discussing that legislation nearly a year ago, I can say with absolute certainty that a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed, and it is something that we continue to support.
The right to citizenship and permanent residency should go only to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK, and a 10-year period is clearly more reflective of the level of commitment that many in this country would accept as a reasonable timeframe, in terms of both contribution and time to settle. The British people want and demand tougher action on immigration. We believe that this is a perfectly reasonable alteration to the existing system that puts more robust measures in place to ensure that settlement is based on the long-standing contribution that many of us would expect.
Even though we have seen reductions in net migration, with the Office for National Statistics stating that
“decreases in work-related and study-related immigration”
continue to follow policy reforms from early 2024, the immigration figures remain historically and exceptionally high, and far greater than before the pandemic. The Government must take action to reduce immigration, and they must do so imminently, recognising that the timeframe for these changes is dictated by a significant cohort.
Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of settlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that, with the exception of 2010—the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000.
Barry Gardiner
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that between 2022 and 2024, even though the number of spaces in the care sector was deemed to be between 6,000 and 40,000, his Government made available 616,000 visas for that?
Matt Vickers
There has been a lot of passionate debate today, and well-meaning suggestions for changes or exemptions to the Government proposals were passionately advanced. Some were related to salary, to age or to people’s grasp of the English language; some referred to people’s community contributions, to the make-up of a person’s family or to people’s role in public services. Compassion is infinite, but this country’s resources are not. We need a system that is fair for UK citizens, including those who are currently struggling to get on the housing ladder.
Matt Vickers
I will carry on.
Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of resettlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that—except in the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000. In contrast, the Government’s own settlement consultation sets out estimates showing far greater numbers of people being granted settlement between 2026 and 2030. It projects that the peak could reach as high as 620,000 in 2028, with as many as 2.2 million receiving settlement over that period. That is simply not sustainable.
Matt Vickers
No.
I think we can all understand why people want to achieve settlement more quickly, but the policies we set must be based on what is right for our country. We should maintain our resolve, and ensure that changes are enacted without creating loopholes or alternative routes beyond what the Government have set out. The approach is wholly responsive to the current situation, and reflects the fact that we need much stronger policies that deliver a fair system for British citizens and those who have already legally settled in the UK.
I want to re-emphasise the points raised when the policy was announced, which include the point that the thresholds for earnings to demonstrate net contribution set out in the consultation must be sufficiently high to ensure that those who are granted settlement contribute to this country. Furthermore, the Government’s own work has highlighted some of the mechanisms people use to take advantage of existing immigration rules, so have the Government been developing strong rules to ensure that adjustments to the baseline for behaviour, such as volunteering, represent a significant contribution? If we do not have sufficiently strong criteria for what constitutes working in the community, I fear the proposals risk being undermined.
The British people care fundamentally about fairness. The British people demand stronger borders. Immigration has been far too high for far too long. Too many people refuse to accept that simple fact. As has been said, if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw ever more people on to a path that starts with anger and ends with hatred. We need an immigration system that is fair and proportionate and does not take taxpayers for a ride.
For too long the right to remain in the UK has been seen as an automatic entitlement. It has become a conveyor belt to citizenship, when UK citizenship should be a privilege that is earned through commitment and contribution to our country. The Conservatives believe that the UK is not a dormitory or a hotel, but our home. We must make changes to indefinite leave to remain, both to respond to the levels of immigration and so that we can have a fairer system for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the petitioners in the Public Gallery, to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting the debate, and to every single Member who has contributed. It will be difficult to name everyone, because there have been so many speeches, but I am grateful for them.
Both petitions relate to the earned settlement proposal set out in “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, the Command Paper that the Home Secretary introduced to Parliament on 20 November. The proposed reforms represent the most fundamental change to the settlement system in decades and are currently subject to an ongoing public consultation that ends in 10 days, on 12 February. We recognise how important this issue is to Members—we have seen that here today—as well as to their constituents and of course to migrants across the whole country. We will listen, and are listening, to what is being said.
Kerry McCarthy
I have encouraged many of my constituents to participate in the consultation that finishes on 12 February, but I am concerned to hear that some of the changes might be introduced in April this year. I know from past experience with Government consultations that it tends to take an awful long time for the Government to consider the responses and then come up with their own response to them. How does that work in terms of the timing?
Mike Tapp
Some of the rule changes that we will introduce are firm, and that will be laid out today in my speech. Much of the proposal—for example, transitional arrangements—is very much being consulted on. Of course, that will be listened to. If there are any further questions when I finish, I ask Members to please intervene nearer the end.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Minister confirm whether the changes that are firm were also consulted on in the consultation document? If so, why were they consulted on?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention. I will go through my response to the debate, which will lay out exactly what changes are being made and what is going to consultation, and I am happy to talk again at the end.
We will provide further details on how the new settlement system will work in due course after the consultation closes, but I hope hon. Members will appreciate that, while the consultation is ongoing, I am somewhat restricted in what I can say. I will endeavour to be as helpful and fulsome as possible in my response.
Mike Tapp
I will not give way—I will make some progress, so that hon. Members can hear the meat of what I need to say. The Government recognise and value the long-term contribution of migrants to the UK. The proposal is not a deportation policy. Multiculturalism absolutely makes us great. However, settlement here is a privilege, not a right. It cannot be simply a measure of how long someone has been in the UK, but rather of the contribution they have made. If someone wants to settle in this country, they must contribute, integrate, follow our laws and learn our language. Those are the principles that underpin a fair immigration system that the British public could have confidence in.
Net migration ballooned under the previous Government, and we are now faced with the prospect of 2.2 million people being eligible to settle between 2026 and 2030. Around one in every 30 people in this country arrived between 2021 and 2024. Those numbers are staggering. That is not what people voted for. I am surprised that this has not been raised during the debate today.
Such numbers jeopardise our public services, our economy, the whole housing market and cohesion in local communities. Doing nothing is simply unacceptable. Around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list—
Pete Wishart
Will the Minister confirm, very clearly, from the Dispatch Box that any changes to ILR will be voted on by the whole House, giving all his colleagues in the Chamber tonight the opportunity to express their genuine hostility to these proposals?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question. They are likely to be, in the case of rule changes; that decision has not been completely made, but Members can of course express their frustration at me here in this Chamber today.
As I was saying, around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list, which has increased by 200,000 since 2020. Combining that with a potential 2.2 million people becoming eligible for settled status between 2026 and 2030 would put a massive strain on our public services. We have already set out plans to increase the standard qualifying period towards settlement from five to 10 years.
The earned settlement model will allow people to earn reductions for positive behaviour, such as working in a public service role and volunteering. We want to encourage that behaviour, which underlines the substantial contributions that many migrants make to our country.
People have spoken very well in this debate about stability within the country and the prospect of “moving the goalposts”, as some have framed it, taking that stability away, but I want to stress that people who are here waiting to settle have access to education, healthcare and rent. They can buy a house, work and travel in and out of the country, and have access to financial products.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this process is not about deporting people; it is about creating a system that is based on contribution and integration, and people who are not committing crime. That is what the public expect. However, the new model will also impose penalties on people who claim public funds or who have breached immigration laws. Those are not punitive measures; they are deterrents for those who are thinking about choosing a life of benefits when they can work, or who fund criminal gangs in order to cross the channel on small boats, endangering their own lives in the process.
This Government will not continue with the status quo, considering the huge numbers that we face. It is right that we implement a system that is fair and that rewards people who work to make this country a better place to live.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the proposals that are not subject to consultation are five-year discounts for two groups of people. The first group is partners, parents and children of British citizens, reflecting our commitment to treating our citizens fairly and their right to be in a relationship with whoever they choose, regardless of nationality.
The second group that will receive the discount is British national overseas visa holders. We remain committed to the people of Hong Kong and the hundreds of thousands of people who have uprooted themselves and rebuilt their lives in the UK. Prior to this debate, I was at the APPG on Hong Kong discussing exactly that. There are complex questions around income, family income, and assets over income; we are currently consulting on those and, when a decision is made about them, it will be announced.
It is vital that migration enriches our economy, but it is most vital that it enriches our local communities. The measures set out in the earned settlement model promote integration by raising the level of English required and by demanding strict adherence to our laws. We will encourage integration and strengthen communities.
Barry Gardiner
One of the four pillars that the Minister has set out in the consultation document in relation to integration is volunteering. A number of hon. Members have already mentioned that there is an arbitrariness—a subjective nature—to that. Who will certify the volunteer work that is done? One can imagine a plethora of organisations being set up that will then happily sign a chit saying, “So-and-so has volunteered for so many hours a week.” How will the whole process actually operate? It seems arbitrary and subjective. What will the volunteering entail? Will it have to be for the home community or for the wider community?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for making that good point, which we in the Home Office have discussed in detail many times. Indeed, that is why the issue is under consultation. It is subjective, it is complex and right now I cannot give him a definitive answer. However, we will reach one, and announce it in due course.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I must disagree with much of what the Minister has said. Most immigrants in our country are not benefit scroungers and are not criminals; in fact, most of the immigrants who I have met in my constituency surgeries are hard-working people. Just last week, a woman, her husband and their children were at my constituency surgery in tears because of the proposed policies that the Government have put forward. They told me that both of them work full time and, when one of them is working, the other is caring. They pay into our tax system, they work most weekends, and yet they still struggle to pay their rent and to buy food. I ask the Minister: at what point will they be able to volunteer?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is right that most migrants are not criminals. Most migrants are thoroughly decent people, and that is recognised by this Government and, of course, by the Home Office.
On the volunteering side of things, I will say again that this process is still a consultation and that we will set out more detail in due course. It pains me not to give more detail now, but that is where we are at.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister clarify a previous point on which there was perhaps some confusion? It is most definitely not the case that all migrants go into social housing; in fact, it is pretty much the opposite a lot of the time, and none of those who have contacted me about this issue are living in social housing—not that anyone should have any shame about living in social housing in the first place. Secondly, the Minister talked about firm elements of the Government’s proposals. Were they the exemptions that he mentioned before, or will he be covering other firm elements in the rest of his speech?
Mike Tapp
I have not in any way implied that all migrants go into social housing. My point was the increase of 2.2 million people who would have access to it, with 1.34 million already on the waiting list and our ambition to build just 1.5 million homes in that picture. That simply is not enough, and that is just on social housing.
Tony Vaughan
Does the Minister have evidence about how many people you think are going to switch from not claiming benefits to claiming benefits, or from not being in social housing to being in social housing, or is this just a political judgment?
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, the convention is the same as in the main Chamber: they are referring to me.
Mike Tapp
What I am not going to do is make up facts and figures on the spot, but I do not have an absolute fact to give my hon. and learned Friend. What I can say is that around 15% of people on universal credit are not British nationals. That is a reflection on the demand that this can put on our welfare system and, of course, on housing.
Mike Tapp
I am going to make some progress.
Turning to the subject of the first petition, people who come to the UK to take up a job make an important contribution to our economy and our public services, filling essential skills and labour market gaps, but for too long sectors have become reliant on them to fill those gaps and have not invested enough in our domestic workforce. The reforms we set out in the immigration White Paper last year redress that balance. We are reversing the long-term trend of an over-reliance on recruitment from abroad, and instead increasing investment in skills and training for those in the UK.
We implemented the first of those reforms in July last year, raising the skills threshold back to RQF—regulated qualifications framework—level 6, or roughly degree-level occupations, leaving a shortlist of medium-skilled occupations deemed critical to our industrial strategy and critical infrastructure. That restored the purpose of the skilled worker route and meant a reduction of more than 100 occupations. In December, we then raised the immigration skills charge by 32%. We are currently considering the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of salary requirements before making further changes, and will consider its upcoming review of the medium-skilled temporary shortage list in the summer.
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Given that we reckon that some 30% of posts in the NHS and care sector are taken up by people who have come from overseas, at what point will the reforms that he referred to just now get us to the point where we can do without that 30% of people? It strikes me that, before we do anything along these lines, he needs to do an awful lot of work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the balance can be had.
Mike Tapp
My hon. Friend’s point is well made. I can assure her that that work is going on, and I will come to it shortly.
Let me address some of the questions raised by hon. Members. One was on an impact assessment. It is important that one is produced and made public, and that will come once the consultation ends and we have made all the final decisions. It is important that we match the migration market with the skills market and the jobs market. We are working hard across the Home Office to ensure that we are attracting the right workers to fill the jobs we need them to work.
Let me turn to care workers. This Government are immensely grateful to those who come to the UK with good intentions and continue to play a vital role in the adult social care sector. However, it is clear that international recruitment went too far, and the route admitted unprecedented numbers of migrants and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, around 600,000 migrants came to the country to fill just 40,000 roles in that sector.
Barry Gardiner
Does the Minister share with me a sense of irony that the former Home Secretary and the former Immigration Minister who were responsible for giving out those 616,000 have now joined Reform?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. This place never ceases to amaze me—but that is politics.
Some Members have raised Unison’s campaign on sector-wide visas. There is a commitment in the immigration White Paper to look at how we make it easier for those workers to change employer—that is being looked at seriously within the consultation. However, we want to retain the ability to punish those dodgy employers who are dishing out visas when they clearly should not be.
The Government are committed to providing opportunities for British workers. It is only right that we reduce reliance on international workers, and last year the Health Secretary announced a £500 million investment in a fair pay agreement for adult care workers, boosting their wages across England. But we still need to act to ensure that those who arrived while the requirements were relaxed earn their settlement and demonstrate that their integration and economic contribution to the UK meets the standards that we are setting.
The petition also touches on transitional arrangements, and whether the proposals will apply to those already halfway to settlement. As we have seen in this debate, this is a hugely important issue. We have asked for views on that in the consultation, and I hope Members will understand that while I acknowledge their keen interest and the concerns of many individuals, I cannot say anything that could prejudge the outcome of the consultation. The consultation will be published when it closes.
Some strong points were made around family income, the gender pay gap, those who are more vulnerable, those who are disabled, those who have university fees, and of course those on armed forces concessions. All of that is being considered within the consultation, and there will be more detail to come. I can only apologise that I cannot give more detail on that today. I assure Members that we will listen to what people tell us in the consultation before deciding how earned settlement will work.
Turning to the second petition, we are considering whether benefits should only be available to British citizens and not, as is the case now, to those with settled status. I know Members have concerns about this issue. The Government have a responsibility to British taxpayers to ensure their money is spent in a fair and equitable way. It is therefore right that we reassess the point at which migrants can access public funds.
We know the challenges that the country faces, and that this Government have inherited. One of the most significant challenges is a serious lack of social housing. We are taking steps to tackle the challenge, but we must be realistic. I have already set out the number of people who are expected to apply to settle over the next five years under our current system. All of those people could be eligible for benefits and social housing. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have constituents who have spent years on the waiting list for social housing. Continuing to add to that list will not solve the problem.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister talks about what potentially might happen, but, with respect, that is almost scaremongering. Most of those people are hard-working citizens. Does the Minister not believe that that kind of language raises this spectre, which is precisely why we are having the debate? That kind of language does no justice to what is really happening in our migrant communities.
Mike Tapp
I disagree. There is nothing in my language that is raising the temperature. The hon. Member would do well to listen to my praise of migrants in my contribution. I have made it clear that I do not think that all those who seek to settle would seek to access the welfare system and housing system, but it is quite clear that some would, and we are already at capacity, with 1.3 million of our constituents on the social housing waiting list.
We would like to hear people’s views on the measure, so I encourage anyone who is interested in providing those views to do so before the consultation ends. I am conscious of time, so before I finish, I want to again express my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and to all Members who have contributed today. These are sweeping reforms, and I understand the strength of feeling toward them. I have heard the points that have been raised here, which will all feed into the important consultation. It is important that everyone who may be affected by the proposals has a fair and equal opportunity to make their voice heard.
As I have set out, the consultation is currently open to all until 12 February, and further information on how to respond and provide views can be found on the Government website. We want to ensure that any decision taken has a robust evidence base and a clear understanding of how people may be affected, and that is why this may be unclear to some of our constituents at this point.
Clearly, these are issues of great significance, not only in the context of the immigration system, but for our nation itself. I say to colleagues here and across the House that we understand the importance of our task, we are determined to get this right and, as I have set out, we are proceeding with the seriousness and care that the public and Parliament rightly expect.
Tony Vaughan
I thank the petitioners, the 330,000 signatories and all hon. Members who have attended to speak in this debate over the last three hours. I have been struck by the fact that every single Back-Bencher who has spoken opposes the retrospectivity of the measures for those who are already here, on the basis that they undermine basic British fairness. There is no basis at all to apply these rules, even to those who have pending applications, given that they are even closer to the point where they would otherwise benefit.
The differing impacts of different ILR qualification rules on members of the same family was mentioned by various Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). It was also said that the changes could lock victims into situations of domestic violence. That is absolutely right. I have worked on such situations in the past, and have seen that that is a very real threat.
Many hon. Members talked about the increasing settlement period, which would entrench exploitation by being tied to a single employer, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam).
Members were also concerned that the proposals will damage our ability to attract and retain the skills our country needs in a whole range of sectors. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). Those concerns came especially from Members from the more remote parts of the country, such as my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and others.
The Minister cited the additional numbers who could qualify for ILR, but the view that that is a burden that we need to relieve ourselves of is too short term and narrow. It assumes that migrants will switch to benefits or reliance on local authority housing, and I cannot see any evidential basis for that assertion. The Minister said that 15% of those on universal credit are non-nationals, but looking at the UK population, around 20% are foreign-born, so it seems that group is less reliant on benefits than the population as a whole.
Across the Chamber today we have heard about the damage to community cohesion and integration—those are real points that must be very seriously taken into account. It is not about reducing immigration—I think it was only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who wrongly suggested that it is. It is about settlement and who gets to belong here after they have contributed for so long.
I want to end on a point that was raised by other hon. Members. It is really important, given the strength of feeling that we have heard today, that there is an opportunity for MPs to express their views about these measures if they are to proceed in any form. I suggest that a motion passed by negative resolution is not an apt way to do that. It is important that everybody who has spoken today feeds into the consultation so the views that the Government have reflect the views of the country as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 727372 and 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.
Enhanced Free Trade Agreement with Switzerland: Round 9 Negotiations
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The ninth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement (FTA) with Switzerland took place in London between 12 and 16 January 2026.
The new deal aims to support British businesses, back British jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets.
The enhanced agreement with Switzerland demonstrates the UK Government commitment to economic growth through strengthening trade ties with our 10th biggest trading partner—a relationship worth £49.0 billion in the 12 months ending September 2025 (ONS, UK total trade, seasonally adjusted).
The FTA aims to deliver long-term certainty for UK services firms by locking in access to the Swiss market, guaranteeing the free flow of data and cementing business travel arrangements.
The trading relationship supported 130,000 services jobs across the UK in 2020, including legal, consultancy and finance sectors (OECD trade in employment database and covers all jobs directly and indirectly supported by exports from service industries to Switzerland in 2020).
The new agreement will update the current goods-focused UK-Swiss FTA, signed in 2019 and largely based on an EU-Swiss deal from 1972. This does not cover services, investment, digital or data, despite services accounting for over 60% of UK trade with Switzerland (ONS, UK total trade, seasonally adjusted).
We have already extended the services mobility agreement between the UK and Switzerland for a further four years to 2029.
The latest round saw progress in multiple areas:
Services and investment
Productive sessions took place on services and investment. Talks remain focused on market access for UK services exports.
Market distorting practices
Good progress was made during this round on a range of topics relating to state-owned enterprises and subsidies.
Digital
Progress was made on digital trade with the UK seeking commitments to guarantee the free flow of data across both countries.
Intellectual property
During this round, the UK and Switzerland discussed intellectual property rights areas. Negotiations will continue with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.
Goods
Discussions continue to focus on goods market access and on the goods chapter text, which will help streamline the process for UK exports to Switzerland and bilateral trade in goods.
Environment and labour
Negotiators provisionally closed the trade and sustainable development chapter, which demonstrates the UK and Switzerland’s joint commitment to maintaining high standards of environmental and labour protection including through multilateral environmental agreements such as the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement.
Next steps on FTA negotiations
Immediately following the round, my colleague the Secretary of State for Business and Trade met President of the Swiss Confederation Guy Parmelin in Switzerland to take stock of the progress in the FTA.
The Government are focussed on securing outcomes in an enhanced FTA that boost economic growth for the UK and Ministers will continue to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, alongside protections for the national health service.
[HCWS1292]
Pandemic Agreement: Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I would like to update the House regarding the follow-up negotiations to the pandemic agreement to develop and agree a new pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) system in the form of an annex to the agreement.
The PABS system will be a new, voluntary system for life sciences companies to sign up to in order to gain faster access, with less red tape, to the pathogens they need to create new vaccines, treatments and diagnostics (VTDs) for in the event of a pandemic. These negotiations are currently ongoing via the World Health Organisation’s member state-led intergovernmental working group (IGWG), which was established to facilitate this process.
Since my last update to the House on 22 October 2025, the IGWG has convened in from 3 to 7 November and from 1 to 5 December and held a resumed session from 20 to 22 January. So far, technical discussions have centred around the scope of pathogen materials and sequence information covered by the PABS system; how they will be shared through laboratory networks and databases to ensure timely access; benefit sharing provisions for manufacturers who sign up to the system; the links between PABS and other international access and benefit sharing frameworks; the links between domestic access and benefit sharing legislation and the PABS system; and provisions regarding traceability and open access to data.
The most recent round of negotiations saw some progress made on issues including the use of terms for the PABS system, but differences remain on a range of issues. The UK Government remain committed to continuing work with other member states to find consensus and to deliver an effective, implementable, and equitable PABS system.
Member states have agreed to report on the outcome of negotiations by the next World Health Assembly in May 2026. Only once the negotiations on the PABS annex have concluded, and the annex has been adopted by the WHA, will the pandemic agreement, including the PABS annex, be open for signature and ratification by member states.
Two further negotiating weeks are scheduled for 9-13 February and 23-27 March and I will update the House further as negotiations continue.
[HCWS1296]
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination: Older Adults
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I am today announcing that the year-round vaccination programme to protect older adults against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) will be extended from 1 April 2026 to also include those aged 80 years and older, and all residents in care homes for older adults, supporting the 10-year health plan ambition to shift from sickness to prevention.
RSV is a common respiratory virus that can cause severe illness, especially for young infants and older adults who are at greater risk. That is why, in September 2024, we introduced new RSV vaccination programmes in England for adults who were aged 75 to 79 years old on 1 September 2024 and those subsequently turning 75, and for pregnant women from 28 weeks gestation to protect their baby during the first months of life. The decision to offer NHS vaccinations to protect these groups against RSV was based on the latest independent expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) at that time. When advising the introduction of these programmes, the JCVI noted that an extension would be considered when there was more certainty about the real-world impact of the programme in 75 to 79-year-olds and the level of protection offered by vaccination in those aged 80 and over.
The JCVI has continued to review the latest evidence and advised in June 2025 that all older adults aged over 75 years should be eligible for an RSV vaccination on the NHS, as well as all residents in a care home for older adults, regardless of their age. The Committee also advised that RSV vaccines could be administered concurrently with covid-19 vaccines.
His Majesty’s Government have accepted the JCVI’s advice, and the UK Health Security Agency are working with NHS England to ensure that newly eligible individuals will be offered an RSV vaccination from 1 April 2026. This means that anyone who is eligible for both the RSV programme and the spring 2026 covid-19 campaign will be able to get both vaccines at the same appointment, which will improve convenience and help maximise uptake.
The RSV vaccination programme has already had a positive impact, leading to a 33% reduction in RSV-related hospital admissions in 75 to 79-year-olds in winter 2024/25, only months after being introduced, while uptake was still rising. A recent publication in The Lancet Infectious Diseases on a UKHSA and NHS collaboration has shown that the vaccine is over 80% effective in preventing admissions due to RSV chest infections.
I am delighted to say that nearly 2 million RSV vaccinations have now been given to older adults who are currently eligible for the programme. This extension will build on that success, by providing protection for even more people at most risk of RSV, which will save more lives and further reduce RSV-related hospital admissions during the winter months.
[HCWS1294]
Government Support for High Streets
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
High streets are the heart of our communities—they should be vibrant centres where people come together, where local businesses take root and flourish, and a source of pride in place. But too many people tell us that their high streets no longer feel like the thriving centres they once were. They see boarded-up shops, dwindling footfall, and the loss of cherished local businesses. We have listened, and are taking decisive action to reverse this trend.
I can confirm that the upcoming high streets strategy will be backed by at least £150 million of support to help turn the tide on the high streets most in need. This targeted investment will be used to tackle the challenges people care about most. It will improve neglected shopfronts, bring empty units back into use, and restore pride in local high streets. The funding will be prioritised for areas that have felt the harshest impact of high street decline.
This announcement builds on the Chancellor’s recent measures to support hospitality and celebrate the essential role of British pubs in high street life. These measures form part of our broader commitment to a new high streets strategy that will tackle the structural challenges facing retail, leisure, and hospitality businesses. People care about their local businesses, and we know these sectors are vital drivers of local economies. That is why we will work closely with industry to ensure the strategy reflects their needs and unlocks long term growth.
The new investment will complement our flagship Pride in Place programme, a transformative package of up to £5 billion that puts power and resources directly into the hands of local communities. People want more control over what happens in their town centres—and we are giving them that control. Through Pride in Place, local people are shaping regeneration projects, deciding how investment is spent and creating thriving places. Together, these initiatives represent a long-term plan to give communities control and restore pride, opportunity, and economic resilience across the country.
New funding is just one part of the picture. We are already taking steps to support vibrant high streets and respond to the problems people have told us matter most. This includes introducing new tools to repurpose and reimagine high street property including high street rental auction and community right to buy, consulting on new national planning policies to support town centre vitality, cutting red tape with licensing reform, and tackling the proliferation of betting shops, ensuring our high streets remain welcoming and diverse.
This is the beginning of a turning point for high streets across England. By combining targeted funding, stronger local powers, support for businesses, and community driven regeneration, we will breathe new life into town centres and strengthen the sense of pride people feel in the places they call home.
I will bring further updates as we develop our high streets strategy in the coming months.
[HCWS1295]
West Midlands Trains Services: Transfer into Public Ownership
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
My noble friend, the Minister of State for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) has made the following ministerial statement on 30 January 2026.
I am confirming to the House that on Sunday 1 February, West Midlands Trains, operating as London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway, will become the fourth operator whose services will transfer into public ownership under the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act.
Operations will now be run by a new public sector operator —WM Trains Ltd—a subsidiary of public corporation DfT Operator Ltd (DFTO).
This now means that eight of the 14 train operators that my Department is responsible for, and which will form the backbone of passenger services under Great British Railways (GBR), are in public ownership.
Govia Thameslink Railway’s services will be the next to transfer on 31 May 2026, with the intention that Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railway’s services will follow. Expiry notices will be issued to confirm the dates of transfer for these operators once a final decision has been taken.
Public ownership is already putting passengers at the heart of the railway, but, in and of itself, is not a silver bullet. To truly fix the structural issues that have long plagued our railways, we need systemic reform.
The Railways Bill continues its passage through Parliament and will establish GBR, a new publicly owned body, that will run and manage the tracks and trains for passengers and freight use every day. The Bill will also give passengers a powerful new voice with a passenger watchdog, and an enhanced role for devolved Governments and England’s mayors to have a bigger say in how the railway is run in their regions.
GBR will take responsibility for the day-to-day operational delivery of the railways: from delivering services to setting timetables, managing access to the network and operating, maintaining and renewing infrastructure. It will also bring fares and ticketing into the 21st century, simplifying the baffling array of fares and ticketing that passengers currently endure, ensuring they get best value for money. The new GBR app and website will allow passengers to buy tickets, check train times and access a range of support all in one place.
Ahead of the establishment of GBR, the management of track and train is already being brought closer together with integrated leadership across DFTO train operating companies and Network Rail routes in defined regional areas. This will deliver improvements for passengers and freight users.
Furthermore, for the first time in 30 years, rail fares will be frozen for a year from March. This will put money back in passengers’ pockets and ease the cost of living for hard-working people, including delivering savings across over a billion journeys.
The Government continue to deliver on our plan for change, with investment and reform driving growth and rebuilding Britain. Reforming our railways is central to this and will drive improved performance, bringing more people back to rail, generating greater revenue and reducing costs.
[HCWS1293]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Monday 2nd February 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-IV(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (2 Feb 2026)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.
For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.
In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.
With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.
Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.
This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.
Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.
In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.
I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.
As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.
Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.
Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.
An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I start by apologising for not having spoken at Second Reading.
I will speak to a number of amendments in this group standing in my name and, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment 112 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who, unfortunately, cannot be in her place today. These amendments relate to Clause 23, which introduces Schedule 5, relating to new provisions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, creating, in effect, a new local licensing framework for micromobility vehicles.
Let me say at the outset that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked some very interesting questions about the scope of what should be included here, and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Amendments 105 and 106 in my name also relate to the definition of “passenger micromobility vehicles”. As drafted, the Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to prescribe further categories of vehicle by regulation at a later date, as appears in Schedule 5 to the Bill, on page 139, in addition to an “electronically assisted pedal cycle”. So a “passenger micromobility vehicle” means
“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle, or … a micromobility vehicle that … is designed or adapted to carry one or more individuals, and … is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
The “and” there is crucial. We are all aware of micromobility vehicles that are not pedal cycles or electrically assisted pedal cycles, such as e-scooters and things of that sort. They would have to be designated by the Secretary of State in order to be included in the scope of the Bill.
I do not know why that has to happen. I do not see why the Government cannot be clear about what this covers and cover it from the outset, not by way of regulation later, which may or may not happen; the remarks made by the noble Baroness about pedicabs and how long these things take to happen are salutary in this respect. So my reason for tabling these amendments is to probe why those categories are not clearly and properly defined in the Bill at the outset and why we will have to wait for regulations later.
My Amendment 107 addresses the exemption provisions. Schedule 5 permits the Secretary of State, again by regulation, to create further exemptions from what may otherwise be criminal prohibitions. So criminal offences will be created by the Bill, or the Act when it comes into force. On the face of the Act, certain things will be exempt from those criminal provisions—that is fine; not everything has to be criminal, and you might want some exemptions—but the Secretary of State may want to add to them later. Thus, through regulation, not an Act of Parliament, there will be changing and meddling with the criminal law and criminal liability. Even though it is moving in the right direction, I do not think that regulation by the Secretary of State is an ideal way for the criminal law in this country to be changed. So the Government should be clear on what additional exemptions they are thinking of producing, and, if possible, those should be included in the Bill.
Amendment 110 is an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, which requires local highways authorities to create sufficient space for micromobility vehicles. I have suggested the deletion of “sufficient”. This is probing, to some extent, but “sufficient” creates an unlimited obligation on the part of the local highways authority. What is sufficient? It is sufficient to meet demand. If the demand increases, more space must be produced. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seems to think that this might be quite attractive, because it would force out private motor vehicles, which would have no such prior claim on the highway.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on micromobility.
I will begin with Amendments 104A and 105A. The noble Baroness is right that delivery devices such as pavement robots are used—and in the future may well be used very frequently—in Great Britain. This framework is designed to license the provision of shared micromobility vehicles. It is not designed to regulate how they are used on the streets, but I reassure the noble Baroness that all the categories that she spoke about could be included in the category of “non-passenger micromobility vehicles” in future under the Bill’s existing drafting, as it is broad enough to capture vehicles used for different purposes, including delivery vehicles.
I turn to Amendments 105 and 106. The Bill sets out clear parameters for what could be considered a micromobility vehicle for the purposes of this licensing framework and Amendment 105 seeks to remove them. The framework will initially cover shared pedal and e-bikes, but it needs the flexibility to extend to other modes, such as e-scooters, once they have been regulated for under separate UK-wide regulation. The framework must be future-proof to be fit for purpose. We must retain flexibility or risk leaving our local leaders without the ability to effectively manage their streets every time a new technology enters the market. Retaining this flexibility without being overly broad is key and the parameters and definitions that we have set out in the Bill achieve this balance. These amendments would defeat this intention to the point of being prohibitive, leaving only cycles and e-cycles in scope.
Amendment 107 seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to create exemptions to the requirement to hold a licence. A future-facing licensing framework for shared micromobility is essential to ensure that local leaders have the powers that they need to maximise the benefits of these schemes and decisively tackle any negative impacts. However, these requirements must be proportionate. To ensure this, it has always been our intention to exempt schemes from licensing requirements based on their scale and nature. It is not right that a community-led scheme providing five or six bikes for shared use in a village should be held to the same standard as a commercial operator applying for a licence for tens of thousands of bikes—and that it could face criminal prosecution for doing so. This power has been created to ensure that such situations are avoided.
It is not possible to account in primary legislation for all the potential exemptions to licensing requirements that might be necessary to ensure proportionality, not least as this may differ by vehicle type and usage. Micromobility is a new industry, and new business models and technologies will continue to emerge. This framework is designed to account for the shared use of these future technologies on our streets. The impacts of different vehicle types on shared street space will be different and it is impossible to anticipate these future impacts with certainty right now. Therefore, the types of schemes that it is appropriate to exempt may vary by the type of shared micromobility vehicle or business model. For example, a scheme of 10 shared cycles may be small enough to exempt from licensing due to very limited impacts, but a scheme of 10 pavement delivery devices could have significantly different impacts that may make it appropriate to require a licence. That is why the flexibility to make further exemptions in regulations is essential to the effective future functioning of the framework.
On Amendment 108, while I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that parking density and standards are critical to the success of shared micromobility licensing, I believe that the framework as introduced already tackles this in the most appropriate way. The framework already contains regulation-making powers on what must be included in a licence. That includes the power to set specific licence requirements on parking, if deemed necessary following consultation.
On density, as with other traffic management measures, local authorities know their roads best and are best placed to consider what level of provision is appropriate and in what locations. However, we will set out statutory guidance following detailed consultation to help licensing authorities to make these decisions. Where the licensing authority and traffic authority are not the same, they will have a legal duty to co-operate on parking. I will be happy to discuss this subject, and Amendments 109 and 113, with the noble Baroness further after Committee.
On Amendment 109, regarding parking for micromobility vehicles, and Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, a key intention of the framework is to ensure the provision of shared cycle parking in the right spaces. So, while I appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments, I do not believe that they are needed. The licensing authority is intended to be the highest tier of local government to ensure that oversight of these schemes happens at the strategic level. However, traffic authorities are best placed to deliver effective parking solutions locally. The legal duty, as it exists in Schedule 5, has been drafted to facilitate collaborative working relationships between these bodies. These amendments would place the burden of resolving parking challenges entirely with traffic authorities, which could have the effect of making them junior partners in parking provision and would not be conducive to the genuine positive collaboration and partnership between authorities that is necessary to make schemes successful.
The proposed amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also would not add any further specificity to the duty, given the ambiguity of what is meant by “sufficient parking”. That could create further challenges and opaqueness for local authorities to navigate as part of a licensing process that is intended to make managing these schemes more straightforward and efficient. Local leaders know their areas best, and effective and constructive co-operation will look different in different places. We may well set out in further detail in guidance what constructive co-operation could look like, but it is important that that is done following in-depth consultation to ensure its effectiveness.
I turn to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Licensing authorities will be able to set licence conditions on the parking of shared cycles and enforce these through the framework. The issues that the amendment seeks to address are largely ones that are likely to arise with illegal private vehicles rather than shared micromobility. Identifying the owner of a private cycle can be challenging but, in the case of shared e-cycles, it is commercially essential that the operator is clearly identifiable and engageable. The police and local authorities in certain circumstances already have powers to remove and dispose of broken-down, abandoned and obstructive or dangerously parked vehicles. For local authorities, the powers extend to cycles and other micromobility vehicles. Indeed, as the noble Lord observed, those very powers have been used by no less than the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to seize more than 1,000 obstructively parked rental e-bikes in 2025, according to the council’s own website. Similarly, concerns about inherently unsafe vehicles are generally focused on illegal electric motorcycles rather than shared e-cycles operated by legitimate businesses. The Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will strengthen existing police powers by removing the requirement for a warning to be issued before the seizure of vehicles being used illegally.
On Amendment 112, on which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke, ensuring the safe use of shared micromobility vehicles is at the heart of this framework. We recognise the role that insurance plays in safety and accountability for operators, users and non-users of shared cycles. That is why we have taken powers that allow us to set out in regulations what insurance may need to be in place as part of a shared-cycle scheme. However, insurance is a commercially and legally complex area. Therefore, it is vital to first consult in depth to understand the full impacts of any potential requirements.
I understand of course how crucial it is that we get the insurance question right, and that the consequences of not doing so could have serious impacts on lives and livelihoods. It will be particularly important to strike the right balance of responsibility between operators and users, and it may not be reasonable or appropriate to place the burden of obtaining insurance entirely on the user, as this amendment would do. This approach would also deviate from existing approaches to insurance for other shared modes, such as rental cars or rental e-scooters. Insurance requirements will need to align with any related aspects of licensing which may be deemed necessary following consultation, such as potential processes for user identity or age verification. It is important that flexibility exists to ensure such alignment in secondary legislation and thereby that the framework is as effective and rigorous as possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I think there were some pilots of privately owned e-scooters. Have the results of those come through? Have they been published?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the original pilot e-scooter experiments were started in the days of the previous Government and there were no results. This Government have extended both the number and the length of the pilots, so there will be some results in due course that relate to current circumstances rather than the circumstances of several years ago.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his answers to my concern about micromobility delivery vehicles. I think I heard the conditional in his words about them, so “could” rather than “would”. I will read Hansard very carefully and then come back to him, perhaps in a Corridor somewhere or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Parking charges and strategic authorities: restriction of powers(1) In section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (designation of paying parking places on highways), after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not make an order under subsection (1).”(2) In section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 (financial provisions relating to designation orders), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not undertake any activity provided for under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent mayors of CCAs from increasing charges or penalties for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges, to ensure local communities maintain control of these matters and cannot be imposed upon.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment 114A, which is genuinely probing. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that parking enforcement and the charges associated with it remain with the lowest-tier authority, as they currently are, and are not subsumed into a combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority and with them, presumably, the money that flows from them. A matter of minutes ago, the Minister said that local leaders know their area best, and it should be local leaders who are responsible for enforcement and the funding that comes from it.
If the Government’s intention is that that responsibility and funding stream should migrate away from local authorities that have had it in the past up to these new combined authorities, they should say so now. If that is not their intention, it would also be helpful to know that because, once we have established that clearly, it should be possible to return to the matter on Report with a proper conservative approach.
There are two other amendments in this group, one of which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and concerns pavement parking—a matter of considerable concern to people who are blind or mobility impaired in a number of ways. I look forward to hearing the case for that amendment, which I think it is going to be spoken to, and to the Government’s response.
Finally, there is an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which, putting it in blunt terms, seeks to extend civil enforcement powers for parking from London to the rest of the country. Again, I will listen very carefully to the proposal, but I am not unsympathetic to it in principle as I currently understand it, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 121A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett who sends his apologies to the Committee this afternoon. He has a long-standing appointment that he could not cancel, so he asked me to speak to his amendment on his behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has expressed, I suspect, a bit of sympathy towards this amendment, and so he should. The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust has provided a detailed briefing on this amendment which sets out a very good case.
Essentially, the amendment would provide the local transport authority or designated upper-tier local authority outside London with the power to prohibit pavement parking in its local area, and provide, where sensible, for exemptions.
The case is very straightforward. Essentially, pavement parking is a threat and a jeopardy to anybody with a disability, and in particular those who are partially sighted or blind, and anyone with a mobility impairment. Polling on the subject suggests that 73% of those with a disability would support local authorities enforcing against pavement parking. For those who are partially sighted, the percentage is even higher.
The truth is that barriers such as pavement parking put people off travelling. According to a national travel survey, disabled people take 25% fewer trips than non-disabled people because they fear the consequences of using pavements that have cars parked on them, so there is a real transport accessibility gap.
Some 41% of individuals who responded to the Government’s consultation on this subject felt that they would leave home more often if there was an end to pavement parking. Pavement parking affects us all, not just those who have disabilities. In particular, it forces people off footpaths or pavements on to the road, which of course can be very dangerous. Another problem that perhaps is not stated as much as it should be is that it damages pavements, causing them to be even less safe to use. Cars parking on pavements reduces walking and wheeling and we should take note of that and make our streets genuinely more accessible, free and easy for all to use.
In London, I understand, there is effective power to tackle pavement parking and Scotland has devolved powers as well, giving local authorities there a very clear steer in the way in which they enforce.
As I understand it, the Department for Transport conducted a consultation on this issue five years or so ago and the public have been waiting a long time for a response. In January this year, the department finally said that it would give these powers to English councils at the next legislative opportunity. I have discovered in my time in the House of Lords that these opportunities do not come along very often, and I suggest that this is probably one of those legislative opportunities. I therefore urge the Minister to give this amendment a positive response and perhaps, between now and Report, we can perfect the words so that the powers can work more effectively, not just for people in Scotland and London but across England as well.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, very much in the same vein of argument. One thing that shocked me, reading some of the background to this, was that local transport authorities do not have this power at the moment. It seems remarkable. Yet Scotland and London, as the noble Lord mentioned, already do.
The other group of people who should be mentioned are parents with young children who are trying to navigate pavements blocked by cars, vans or whatever. It seems absolutely obvious that this wrong, which is right in London and Scotland, should be put right immediately. I can see very few arguments against that.
Having said that—I hope Hansard will pause for a while—I am an offender, because my eldest daughter Jessica lives in Ivybridge on a 1960s estate where the roads are so narrow that when I visit her I have to park partly on the pavement. She is nowhere near public transport. I can see the noble Baroness looking at me disparagingly. There is no local public transport and so, in order not to block the road, you have to park partly on the pavement.
The amendment absolutely states that local authorities have the discretion to apply that exemption to certain streets, so I think it is right for the occasion. It is important for pedestrians, wheelers, parents, the disabled and us—the public.
I also say to the Minister—I do not know whether this is legislated for—that the other thing that really gets up my nose is people parking on cycle lines. That can be equally dangerous, as cyclists have to veer out into the main road. It is not related to this amendment, but I would be interested in the Minister’s comment as to whether that is also illegal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said and as I understand it, this is already government policy, so let us just get on and do it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 121A from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but a number of amendments have emerged in this Bill that fit my wider interest in accessibility.
I did not want to repeat myself, as some of the issues fall under the previous group of amendments, such as abandoned bikes causing a lot of difficulty for disabled people, which is a significant issue. I asked quite a large number of disabled people about their experiences and only one said that there might be a need for it where they lived, because local businesses rely on pavement parking to carry out their trade. However, there is a far more negative impact than that. A number of disabled people explained that they have to take very long routes around and that there is a lack of dropped kerbs. If you are pushing along the road at my height, behind cars, you cannot actually see what is on the road. Also, in lots of places, broken paving is a nightmare for wheelchair users and a lack of tactile paving makes it extremely difficult for visually impaired people, who might have to use routes that they had not realised they would need to use.
I spoke to one scooter user who said that, when they were trying to weave their way around a car, they could not see whether there was a driver in that car; there was, but the driver did not see them, so pulled out and knocked them into the road. This is really difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised parents with prams, for whom this can be horrendous. A mum who is a wheelchair user got in touch with me; she cannot use a pram, because she is a wheelchair user, so she trained her child to walk alongside her. I did that with my daughter and it is amazing how, from a young age, they learn what they should or should not do. But this mother found herself having to walk out into the road with a toddler and she felt very disconcerted about it.
Data from Cambridgeshire County Council shows that we spend about £234 million a year fixing pavements damaged by pavement parking. Data from Guide Dogs, admittedly from 2006 to 2010, showed that local authorities spend about £1 billion repairing kerbs and walkways because of pavement parking. This seems not just a ridiculous amount of money but incredibly dangerous.
Disability rights campaigner Judy Heumann suggested that, to be good allies to disabled people, non-disabled people should let the air out the tyres when people have pavement-parked. I do not think that is a very good idea, but this is such a challenge, not least when there is no other route that can be taken: you risk damaging your chair; you might not get through with your guide dog; or you risk damaging somebody’s car or van. A number of disabled people told me that they have experienced quite a lot of verbal abuse and high levels of threat by asking people to move, which is just not acceptable.
In researching this amendment, I watched a public service film from 1982 that says, “Leave the pavement for pedestrians”, but it seems that we have not moved on too much since then. I urge the Minister and his team to look at this issue. It is a real risk for disabled people and we should just be doing much better.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have said.
I am slightly confused by a comparison between what the Department for Transport said in a press release on 8 January and what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, which is that powers will be available when legislative time allows. He rightly pointed out that we do not know when that will happen. However, the press release on 8 January said:
“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.
That implies to me that it can do what is proposed by setting out guidance and that we can be under way by 2026. However, the briefing we have all had from the trust implies that the Government will resist this amendment because they want to narrow the scope and there will be a place for it at a subsequent date. Exactly what is happening this year? If it is not all going to happen this year, what will happen this year? The press release certainly implies something:
“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.
I am sure the Minister will be able to shed some light on this issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.
I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.
I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.
This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.
We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.
We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendment 114A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Bill does not provide powers to combined authorities or combined county authorities in respect of parking provision. As parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations, the same imperative for consistent enforcement does not arise across a combined authority and combined county authority area, as is otherwise the case for the enforcement of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions. Civil parking enforcement powers are not considered to be appropriate at combined authority and combined county authority level. The Bill provides combined authorities and combined county authorities only with the ability to take on powers to enforce on a civil basis contraventions of bus lane and moving traffic restrictions with the agreement of the constituent local authorities.
The amendment would have no effect because combined authorities and county combined authorities are not defined as local authorities under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That provision limits the power to make traffic regulation orders for paid on-street parking to specific bodies: county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils, London boroughs, the Common Council of the City of London and Transport for London. The use of any surplus revenue from the designation of parking places is strictly ring-fenced under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for local authority-funded environmental measures and public transport schemes. This important principle will apply equally to combined authorities and combined county authorities for bus lane and moving traffic contraventions, which is appropriate in the interests of consistency and already dealt with in the regulations.
I turn to Amendment 121A, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bassam and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others. I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this matter and I share the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. Vehicles parked on the pavement can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments, as we have heard, as well as those with prams and pushchairs and of course in wheelchairs.
On 8 January this year, my department published a formal response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking, summarising the views received and announcing the Government’s next steps of pavement parking policy. We plan to give local authorities power later in 2026 to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the pavement. That offence already exists and can be enforced by the police, but making it enforceable on a civil basis can be achieved through secondary legislation and will clearly be welcome.
In addition, and I hope this answers the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the Government have announced our intention to make primary legislation to give powers to local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking in their area. That will allow the highest tier of local government in an area to prohibit pavement parking, with exemptions for vehicle classes and streets where necessary. This will ensure accessibility on pavements for all pedestrians, including, as we have heard, some of our most vulnerable pavement users.
This is a complex area. Due consideration needs to be given to a range of matters, including how local transport authorities enact a prohibition, which vehicles might be excluded, permissible defences for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his efforts to move this matter forward, and I agree that the amendment captures the overall intent of the policy to create new devolved powers to prohibit pavement parking in the interests of all pavement and road users. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to enable this at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that my noble friend’s amendment may need only small drafting changes to allow it to fully represent the Government’s position. I am happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this matter further.
In respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about parking on cycleways, it is already an offence to park on a cycle track.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
If it is the case that only minor amendments are needed to what is now before us, why can that not happen on Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As I say, I am very happy to meet the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Blunkett to see whether we can move this forward.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry for sitting down prematurely.
Amendment 238, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would have no effect because there already exists a long-established and well-established civil enforcement regime in regulations made under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. That regime covers matters such as conditions for issuance and levels of penalty charge notices, rights of representation to the issuing local authority, and onward appeal to an independent adjudicator if representations are unsuccessful. The Secretary of State has also published statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard under Section 87 of the 2004 Act, to ensure that civil enforcement action is carried out by approved local authorities in a fair and proportionate manner.
With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords are able not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief because, on this occasion, the Minister has brought great clarity to a number of the debates that were initiated in this brief discussion. The sensible thing would be for us to take away what he said and consider, ahead of Report, whether there are any matters that we still wish to pursue. Indeed, I understand that there will be negotiations on at least one of the main topics that were the subject of this discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am rarely disappointed by the words of the Minister on matters relating to transport. I am delighted that he concedes that the Blunkett amendment is close to perfection; I think it is. I rather hope that, between now and Report, those of us who want to see Amendment 121A enacted will have a constructive, warm and friendly cup of tea with the Minister to resolve those few words that need to be sorted out so that, on Report, we can achieve a sublime amendment to which everybody signs up.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hope to be brief. I have two main topics to discuss here. No explanation has been given for including Clause 27, which has the effect of transferring to the Mayor of London powers, which currently rest with the Secretary of State, to give consent for the disposal of land owned by Transport for London.
I start by saying that I do not have a principled objection to giving more powers to Transport for London. In fact, when I think back to the pedicabs Bill, I was the one arguing against the Government’s initial proposal that the pedicab licensing regulations would have had to be approved by the Secretary of State in each case. That argument was eventually heard, so the Secretary of State has no say over the licensing of pedicabs in London; it rests entirely with Transport for London, which is the right place for it to rest. I only wish it would get on and do something about it, but that is another question.
I am not opposed in principle to transferring powers over Transport for London to the Mayor of London from the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about doing so in this case, because the land that belongs to Transport for London is very often necessary for operational purposes, although that is not always immediately apparent to the casual passer-by. The casual passer-by—that might include the mayor, who passes by occasionally—would see that land and perhaps see an opportunity for housing on it. If the mayor is responsible both for decisions relating to housing, as he is, and for decisions relating to the disposal of land by transport for London, he can be placed in a position that not only creates an inherent conflict but can create difficulties for Transport for London over time.
There is a further matter: sometimes the land owned by Transport for London is also accessible by Network Rail, and of course vice versa. We know that Transport for London runs services on a considerable amount of Network Rail assets, so the transfer of land that might be of value for operational purposes to another purpose—let us say housing, although it might be something different—could have an impact that is greater than simply one on Transport for London. It might be something to which Network Rail, for example, or Great British Railways in the future, had an objection—yet the Secretary of State, who would be the normal means through which they would articulate their objection, would not be empowered to take any steps. They would be left as simply one of a number of petitioners at the door of the Mayor of London, asking him to take their interests into account. So I am very cautious about this clause and I wonder whether it has been properly thought through. I do not understand the rationale for it, except in the general sense of, “We’ve got to devolve things, so here’s something we can devolve”. I am not sure this is something that should in fact be devolved.
My Amendment 119, and Amendment 118, which is consequential to it, would replace the duty on councils to implement local transport plans with a duty to have regard to them. This is inevitably a fine balance. I think we have all understood it and seen it in other contexts. But there is a real difference, in practice and in law, between being under a duty to implement and being under a duty to have regard. Being under a duty to implement is a very narrow, rigid requirement that will leave very little discretion for local transport authorities to take account of local circumstances. Again, I come back to what the Minister said a little while ago about local authorities being the people who know their area best. I think there is an argument at least—and this is a probing amendment—for exploring why the Government are not content with an arrangement whereby local transport authorities have a duty to have regard to the local transport plans rather than actually to implement them.
Finally, my Amendment 121 in this group relates to Schedule 10 and seeks to remove paragraph 14. As I understand paragraph 14, it effectively transfers responsibility for concessionary travel schemes from district and county councils to combined authorities, or combined county authorities once those bodies are established. There is an emotional bond in many cases between what I am going to call the bus pass and the local authority, which is of great significance both to local people and to the local authority. In fact, when I look at my own Freedom Pass, I see it says that it is funded by London Councils and HM Government. It used to say—not in my time but in years gone past—that it was funded by my local authority, which was named on the Freedom Pass.
That local link is tremendously important. It is one of the most important and valued services that local authorities supply to their residents. To remove the responsibility to the county authority and with it, no doubt, removing the name of the local authority from the pass, cutting that link, is very dangerous. It leaves in the air the question of who is paying for the Freedom Pass or bus pass that people have. Who is paying for it under these new arrangements? The reason why the local authority is entitled to have its name on it is because it is making a large financial contribution, sometimes the whole contribution. In London, the entire contribution comes from London local authorities. That is why they can have their name on it and is the basis of the bond that exists, but who is to carry that burden in the future? Who will be paying for it? Will that bond continue to be connected with the funder? These are important questions to explore. I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I will come to Amendment 120F in a moment.
These four amendments look at how this Bill divides responsibility between strategic authorities and local highway authorities and the risk that that division creates if it is not handled carefully. As the Bill is drafted, strategic authorities are responsible for drawing up policy through local transport plans while responsibility for implementing most road-related measures remains with local highway authorities. On the surface, that might sound tidy; in practice, it risks creating confusion and delay. This concern is informed by last week’s judgment by the Court of Appeal, the first time that a court has examined equivalent provisions in Section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which governs the duty of London boroughs to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.
The distinction between policies and proposals is important here. Local transport plans, such as climate plans, contain both. A policy might be to prioritise buses or to reduce speed limits in villages. A proposal is what turns that policy into reality: five miles of bus lane delivered each year or 20 miles an hour limits introduced in five villages annually. I would make it 10 miles an hour through villages, but I understand that people have to get to places.
Under this Bill, local authorities are required to implement policies but only to have regard to proposals. We have also seen amendments that would weaken this even further, reducing the duty to have regard only to policies, not even proposals. That stands in sharp contrast to the position in London where boroughs are under a clear obligation to deliver the proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. Yet outside London, constituent authorities will have a vote on approving local transport plans, something that London boroughs do not have. Surely, if authorities help to shape and approve the plan, it makes sense that they should also be held to deliver what it contains. If proposals can simply be noted and then ignored, we risk gridlock, not only on our streets but in how decisions get made. Strategic plans will promise change while delivery stalls on the ground.
The pace of delivery now really matters. On climate alone, the Climate Change Committee has recommended a 7% modal shift by 2035 that requires major sustained investment in buses and active travel across most, if not all, local authorities. Electric vehicle sales are off target. Other sectors are falling behind. Transport remains the largest emitting sector. It will need to do more, not less. Reducing motor traffic is also essential for public health to cut pollution, much of which now comes from brake and tyre wear. We need to improve road safety and enable walking and cycling. There is also a strong economic case. All major parties now support denser towns and cities rather than continued building on greenfield land. That will not work without significant modal shift. Without it, congestion will worsen and quality of life will decline. These amendments would ensure coherence between strategy and delivery, reduce the risk of stalemate and give local transport plans the force needed to turn ambition into action.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 120A to 120C. They are part of a theme that has been talked about before: the degree of devolution and centralisation of existing powers. In general, the Bill is a welcome move towards greater devolution, and my amendments were tabled in that spirit.
Amendment 120A relates to the approval of workplace parking levies by mayors. Back in 2000, the Transport Act was passed, which allowed mayors to implement workplace parking levies but left the final approval with the Secretary of State. The only occasion on which this appears to have been used was in Nottingham some 10 years ago. In the spirit of devolution, my argument is quite simple: we should try to remove barriers wherever possible and consider them where there is an appropriate level of democratic oversight. For example, Leeds City Council is apparently considering using the powers in the Transport Act 2000 in its city centre to support the funding of the West Yorkshire tram. The proposal in my amendment would give established mayors the power to approve a workplace parking levy in their area as part of genuine devolution. I do not understand why those powers require such a senior political level of clearance. That does not seem to be within the spirit of a greater devolved system of governance.
My Amendments 120B and 120C are in the same vein and would allow mayors to approve Transport and Works Act orders in their area. Transport and Works Act orders are the major planning approvals for schemes, such as new trams. All these must be centrally approved by the Secretary of State, whether it is a multimillion or multibillion-pound cross-country scheme such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade or a local tram service extension, and the requirement to go to the Secretary of State can add significant time to projects. It took over three years for the one-mile Birmingham Eastside extension to get sign-off from the department.
If we think about this and put it in perspective, other European countries can go from initiating a project to completion in around four to five years. We must do all that we can to speed these processes up. Clearly, there has to be some further oversight, but letting local areas get on with building and liberating central government from having to approve lots of different things seems a very sensible move.
Mayors are increasingly going to take powers away from the centre and will be running and responsible for large geographic areas, particularly the new county combined mayoral authorities—some, like Sussex, are going to be almost 100 miles long and 50 miles wide, which is a very large slice of the countryside. It seems to me that, if we believe in devolution, we should let them get on with the job and approve schemes in their area, as is the case in other countries. The change to Transport and Works Act orders would simply allow that, which will enable us as a country to grow, and grow our economy.
I think most of us in this room would agree that the economic benefits that flow from expanding and improving the quality of our transport connections are enormous. From the beginning of the development of rail networks, we have seen extensive benefits come about from expanding the network and moving into other areas, and I am sure that doing that quicker and faster will speed up improvements in our economy and economic growth.
I argue that we should have greater devolution for these sorts of decisions and not leave mayors having to scramble around and make sure they catch the wind with the Secretary of State at the right time to get final approval and sign-off for schemes that really do not need to have that degree of centralised control. I beg to move.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 236 in this group is on perhaps a slightly more niche issue than the others raised so far in this group, but it is a detail of relevance which raises some important wider issues. The crux of it is the centralised control over the installation of cattle grids due to the powers reserved to the Secretary of State. The powers are primarily derived from Sections 82 to 90 and Schedule 10 to the Highways Act 1980, although there are other powers, such as those under the New Forest Act 1964.
Sticking to the Highways Act as the principal issue, it rightly requires local councils to consult appropriately before making decisions about the installation of new cattle grids, but it also gives very significant powers to the Secretary of State to have the final decision on such things. It is a legitimate question to ask: what is it about decisions over cattle grids that requires the special attention of the Secretary of State to make a decision on them? I think it is hard to argue that there are great strategic issues at play when making decisions over cattle grids, and indeed the expertise and knowledge that is necessary to decide whether on, say, a particular road, it would be appropriate, dangerous or necessary is very much local expertise and local knowledge. No matter how impressive a Minister may be in their depth of geographic knowledge of the byways of the roads around the country, that expertise will always best sit locally.
The Government’s White Paper was very promising on this topic. I quote it approvingly:
“It is costly, inefficient and patronising that the Secretary of State for Transport has to agree to a new cattle grid”.
I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I think I probably would have been slightly more timid in my choice of language, but, alas, despite that pungent language, the issue then somewhat disappeared. It has not been followed through in the Bill. Listening carefully to the Minister’s comments at Second Reading, it is pretty unclear why this issue has disappeared. I feel there is a slight degree of shadow-boxing on my part, hence the breadth of the amendment that I have submitted, because it would be helpful to tease out what has changed the Government’s mind from that pungent language in the White Paper to the silence in the legislation.
Although in a way it is undoubtedly not the most important of issues when it comes to devolution or transport, it is one of those issues that has wider relevance. Sometimes, improvements in government or public services come from big, grand, sweeping, important measures, but often, the improvements come from relentless incrementalism, the accumulation of small steps. This amendment certainly would be one of those small steps, but a useful small step in properly decentralising power, empowering local councils, acting as highway authorities, to take responsibility and, perhaps, also rather usefully, reducing the workload on central government a little. After all, one of the most common comments that Ministers and civil servants make is how overloaded and overworked so much of Whitehall and Westminster is. Cattle grids on their own are not enough to crack those problems, but devolving power over cattle grids would be a helpful step forward. I look forward to the Minister telling us how the spirit of the White Paper is going to be restored to the Bill on this topic.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Although his amendment does not say so, I assume the noble Lord is talking about cattle grids on highways. The majority of cattle grids are on people’s private land. I think the amendment would be better if it was clearer that it relates to highways, if it does.
Lord Pack (LD)
The answer is largely yes, although the provisions under the Highways Act get into the use of adjoining land and the circumstances in which adjoining land might be used, particularly for bypasses related to cattle grids. However, the intent of the amendment is absolutely to tease out where the Government are on cattle grids on highways.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, and I shall speak to just a few of them. The last two speakers have outlined that if this Bill is truly about devolution, it should be empowering local authorities to make decisions for their area without having to apply to Whitehall. From Amendment 236 from my noble friend Lord Pack about the decision to install a cattle grid in an area to the speeches we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about workplace parking levies or applying for a Transport and Works Act order, what is the best level for this? In many ways, these are small amendments, but they go to the heart of the Bill. Is this about genuine devolution and empowerment, or is it a little bit of decentralisation from Whitehall but still with the reins attached? That was one of the criticisms we made at Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has had to leave, but I shall speak on his behalf on Amendments 120D and 120E. He apologises to noble Lords for not having taken part before, due to working on other Bills at the same time that have been clashing. Noble Lords will remember the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, now the Bus Services Act. These amendments were tabled by the noble Lord at that time, and we were told:
“The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 90.]
However, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the long-awaited road safety strategy is rather coy on bus safety, mentioning the Act and what TfL is doing and then saying:
“Safety measures could then be specified as part of franchising contracts”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is concerned that it seems as though local authorities might move forward in this safety area in some way only if they are minded to do so, whereas, in London, we see that TfL has the Vision Zero strategy, which aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from the transport network by 2041 and to have no one killed on or by a bus by 2030. Surely these things should be baked into all future transport contracts nationwide. The noble Lord is right to flag up this issue. The road safety strategy is an excellent document in so many areas, but in this area of bus safety it has fallen short of what we all hoped for from the bus services Bill. I hope that the Minister can address our points about devolution and bus safety, as well as about making sure that we are tackling these issues.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, please forgive me—this is my first time in Committee. I declare an interest as a local authority leader here in London, as the chair of the transport and environment committee at London Councils and as an executive of London Councils. I wish to speak to Clause 27 and to Amendments 118 and 118A to Clause 29; I shall speak to Amendment 120B later.
I have sat here and listened to what everybody has said. I believe it was mentioned that, in terms of Clause 27, there are questions around the devolution of power to the Mayor of London regarding Network Rail and land usage. What I can say from my personal experience, having worked closely with the GLA, the Mayor of London, Network Rail, Transport for London and other local authorities, is that they work together. There are often plenty of conversations between the different groups. We do not work in isolation. As anybody who is familiar with planning will know, you speak to and engage with those who have an interest in the land, and so on. I am in favour of the clause because, in London, we work closely with the Mayor of London, local authorities and the GLA. I do not see an issue with having this power devolved to the Mayor of London; it would make things quicker and easier just as much as, when we do anything, we reach out to the environmental authority, for example. This would make things speedier and more streamlined, especially as all the bodies mentioned work closely together.
I turn to Amendments 118 and 118A. I would like to address the fact that, as local authorities, we have local plans. We have to work closely with Transport for London, for example, on our transport plans, and they must have synergy between them. As I mentioned, we do not work in isolation. I believe that establishing local plans gives that freedom to work together, which is why I am not in favour of Amendment 118A.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned freedom passes. They are one of the recent topics of conversation at London Councils because local authorities put a considerable amount of money into them. As such, one of the discussions has been about whether we, as local authorities, should have our local authority on the cards so that residents know who is funding them. That is part of our conversations at the moment. I wish to highlight this because it is an ongoing, live conversation. I say this to noble Lords as somebody who is working hard at the coalface and having these discussions with multiple local authorities, where there is cross-party consensus. I just want to let noble Lords know that this matter is already under discussion in the place where it really matters for those conversations to take place.
Lastly, I am in favour of on my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment. I keep mentioning having those relationships. We are always having those conversations and not just as a mayoral authority. Whether in London or outside it, they speak to those local authorities that are contained within their areas and know the area best, and they have those relationships with other authorities across the border as well. I agree with my noble friend’s amendment. I wanted to speak to those amendments and Clause 27 as someone who is constantly in the rooms where those conversations are being had.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. I am interested in what she said. Unlike many noble Lords here, I am not into London politics at all, but that speech almost painted an ideal situation in London between different levels of local authority. I presume that Great British Railways will be very much a national organisation. I ask the noble Baroness: does politics not get in the way occasionally? I remember some years ago that, when the Mayor of London—it was still Sadiq Khan—tried to turn more of what used to be the British Rail commuter routes into London Overground services, the reaction of the Secretary of State in the Tory Government at the time was, “No way am I going to allow a Labour mayor to take over and have more power in this area”. I am delighted by the noble Baroness’s picture of London politics, but it does not read every way. We are trying to stop politics always getting in the way of improvements—but perhaps she will come back to me and tell me I am wrong, it is all sweetness and light and we do not need to be worried, and I will become a resident of London again. That would be great.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I also work on the Local Government Association, where I have a broader purview. In some of the discussions we have heard today, I have been sitting here thinking, “We do that in London, and we need to make sure that other places do it too”. I find that, where local authorities are keen on Vision Zero and moving towards more sustainable active travel, they are going ahead and doing it. It is with local authorities that are not so keen that a bit of politics probably comes into it. You want everyone to be on the same page and acting the same way. I am not going to mention any local authorities that are not on the same page as Lewisham or, frankly, as progressive when it comes to our green agenda, sustainable travel and so on, but last Monday I had to reprimand someone from a local authority and say, “You’ve got to give people information and guidance so that they can decide. You can’t decide for them whether they want to be included in declaring a climate emergency”. In fact, we have moved past the climate emergency; we are on to a climate action plan now, so I had to inform them of that.
Sometimes there are those differences but, as I say, we work closely with the LGA. The noble Lord mentioned an example where we had a Tory Secretary of State and a Labour Mayor of London. There can be sticking points where we want to get ahead and do something. That is why I speak to my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment, because we need things to be speedier and we have more capacity in local government and know our areas. We need this to be more streamlined so that we can make those decisions more quickly, such as for a transport and works order, and have connections to be able to speak.
For example, with the Bakerloo line extension going out into Kent, we have those relationships and connections. They are not in the Mayor of London’s realm but outside. More locally, in Grove Park, in the south of my borough, we have a desire and an ambition to have an inner-city national park. There is a patchwork of land owned by Network Rail; we are getting it and other parties around the table so that we can drive it and work together. We have an ambition to have this park, where Edith Nesbit lived and wrote The Railway Children. No matter what part of government we are in, money and financing always seem to get in the way. But, where there is a meeting of minds and a desire to achieve our goals, we can try, incrementally and bit by bit, to work towards that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on succeeding me as chairman of the London Councils transport and environment committee. Does she agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in relation to refusing the Mayor of London additional rail routes in London, is that that is the policy of the current Government, who as I understand it intend to maintain the devolved routes as they are at the moment but have a policy of creating no more? One does not need to look to a political explanation of these decisions at all. I assume that, because they are in the same party, there is only sweetness and light between the Minister and the Mayor of London.
Does the noble Baroness also agree that it surely cannot all be sweetness and light in London at the moment, because London Councils has a policy that the boroughs should replace the assembly and have a relationship with the mayor much on the national level being proposed in this Bill, whereby the mayor is chairman of a combined authority? It seems to me that they feel that they are not sufficiently in the room, if they would like to be a great deal more so through a mechanism such as that.
These points are very good. While I am on my feet, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that my experience of London Councils and of holding the position that the noble Baroness now does is that politics in the sense of pure party politics does not get very much in the way when boroughs are collaborating with each other, the mayor, Transport for London and so on. However, there are structural differences. The truth is that the interests of the boroughs and those of Transport for London, for example, are not always the same. That form of institutional politics is very apparent. Finally, I would say—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord was making an intervention. Interventions have to be short, and his is not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
By the time I have finished, it will be short. I was asking the noble Baroness whether she agreed that none of these considerations is particularly relevant because the problem that I drew attention to in my amendment, with which she does not agree, is not because of a disagreement between the boroughs and the mayor, which could be sorted out by sitting in a room; it is about an inherently internal conflict of interest between the mayor as the person responsible for housing policy and the mayor as chairman of Transport for London now being given the power to dispose of property in place of the Secretary of State.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I just say to the noble Lord that interventions are supposed to be short and I think he is taking advantage of the Committee?
Lord Moylan (Con)
With respect, this is Committee and one is allowed to go on a little bit. Although it is in the form of an intervention, I could just as easily have stood up and made a second speech. I think the noble Lord should stop intervening on me quite so much.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their numerous comments. I will respond to just a few, because I think some might have been a bit rhetorical. As in any family, it is about communicating and having those discussions. My view is that there is room at the table for London Councils, but we do have those conversations with the Mayor of London and the GLA and invite them down to our boroughs, et cetera.
The other point I wanted to make is that we always work to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. We work cross-party as much as possible and when there is consensus, things can move forward.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with the proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on Clause 27. I will also say what a pleasure it is to hear my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham on this and other issues. Just deviating from the amendments for one moment, I will say that the noble Lord is incorrect about the devolution of rail, because the Secretary of State is currently considering the devolution of northern inner suburban trains to the Mayor of London from the national railway network.
Transport in London is devolved, with the mayor responsible for managing the capital’s transport network, so it is right that, in line with the wider purpose of the Bill, the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land-disposal applications from TfL. The noble Lord referred to operational land and therefore it is necessary to consult Network Rail, and that is enshrined in the proposition. This will therefore simplify the existing process and better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital. The Secretary of State does not need to get in the way of housing developments on land owned by Transport for London and suitable for housing.
On Amendments 118 and 119, on local transport plans, constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. Clause 29 is intended to support close working between constituent councils and the strategic authority by requiring the constituent council implementing the policies in the local transport plan to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This duty already applies to some constituent councils and this clause will extend that duty to all constituent councils.
The clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working between authorities while not giving the strategic authority undue control over how constituent councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils to implement policies and instead substitute “have regard to” them. As members of the strategic authority, constituent councils have a key role in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other parts of the Bill, this includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan.
I turn to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B. Constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. As I said earlier, Clause 29 is intended to support close working between the constituent councils and the strategic authority, by requiring the implementation of policies in the local transport plan and having regard to the proposals. As I said, the clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working and not giving the strategic authority undue control over the way that constituent councils manage their local highway network.
These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to “implement” rather than “have regard to”, and would therefore give strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads. However, we recognise that there are benefits to strategic authority mayors having levers to implement agreed plans. Clause 28 and Schedule 9 therefore give mayors a power to direct constituent councils in the exercise of their functions on the key route network of the most important local roads, helping mayors to implement their local plans.
On Amendment 120A, I know that workplace parking levies can be effective in delivering local transport priorities, as demonstrated—as my noble friend Lord Bassam observed—by the successful scheme in Nottingham, the only such scheme currently in operation in England. It has both reduced congestion in the city and provided funds to support the operation of the light rail system. We therefore hear the arguments for a greater role for strategic authorities, and for mayors to make decisions such as these in their area, but we need to take time to consider the issue fully before making changes to the framework. We need to be certain that any changes are the right ones. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, but I urge him to withdraw his amendment, while reassuring him that my department is giving this matter careful consideration.
I turn to Amendments 120B and 120C. Transport and Works Act orders can be used as a single process to obtain the majority of powers to construct and/or operate a range of both transport and waterway schemes. As observed, the Secretary of State is the decision-maker for schemes applied for under the Act across England, operating within a well-established and legally robust framework. The procedure is set out in legislation and would need to be followed regardless of who the decision-maker is. Powers granted through these orders are wide ranging and can apply or disapply legislation. They have significant legal and practical implications. Creating multiple new decision-making bodies would risk introducing inconsistency in the interpretation of policy and the use of powers, creating uncertainty, causing delays and potentially increasing the risk of challenge to the schemes.
However, the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 recently introduced changes to this regime to improve the efficiency and predictability of delivering new schemes via this route and, in particular, to address the need for taking decisions quickly where necessary. Secondary legislation will drive further efficiencies. Very careful consideration would be necessary if such powers were to be devolved so that the benefits of the recent improvements that I have just referred to are not undermined and the necessary protections are in place for all parties.
I turn to Amendment 120D on Vision Zero. Noble Lords will remember that bus safety was discussed at length during the passage of the Bus Services Bill. The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, helped highlight this important issue and ensured that bus safety is included in the recently published Road Safety Strategy. Published on 7 January, it is the first such strategy for 15 years. It sets out the Government’s vision for a safer future on our roads for all road users, not only buses. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the whole strategy is based on the internationally recognised safe system approach, a core component of Vision Zero. The safe system principle accepts that human error will happen but ensures that all road users, roads, vehicles, speeds and post-crash care work together to prevent fatalities. It is a shared responsibility. It is right that local areas, including Greater Manchester, Oxford and London, which has also been mentioned, are adopting Vision Zero. The Government welcome other local areas doing so in respect of buses, but it must be right for them.
On Amendment 120E, buses already provide one of the safest modes of road transport in Britain and we remain committed to increasing that safety further. During the passage of the Bus Services Bill, we discussed adherence to the highest standards of safety, monitored by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and regulated by traffic commissioners. This subject was exhaustively discussed then. There is already collection of data by the department, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police, carried down to local authority level through the STATS19 framework. Data is also collected from PSV operators who must report incidents to the DVSA thanks to their operator licensing requirements. These datasets already provide a comprehensive picture of bus safety and, as observed during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to require more frequent or richer data would increase the burden on drivers, strategic authorities and the police. I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on this issue and I hope he will be reassured that we remain committed, as we were during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to increasing bus safety and are taking real action to do so.
On Amendment 120F, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to ensuring that, for non-mayoral strategic authorities, key strategic decisions will have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those decisions, and the Bill therefore requires the consent of all constituent councils. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils. We know that those provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils. There is already a duty on local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and alter them if they consider it appropriate to do so, and the Government are committed to providing updated guidance to local transport authorities on local transport plans, which will provide advice to authorities about when they should review and update their local plans.
On Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the moment concessionary travel is managed by travel concession authorities, which are also the local transport authority for their area. This means that one authority does local transport planning, secures the provision of public transport services and manages concessions. Reverting to the approach taken before 2011, as the amendment would do, would make travelling locally more difficult due to a range of concessionary travel frameworks as one moves from one area to another. Since that point, combined authorities and combined county authorities have all become both the local transport authority and the travel concession authority for their area, following a period of transition. This has proven effective, with local transport managed at the strategic level across the broader geography. With travel concessions managed alongside local transport functions, there are also streamlined benefits that would not be possible were these two separated at two different levels of local government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 236. The vast majority of applications to install cattle grids are decided by local highway authorities. Only when there are unresolved objections, or objections following the consultation stage, does the Secretary of State get involved, or where the Secretary of State, via National Highways, is the highway authority. There were no appeals in the years from 2016 to 2025 and only one in 2025, so it is scarcely a huge burden on either national government or the Department for Transport. There were two in 2014 and one in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so I submit that this is not a huge problem for government and it would resolve only the unresolved issues arising from the primary consideration by local government. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am mildly astonished that the Minister has not addressed the perfectly serious question I raised about the potential for internal conflict between the Mayor of London, acting with regard to his housing responsibilities, and his responsibility as chairman of Transport for London. No doubt we will have an opportunity to come back to that later. However, for the rest of it, the Minister has set out the Government’s position relatively clearly. We will have an opportunity to reflect on it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my proposition.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before we move on, I point out to the Committee that the finishing time is not 8.45 pm but 7.45 pm. There was an error on the daily note.
Schedule 9: Key route network roads
Amendment 115
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why the mayoral CCA is required to have at least one road designated as a key route network road.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Schedule 9 of the Bill amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Its effect is to require mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to prepare, publish and maintain a designation of a key route network within their area. I am not raising profound objections in principle to this, but I have some detailed questions.
Amendment 105 relates to the first paragraph of the schedule. Why must there be at least one road designated, even if nobody wants it? That appears to be the effect of 1(2)(1A)(c) of Schedule 9, Part 1, which states that
“if there is no highway or proposed highway in the CCA’s area that is designated as a key route network road, the mayor must prepare a proposed designation in relation to at least one highway or proposed highway”.
I hope that the Minister can explain why that should be, as it is not at all apparent.
Amendments 115A and 115B work together, seeking to define more closely what the key route network should consist of. At present, the term lacks a firm statutory definition. I assume that, when we discuss a key route network outside Greater London, the Minister has in mind, to some extent, the Transport for London road network in Greater London. That in itself was effectively taken over wholesale from the red route network that was established in the 1990s before the creation of the Greater London Authority and TfL. There has been amazingly little adjustment to that network since it was established. It has been the same roads, more or less, ever since.
There is no limit in this Bill on what roads could be designated. When the red routes were established in London, it was clearly the Government’s intention and practice that they should be the main roads. In this case, the key route network could be any road that the mayor and combined authority choose to designate—even side streets. These amendments, Amendments 115A and 115B, are probing because they are limiting the network to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic. That seems to be sensible.
There is a related and minor issue, a subset of that. The Transport for London road network carries round the corner into side streets to an extent. That is what it was allowed to do when the red routes were established. It was possible to negotiate with the traffic director for London whether they should take the full amount of their entitlement in those side roads—I think it is 30 metres—or not.
These are important matters of local interest, because you might find that side streets with local parking and other local amenities that residents were used to become the equivalent of red routes, and you have very little say about it as a local authority. That is not good enough. We need this clarified in advance. There two levels of that: why not limit it to the main roads, and what are the Government going to do about the side road issue if they have that in mind, going round the corner?
Amendment 117 is intended entirely to be helpful to the Government. It seems that there is a clash here with the Road Traffic Reduction Act, in which principal local authorities are required to provide the information and do the forecasting and monitoring that the new combined authorities will do in respect of the key route network. The principal authorities are required to do it for roads in their area and, unless they are relieved of that obligation, they will do it for the key route networks as well. So, there will be two levels of authority carrying out the same monitoring, forecasting and reporting functions. That cannot be entirely what the Government intend, but, if it is, it is as well that we should know about it. I beg to move my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to Amendments 116 and 117A to 117G in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Amendment 116 probes the Government’s intentions around these powers, particularly in relation to key route networks and traffic regulation orders. As drafted, the Bill would allow mayors to be given a power to direct the exercise of certain road-related powers, including in relation to roads that are not part of the key route network and that therefore remain under the control of local or constituent authorities. The Secretary of State would then be able to issue guidance about how those powers are to be exercised. That raises some obvious questions. In what circumstances do the Government envisage these direction powers being used? What safeguards will exist to prevent them cutting across local decisions that have been made for reasons of safety, public health or community well-being?
Traffic regulation orders are often the mechanism by which councils introduce bus lanes, safer speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions to protect residents. They are subject to consultation, legal tests and democratic accountability. There is understandable concern that new strategic powers could be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine these local decisions. This amendment is about clarity and reassurance. Will the Minister confirm that the traffic management 2004 guidance will be revised to include guidance on key route networks? Will the Minister also ensure that such guidance prevents misuse by mayors, such as using KRN powers to undo traffic regulation orders made by local councils?
Amendments 117A to 117G seek to move the duty to report on traffic levels from the local and constituent authority level to the strategic level, on the basis that the latter has the greater responsibility and power to reduce traffic. As the Bill is currently drafted, the traffic reporting duty is tied to the use of key route network roads. This amendment would remove that limitation, so that the duty applies to all local roads within the area of the local transport authority. In doing so, it aligns the reporting duty with the full scope of the local transport plan.
The underlying issue here is one of responsibility. These amendments reflect the simple reality that strategic authorities, not individual constituent authorities, hold the main levers for reducing traffic across an area. Strategic authorities set and monitor the local transport plan. They determine the overall policy for all modes of travel. Through spatial development strategies, they decide where major development goes—decisions that fundamentally shape whether traffic is generated or avoided in the first place. They also promote and deliver the big-ticket transport schemes—trams, busways and other major public transport investments—and, increasingly, they will hold powers over enforcement and demand-management measures such as congestion charging. These are the tools that shift traffic levels at scale.
By contrast, local authorities have far fewer powers. Even where they do have powers, such as in implementing bus lanes or safer speed limits, those decisions are meant to flow from the strategic authority’s policies as set out in the local transport plan. Given that reality, it makes little sense to place on constituent authorities a fragmented traffic reporting duty that is limited to certain categories of road while the strategic authority is responsible for the policies and decisions that affect traffic across the whole network.
Of course, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. The proposed split would create a perverse incentive for constituent authorities to resist roads being designated as part of the key route network. Why agree to that designation if it means that a strategic authority acquires a traffic reduction duty for those roads but not for others? The danger is that this could lead to traffic being pushed off major routes and on to less suitable residential streets, which is exactly the opposite of what most communities want.
I am concerned that there is a coherent approach. Surely that means placing the responsibility for traffic reporting at the strategic authority level, covering all local roads in line with the scope of the local transport plan.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: Amendments 115A and 115B. However, I also subscribe to the principle of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which was just discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because it is very important indeed that highways, or proposed highways, that constitute key route networks are both genuinely strategic and accepted as such by local councils and local authorities. As it stands, the Bill is unclear on where the powers around and responsibility for traffic management—and, indeed, for the allocation of resources—lie. It is important to clarify these matters in the Bill.
I want to ask the Minister two questions as clearly as I can. First, who will decide on the traffic calming measures proposed for residential roads? Will it be the local authority, the mayor or, in practice, a commissioner making recommendations to the mayor? Secondly, who will hold the budget for such measures? Will the money for the whole area of a strategic authority be transferred from Whitehall to the mayor, or will local authorities have their own budgets for such traffic management schemes? The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said a moment ago that it is important to clarify these matters in advance. I agree with him: it is absolutely essential that these matters are clarified in advance because mayors must not undermine the powers of local authorities.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. By requiring mayors to propose at least one road to be part of a key road network, this measure would ensure that all mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities can adopt a key route network. By establishing and agreeing these priority links across an area, authorities can work together to manage improvements and maintenance to make a difference to people’s lives. It is also important that combined authorities and combined county authorities have a consistent set of transport duties. This amendment would create an inconsistency where combined authorities had this duty but county combined authorities did not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for again making his position clear. I suspect we will be coming back to some of these issues on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Rail devolution: passenger rail servicesA mayoral combined authority has the power to provide, or secure the provision of, passenger rail services within, or within the surroundings of, its area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives mayoral combined authorities the power to provide or secure the provision of passenger rail services within or within the surroundings of its area.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. I have only one amendment in this group. There is also an amendment by my noble friend, Lord Lansley, which, as I understand it, has a similar effect to my own, or at least points in the same direction.
The reason I raise this—I refer to my local government experience—is that anyone with local government experience is seized of the question of vires. We are always worried about whether we actually have the power to do that which we want to do, because, as is well known, if you do not have the power in law, you are probably acting outside your responsibilities and can be held liable for it, and all sorts of terrible things can ensue from that.
Here I am thinking ahead to the Railways Bill, which we intend to amend when it comes to your Lordships’ House so as to give certain rail responsibilities to mayors in certain cities at least. At the moment, that Railways Bill merely gives them the opportunity to be consulted and to request, and we think devolution could go a little further. Thinking ahead to that, one wonders whether the response to that from the Government might not be, “Ah, yes, but even if we were willing to give them such powers, they don’t have the vires to do it. They do not have the legal power to operate a passenger railway service, and it would be inappropriate to bring that into the Railways Bill, where it would be out of scope”. But of course it would not be out of scope of this Bill, which is about exactly that question: the devolution of powers to local authorities. So I thought we would fend off that difficulty if it arose later by making it explicit in the Bill that those local authorities had legal power to run passenger railway services.
Of course, it would not follow at all from this measure alone that they would be able to run passenger railway services. If you want to run a passenger railway service, you have to have a railway and some trains. This Bill would not change that situation at all, but it would give them the legal power should it be made possible for them to have access to trains and to rail in the future. For that reason, I think it is a very sensible measure to include here and I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to contribute on this. I fear that those of us who participated during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, such as the Minister and my noble friend Lord Moylan, will be having our Groundhog Day moment on this group because we will be examining, as my noble friend said, the question of whether it should be possible for passenger rail services to be operated by mayors.
My amendment is different from my noble friend’s because I am setting out to examine whether the legislation needs to change to enable that to happen. There has been something of a pre-emption of this debate by the exchanges that took place on the group before last in relation to exactly this question of whether TfL and the mayor should be able to take responsibility for the Great Northern inner suburban services. It raises exactly the point that is the burden of my amendment. So I want to start by asking the Minister: is it possible, as he suggested on the earlier group, for passenger transport executives, accountable to mayors, to run passenger rail services? The Minister is nodding. I shall just explain why I think it is possible and then examine whether that is the case. Maybe we do not need to amend either this Bill or the Railways Bill in due course, but we might need to look at those issues when they come up.
It seems to me that, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, it is provided that the Secretary of State, as the franchising authority, when he or she—it is a she—wishes to procure passenger rail services, must do so only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company. A publicly owned company, as we then proceed to discover under Section 30C of the Railways Act, as amended by the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, is a company owned by the Secretary of State. We know what this now means: it means that Great British Railways will effectively be the franchising authority in the fullness of time—I think we are looking two years ahead or so—of all the passenger railway services other than those outside the present franchising agreement, such as open access operators.
How then could Great Northern inner suburban services be handed to the mayor in any practical sense? The answer is that, under Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, passenger transport executives may enter into agreements. Section 13(4) says:
“A Passenger Transport Executive … in England may enter into agreements for … the provision, by a person who is a … franchise operator … of … services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area”.
So TfL could enter into an agreement with Great British Railways to provide passenger railway services extending beyond London. “How far?” noble Lords may ask. Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 gives us the answer: “within the permitted distance”, which is 25 miles from the boundary of TfL’s area. That takes us out to Stevenage—yes, Stevenage, no less.
I am looking to the Minister to say whether any of this train of thought is not correct. Is it possible for mayors to be given not the franchising authority for the delivery of passenger services in their area but an agreement for the operation of passenger services, to the extent that that is negotiated with Great British Railways and approved by the Secretary of State under Section 13(5)? That operational control, of course, is subject to what we will discuss, no doubt, in due course: the directing mind of Great British Railways. The nature of the operational activities undertaken by TfL must therefore be entirely constrained by the agreement that Great British Railways and Transport for London will enter into. But it seems to me that it is possible to do it now. If it is not possible to do it now, the Bill should be amended so as to enable this to happen, which is what my amendment was originally intended to do.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I want to be absolutely clear in my own mind and check that my noble friend is as well. It is very easy, in London, to think that Transport for London runs those services, partly because they are branded to look like Transport for London, and that therefore, Transport for London is in roughly the equivalent position of a train operating company, but that is not its position. With those services, the Secretary of State’s role as franchising authority has been transferred to Transport for London—Transport for London is not the train operating company, but the franchising authority. All the services are run by train operating companies, which are invited to bid for them. I am not sure that that system applies in other conurbations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. What I am describing and think is now legal is not the arrangement that he describes as applying to TfL as it stands. TfL cannot be made the franchising authority, because that has to be the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can procure passenger railway services only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company and only the Secretary of State can own that company.
However, I am suggesting that this is a different arrangement. The franchising authority remains the Secretary of State, who makes a direct award of a public service contract to Great British Railways, which, under Section 13(4) of the Railways Act 2005, enters into an agreement with Transport for London as a passenger transport executive. I am agnostic as to how Transport for London delivers those services. I suspect that we may find only in the fullness of time precisely who the operators are which are accountable to Transport for London for doing this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Under the arrangement that is struck, is it not likely that the only potential operating company that would be acceptable for such an agreement would be Great British Railways? Great British Railways would be agreeing with a mayor, “You can pay us to run services”, which is more or less exactly what the Bill envisages and which many of us find objectionable. What my noble friend is describing may be accurate and permissible—we will find out from the Minister in a moment whether it is—but it does not take us beyond the Railways Bill, which many of us would like to do. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. If the Secretary of State were to ask Great British Railways to enter into that agreement with Transport for London, I do not know who would be the operator of the passenger rail services concerned. It might be Great British Railways, because Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 clearly envisages payment for this. That could be to GBR, in exactly in the same way as it has been in the past to Great Northern or any other operator.
The point is that the agreement under the 2005 legislation enables passenger transport executives to enter into agreements with the franchise operators to run those services. As far as I can see, that is not being taken away, as long as the legal authority is not transferred to the mayor. What my noble friend Lord Moylan is correctly saying about the current legal status of TfL is not what can be reproduced in relation to Great Northern in suburban services, as far as I am aware.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, are really testing the provision for rail devolution for passenger rail services and its legal status. It has been a really interesting discussion.
The Government’s White Paper said:
“Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. In addition to partnerships with Great British Railways, Mayors of Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network”.
I am not sure that anything before us today goes that far. When we debated the public ownership legislation, I kept talking about Manchester being really keen to extend the Bee Network. I was doing my weekly reading of the rail press earlier today and there was a picture of a lovely branded Bee Network train up in Manchester. They are keen to move forward with that. In response to my amendments on rail devolution on Report of that Bill, the Minister said,
“this Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the role of local leaders and local communities in shaping the provision of rail services in their areas … I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved governments and mayoral combined authorities”.”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]
Yet when I look in the Railways Bill and at what is before us today, I am not sure that the Government have gone as far as they promised at that stage of that earlier legislation. What has changed? Can the Minister assure us that they are not rowing back on rail devolution? Has there been a change of heart or are we all slightly misinterpreting it and will we see far more rail devolution across the country, whether to Manchester, London or other regions?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendments 120 and 120EA, via provisions in the Transport Act 1968, mayoral combined authorities with passenger transport executive functions already have the appropriate powers as envisaged by Amendment 120. These are the combined authorities of West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East England and South Yorkshire. They either have passenger transport executives acting on their behalf in relation to rail functions or have had the powers of passenger transport executives transferred to them.
Other mayoral combined authorities do not have these powers. Instead, via the Transport Act 1985, they can secure and subsidise services where the public transport requirements in their area would not otherwise be met. The Government have the powers to confer new functions on strategic authorities, individually or as a class. This includes the powers in Schedule 25 to this Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to confer new functions on strategic authorities on a permanent or pilot basis. Therefore, should an authority require these powers, there are mechanisms in place to achieve it.
Amendment 120EA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would not be an appropriate mechanism to enable further devolution to establish mayoral strategic authorities. The heart of the matter is that, for example, where services have been devolved, such as Merseyrail in the Liverpool City Region, this has been achieved by the exemption of services from designation by the Secretary of State under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. After the Great British Railways Act is passed, the Secretary of State will not be the franchising authority, so Section 13 of the 2005 Act will not be the appropriate mechanism. I hope that this answers the noble Lord.
It is anticipated that Great British Railways and mayoral strategic authorities will deliver a new place-based partnership model to deliver on local priorities. This will bring the railway closer to communities, enable collaboration and shared objectives and improve multimodal integration and opportunities for local investment. The depth of partnership will vary depending on local priorities, on capability and also, very significantly, on the geography of the railway, which seldom accords with local government boundaries.
The Government are open to considering further devolution of rail responsibilities should an authority make the case for it. I referred earlier to the Mayor of London’s proposal to take over the Great Northern inner suburban services. If operations are devolved, mayoral authorities will have a choice on how the operations are performed—either through Great British Railways or another operator. The Department for Transport recently published guidance on this topic. In making a decision in response to a request for devolution, key considerations will include the financial and commercial implications, the capability and the geography. The impacts on neighbouring services and communities beyond the combined authority boundary will also need to be factored in. I hope that this is clear and enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion—at least, a very small number of us found it fascinating, others perhaps less so. This is an important topic, as everyone on all sides has acknowledged. Having listened to the Minister, I am sure that we will want to come back to it at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ravensdale
“Preventing youth unemploymentIn their delivery of functions under this Act, strategic authorities must work in partnership with local businesses and education (including further education) providers to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment.”
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, for now, I am going to steer us away from transport and on to a no less important topic: social mobility. I thank the noble Lords who have signed these amendments and the Social Mobility Commission, with which I worked to develop them.
Social mobility has been a continued focus over the years across all Governments. All noble Lords would agree, I think, that a person’s life chances should not be prescribed by their backgrounds—either their place of birth or their family—and that all should be allowed to develop their talents and interests through education and work. It is to the benefit of individuals, society and the economy that opportunities are open to all.
We have made progress here in recent years. A school friend of mine in Nottingham skipped A-levels and went on to do an apprenticeship at Mercedes-Benz as a car mechanic. He told me that, when one of his teachers heard that he was applying for an apprenticeship, he told him that he would never amount to anything. My friend is now a director of a company that runs a network of garages across the Midlands and is a great example of social mobility. Of course, anyone can point to a story about someone who has defied the odds and succeeded, but I tell this story because it illustrates progress in that the perception of apprenticeships has completely changed; they are now seen the best way to go for many young people.
However, there are some concerning trends in social mobility. In particular, relative income mobility in the UK—the strength of the link between parents’ income and their children’s income—is poor when compared internationally. We consistently rank near the USA among the least mobile developed nations. So social mobility needs continued focus from the Government, as they have recognised through their opportunity mission.
I submitted the successful special inquiry proposal for what became the Social Mobility Policy Committee, which has now reported. One of the key areas we looked at was the regional nature of social mobility; indeed, the report is entitled Social Mobility: Local Routes, Lasting Change. It is all about the move away from a top-down view of social mobility—looking at, for example, broad educational initiatives or early years—to recognising that each area has its own unique determinants and that, therefore, a regional and local approach is needed to drive mobility and improve things. The Social Mobility Commission highlighted this in its recent State of the Nation report, highlighting the facts that prosperous areas in London and the surrounding regions consistently provide better conditions for social mobility than, for example, the Midlands and the north; and that extreme regional differences persist.
One of the key issues is where leadership lies. Initiatives to tackle barriers to social mobility are not one size fits all; they must be built with an understanding of the characteristics of the particular area. The Government need to ensure that local authorities and partners are empowered to lead and to come up with the right policies for their areas. Where does that lead us? In the Bill, there is an excellent opportunity for the Government to ensure that social mobility is embedded in their approach to devolution. It is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to change how local authorities and strategic authorities deliver on this long-standing problem and enable a step change in progress to deliver opportunity for all.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the cosignatories of this group of amendments. The points I will make will be very similar to those for the next group, which we will reach in a moment. The issue is important. I had not thought that immediately after Covid, the rate of those not in education, employment or training would rise. It has risen since Covid. There is something right at the heart of the way in which youth unemployment is addressed that is causing us not to solve that problem and give young people aged 16 to 24 the opportunities that they ought to have.
Looking at the areas of competence in the Bill that mayors will be engaged in, this one seems to be an acid test of whether devolution works. It is one thing to transfer powers from one person or body to another person or body, but it is a different matter when an objective is set, which is, simply stated, to reduce the level of youth unemployment and get more young people into education and long-term employment. The aim of the Government in driving devolution to the mayoral strategic authority system is, I think, to drive growth. From growth, you will have more jobs, and from more jobs you will have a lower level of those who are not in education, employment or training.
The clear ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is to drive social mobility through the enabling parts of the Bill. It is not just a question of moving transport powers from one body to another; it has to relate to helping young people get themselves from one place to another with the right transport systems and support for travelling to enable them to engage with education, training and employment.
There are several amendments in this group and the next one. We ought to take a step aside to look at how we can deliver the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has set because if this fails and the level of those not in education, employment or training stay stable or gets worse, that would be a failure of devolution. If you were to ask me which is the most important test in the several days in Committee so far, I would say that it is driving a reduction in the number of those who are in not in education, employment or training. This is something that would make a material difference to the lives of many people.
I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that the Government have everything under control because I fear they do not. If they had everything under control, the number of NEETs would have gone down, not up. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. These amendments are central and material to the aim and ambition of devolution.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Benches opposite for allowing me to speak. I was trying to sort out my timing on the Statement, and I messed up there, so I thank noble Lords for their understanding.
The amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I agree 100% with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that this is one of the most serious issues that we face. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the time, care and seriousness with which he has addressed social mobility within the Bill. Place-based solutions to social mobility are essential, and devolution gives this Government a genuine opportunity to act in a way that national policy alone never can. It allows local authorities to design policies that are properly matched to their local labour market, their economic strengths and the needs of their communities. In doing so, it offers the prospect of moving beyond one-size-fits-all interventions towards approaches that genuinely expand opportunity and improve outcomes on the ground.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, and for the sake of brevity, I will focus on just a small number of these amendments. Noble Lords in the Committee will know that this area is close to my heart. I spent more than 32 years working with young people, helping them into employment and, more importantly, helping them to stay in employment. I promise noble Lords that I have seen what works and what does not.
I remember getting a young girl who never had any opportunities into the Unipart business in Oxford. We worked with her, and she got the job of booking travel for all the executives. She was so excited it was not true, and she turned up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but on Friday she did not show up. We went round to her house. She came down in her PJs and I said, “What on earth are you up to?” She told us that she never went to school on Friday and that nobody ever talked to her about it, so she thought she would not come to work. We sent her upstairs to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. Again, we went round to her house and sent her upstairs. On the third week, she turned up, and again on the fourth week and the fifth week. Sometimes it is not anything deeply interventional that works; it is just a matter of knocking on the door and saying, “Come on now, get yourself together”. There is no one size fits all; it is all about individuals. I have seen what can work, and I hope that, with this devolution Bill, we can make more things happen for people like that.
I will begin with Amendment 123, which would require strategic authorities in the delivery of their functions under the Act to work in partnership with local businesses and education providers, including further education providers, to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is rising, and the figures are deeply concerning. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed, which was an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. The youth unemployment rate stood at 15.9%, up from 14.4% the year before.
These figures are frankly scandalous. We could have a big debate about whose fault it is, but I would rather we did not do that. It is important that we agree how we are going to solve the problem and stop it happening in future. This trend cannot be reversed through centralised schemes designed in Whitehall with the political choices this Government have made. It requires local solutions and place-based approaches shaped by the realities of local labour markets. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to bring together employers, colleges and training providers to intervene early, which is critical, align provision with demand and need and prevent young people falling into long-term worklessness. This amendment would give them both the responsibility and the impetus to do so. I completely support it.
Amendment 124 would require strategic authorities to consult further education colleges when identifying where skills challenges are most acute within key sectors. I know I speak often about skills shortages, but I do so because the evidence is overwhelming. Official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there are almost 1 million young people in the United Kingdom who are not in education, employment or training, and this is the highest figure for more than a decade. At the same time, employers across the country are struggling to recruit and, due to some of the changes that have been made by the Government, vacancies are dropping. It is a right car crash, however you look at it.
We face shortages in some vital occupations, including biological scientists, bricklayers, care workers, carpenters, graphic designers, laboratory and pharmaceutical technicians, and roofers—what a mixture. This mismatch is economically damaging and can be socially corrosive. Further education colleges sit at the heart of any solution. They understand local demand, local learners and local barriers. Failing to involve them systemically in skills planning is a structural weakness. This amendment would help ensure that skills policy is grounded in the reality of local communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments before us, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy and the opposition spokespeople for dealing with the transport groups. They are very technical areas, and I was very grateful to them and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for amendments relating to social mobility, socioeconomic disadvantage, local growth plans, skills, education and health determinants.
Economic growth and breaking down the barriers to opportunity are two of the driving missions of this Government. Amendments 137 and 143 go right to the heart of that work. They recognise that supporting business, promoting innovation and increasing productivity are central to growing the economy and, by extension, to addressing socioeconomic disadvantage. This is a core purpose of local growth plans, increasing productivity and attracting investment to grow local economies for the benefit of those living and working there.
We are already seeing local growth plans emerge that recognise the importance of tackling ill health, youth unemployment and child poverty very much as part of growing the economy, and I really welcome that. It is because mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities understand the challenges affecting their areas and how to solve them. They do not need the Government to require the detail of this through primary legislation. Instead, we have set an expectation via our guidance on the contents of local growth plans, which specifies that they should set out an ambitious long-term vision for making the region they cover more productive. That includes by identifying actions across a range of areas aligned to their competences and powers, including housing, planning, skills and transport. Mayoral combined and combined county authorities are encouraged to build on this to ensure that their plan properly identifies and addresses local needs and opportunities, and that they respond with the right solutions for their area.
I completely understand the impulse of noble Lords to prescribe everything in the Bill—it has happened in every Bill that I have taken part in, in this House—but it must be up to mayoral combined and combined county authorities to determine what is best. Otherwise, we risk being too prescriptive and stepping back from the spirit of devolution, which is the only way we are really going to solve some of these embedded challenges.
Local growth plans should provide an overarching and guiding strategic framework for growth in a region. Other, more focused plans will then provide the detail on specific areas such as transport and skills, with those plans developed in consultation with local communities and other organisations. Our published guidance already expects mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to engage a range of stakeholders when developing and delivering their plan, and we know that they are already doing so ahead of the requirement to have regard to that guidance following the passage of the Bill. It is our view that clear guidance is proportionate in this case and that the noble Lord’s amendments are not necessary.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendments that would seek to require strategic authorities to consult with the Social Mobility Commission on how to collect evidence of social mobility outcomes as a result of devolution arrangements, and to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on action taken by strategic authorities. We fully appreciate the intent of these amendments and recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have a significant impact on the public and the opportunities available to them. Central and local government will continue to work together to ensure that outcomes delivered by strategic authorities align with national and local priorities, including the design and delivery of effective and equitable local services.
Additionally, the newly formed Mayoral Data Council will join up senior local data leaders with central government decision-making on data issues that affect them. Strategic authorities under the public sector equality duty are already required to work towards advancing the equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Adding a statutory duty is unnecessary and risks creating an additional administrative burden on strategic authorities that could potentially distract them from the very delivery that we all want to see.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendments that seek to embed social mobility principles in the Bill’s provisions relating to skills and education. Strategic authorities already consider a wide range of local factors, including provision in areas of deprivation, how their provision aligns to local growth objectives and how to tackle the challenge of people not in employment, education or training. This local insight is their great strength, and I think the noble Lord would agree with that. Schedule 11 to the Bill, which states that strategic authorities will be under a duty to secure appropriate adult education provision in their areas, already allows them to secure the provision prescribed in Amendment 123 and indeed to consider wider objectives as needed.
Local skills improvement plans provide an ongoing mechanism through which local employers, strategic and local authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together and identify skills needs and issues. Local growth plans, which set out long-term opportunities for economic growth in a place, are led by mayoral strategic authorities and will inform the development of local skills improvement plans and engagement with employers on their specific skills needs. The existing framework delivers on the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment and we therefore believe that it is unnecessary.
As set out in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, reducing the number of young people aged 16 to 24 who are not in employment, education or training is a national top priority—I agree with all that noble Lords said about that. In all areas of England, mayoral strategic authorities have been asked to establish partnerships as part of developing their local Get Britain Working plans. This will bring together local government, employer representatives, education and skills providers, Jobcentre Plus and the NHS. These partnerships will consider a range of local labour market challenges, including youth unemployment, and how they can work collectively to tackle them.
The story that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told us reminded me of a youth training scheme run by our local fire service in Hertfordshire. They introduced us to a young man whom they had had some difficulties with, in the early days of the scheme, about his approach to whether he turned up on time. He had started to make some progress but, when he did not turn up on the second or third Friday, they were worried that he had slipped back again. What had actually happened was that his bus had not turned up, so he turned up about half an hour late, having walked the seven miles from Hitchin to Stevenage because he was so keen to carry on participating in the scheme. He eventually passed the scheme with flying colours, so we must never make assumptions. The scheme really worked for him.
Strategic authorities have a key role to play in tackling the NEET rate, which is why we are delivering eight strategic authority-led youth guarantee trailblazers. These are testing how best to join up services and offer targeted support to young people who are NEET, or at risk of becoming NEET, through those localised approaches. We fear that putting a rigid statutory requirement in place at this time could stifle the innovative, locally tailored solutions that arise during the piloting phase, reducing local labour market flexibility and limiting our opportunity to learn from these pilots and innovations.
As set out in the skills White Paper, we will update local oversight and accountability for young people who are NEET, with an enhanced role for strategic authorities. This means working in partnership with local areas to explore how to bring strategic authorities into the statutory duties that local authorities already have. These duties require them to support young people to remain in education until their 18th birthday by identifying and tracking young people not in education or training, involving partnership with local education providers. This Government are already taking steps to empower strategic authorities and leverage their local knowledge and relationships to reduce local youth unemployment, so we believe that Amendment 122 is not necessary.
On Amendment 124, further education colleges are a critical stakeholder with which strategic authorities already have close relationships—I know the key role they play in my area. Further education colleges that provide post-16 technical education and training are already under a statutory duty to work with employer representative bodies to develop the local skills improvement plan. The views of FE colleges and other providers are readily reflected. It is also the case that strategic authorities can draw insight on skills needs from a number of sources, including employers, local jobcentres and Skills England. We want strategic authorities to plan adult education provision that is right for their areas, drawing on stakeholders and insight that can inform their decision-making. This Bill and the existing legislative framework, including local skills improvement plans, already put the structures in place for that. Therefore, we believe that Amendment 124 is not necessary.
On Amendment 125, statutory entitlements to free courses of study are set out in the legislation and are long-standing, broad and universal to each strategic authority to ensure consistency of access. Learners who are eligible for statutory entitlements to free minimum qualifications will have access to a free course of study irrespective of whether they are from an area of high deprivation or are experiencing long-term unemployment. Amendment 125 would not be appropriate, as we do not need to qualify access to statutory entitlements and believe that eligible learners should have free literacy, numeracy, IT and level 2 qualifications to ensure that they have the skills for employment and everyday life.
This Government are on a mission to create an apprenticeship and skills system that drives growth and leaves no place or person behind, and are committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities to achieve this. However, it would be extremely complex to devolve the levy funding to local areas, as it would be hard to administer and make it more difficult for employers that operate across regional boundaries to access funding. Employers hire apprentices, choose their training providers and direct funding to meet their skills needs, with funding coming directly from the national apprenticeship budget to meet employer demand where it arises. Devolving the levy is unlikely to be achievable without significantly constraining employer choice and adding complexity for the large number of employers operating across local boundaries. Therefore, the Government have no plans to devolve growth and skills levy funding and see no merit in publishing a report of this kind.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed response. I should have declared my own interest in the cost of childcare, as a father of twins; it is a subject that is close to my heart too. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for their support on this group.
I will certainly reflect on the detail of the Minister’s response, but I hope she will also reflect and have some further engagement with me between Committee and Report. A lot of this comes from the comprehensive work that your Lordships’ House has done on social mobility over the past year through the Social Mobility Policy Committee. We have done a thorough investigation into this with many stakeholders and there are many areas that are not working or are working in a haphazard way, as the various local authorities and combined authorities are not joined up, which is why these amendments have tried to get a partnership approach going.
This is of such importance that it needs to be driven through primary legislation. We come back to that debate we often have on what should be guidance and what should be legislation. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister and her team between now and Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness moves her amendment, I remind noble Lords, because some were not here earlier, that we are finishing at around 7.45 pm, not 8.45 pm as outlined in today’s list. There was an administrative error. We should be finishing in around 40 minutes.
Amendment 122A
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Use of adult skills and employment funding(1) Any allocation of funding made to a strategic authority under this Act for the purposes of adult skills, education, or employment support may be used only for activities which—(a) support adult education or skills development, or(b) improve access to employment, progression in work, or participation in the labour market for persons aged 19 and over.(2) Allocations of funding under this section must be made on a non-ringfenced basis, and strategic authorities must retain discretion as to the design, commissioning, and delivery of programmes funded under this section.(3) Expenditure under subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to—(a) adult education and training provision;(b) skills development, retraining, and upskilling programmes;(c) employment support, careers guidance, and work-readiness initiatives;(d) engagement with employers to support workforce development;(e) outreach activities to increase participation among under-represented groups.(4) Funding under this section may not be used for purposes unrelated to adult education or adult employment outcomes, including but not limited to—(a) highways, transport infrastructure, or road maintenance;(b) general capital projects not directly connected to adult skills or employment provision;(c) activities whose primary purpose is economic development unrelated to workforce participation.(5) Each strategic authority must publish, at such intervals as the Secretary of State may specify, a statement setting out—(a) how funding under this section has been used, and(b) how such expenditure supports adult education or adult employment opportunities in its area.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She apologises profusely because she has had to go into the Chamber as they are talking about possibly bringing forward dinner break business. As noble Lords have heard, this is an area close to her heart. These amendments reflect her considerable knowledge and expertise while inviting us to consider how we might improve the Bill from an adult skills, work and welfare perspective.
As we have heard already in Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spent more than 32 years working to help young people into employment, and I am grateful for the support and insight that she is providing for this debate. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend would probably have spoken for another hour on everything that she has gained from working for those 32 years in the area.
This is an area about which we feel strongly, yet, in our view, the Bill as it stands lacks the framework and conditions that are required to deliver a truly meaningful impact. As we said, unemployment is rising. That is not a party-political point—it is just a fact. At the same time, we face a persistent skills mismatch in many parts of our country. If we are serious about reversing this trend, we must work together to ensure that the Bill delivers real and lasting change. That is working together at the top but locally.
I begin with Amendment 122A, tabled by my noble friend. Beyond the legal entitlements set out in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, strategic authorities will enjoy significant local discretion in how they exercise these functions and deploy the adult skills fund. We understand that allocations to strategic authorities will be made on a non-ring-fenced basis, with minimal conditions attached to that funding.
This amendment is deliberately simple and proportionate. It provides that any funding given to a strategic authority under the Act for adult skills, education or employment support must be used to achieve one of those two purposes—first, to support adult educational skills, and secondly, to help young adults into work, stay in work or progress in work. In doing so, it anchors the funding clearly to adult skills and employment outcomes rather than allowing resources to drift into loosely related priorities. At the same time, strategic authorities retain full discretion over programme design, commissioning and delivery. Nothing in this amendment constrains local innovation or responsiveness.
The amendment also sets out what counts as valid spending. This is a non-exhaustive list and includes adult education and training, retraining and upskilling, employment support and careers guidance, employer engagement and outreach to under-represented groups. This provides legal cover for modern preventive and locally tailored interventions.
Crucially, it also makes clear what this funding cannot be used for. It cannot be diverted into roads, highways or transport infrastructure. You often hear, “This will fund new jobs”, but they are not always long-term jobs. It cannot be used for unrelated capital projects, nor can it be absorbed into generic economic development activity that has no clear link to workforce participation. This is designed to prevent the sort of argument that employment outcomes have been improved simply by building a bypass.
Finally, the amendment would require authorities to publish statements explaining how the money has been spent and how it supports adult education and employment locally. This introduces public accountability, creates a clear paper trail for Parliament and applies gentle, but important, pressure on authorities to demonstrate outcomes. I hope noble Lords across the Committee will agree that this is a sensible, focused and necessary amendment that would materially strengthen the Bill in an area of growing national importance.
I will speak briefly to the new clause that would be introduced by Amendment 196EA. This clause would allow responsibility for delivering the youth guarantee to be devolved to strategic authorities, giving them the flexibility to tailor provision to local labour markets while preserving the youth guarantee as a national entitlement. I heard what the Minister said, but I think we will still be pushing this point. It should be underpinned by minimum standards and parliamentary oversight. I know that this Government are rightly proud of this programme, but, if they truly believe in the model, it should be delivered as close to local labour markets as possible. Local authorities are far better placed to understand employer demand, skills shortages and the specific barriers that young people face in their areas, and to align support with real jobs rather than abstract national assumptions.
The new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 196EB, along with Amendments 124A and 124B, follow the same theme. I will focus on the new clause, which in essence summarises the rationale for the expansion of Schedule 11 and is reflected in later amendments. Fundamentally, they all seek to achieve the same objective. This clause would give mayor-led strategic authorities the power, where they choose to request it, to design and run youth employment programmes or pilot schemes. It would enable mayors to work directly with employers, education providers and voluntary organisations to offer targeted support, such as training, apprenticeships, wage subsidies and work placements, for young people, particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment. The Secretary of State would be able to provide funding for this purpose, which must be used to support youth employment or labour market participation. The clause would also allow for time-limited pilots, evaluation and the sharing of learning, all subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
During my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s time at Tomorrow’s People, she ran employability programmes that addressed the challenges of young people not in education, employment or training and delivered close to local labour markets. Simply put, they worked. They drove real impact on the ground by working with colleges, schools and local businesses. Devolution can provide targeted outreach, tailored support and genuinely high-impact interventions, which is precisely what these amendments seek to enable.
As I mentioned briefly on the previous group, the challenge of young people not in education, employment or training has rarely been so acute. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed. As we have said before, that is an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. Of course, tackling this problem requires the right national economic policies. I accept that, but there is also so much that cannot be changed from the centre. In the meantime, mayors can act now. They can work directly with local businesses, design and run pilot schemes and tailor support in their areas for specific labour markets that they understand far better than Whitehall ever could. I hope the Minister will take these amendments seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has just said that she hopes the Government will pay detailed attention to the amendments in this and the previous group, because the importance of this issue is so great that Governments need to act. We cannot go on with the rising number of young people who are unemployed. I support the amendments in this group, as I did those in the previous one.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her amendments on welfare and work. I also thank her for her service in this area; I am sorry that she is not in her place.
Amendment 122A is unnecessary because the Bill and the English devolution accountability framework already ensure that there is discretion for strategic authorities when using their adult skills funding and that there is accountability for their delivery of skills outcomes. The Bill already places a duty on strategic authorities to secure the provision of education or training appropriate to their area, which means they will fund such provision accordingly.
Strategic authorities use adult skills funding to meet the growth and employment needs of their local areas and to ensure that they meet their duty to offer statutory entitlements for eligible learners in their region. They are also subject to strong and wide-ranging transparency and accountability requirements. Under the English devolution accountability framework, strategic authorities should publish annual assurance reports on their adult skills delivery and undertake a stocktake with Skills England. This amendment is therefore not needed. We already have an approach that ensures local flexibility combined with transparency and accountability for adult skills delivery, while empowering strategic authorities to make choices that benefit learners and drive economic growth.
Similarly, Amendments 124A and 124B are unnecessary. The existing legislative framework has the right balance, providing support and guidance to strategic authorities while allowing them to shape provision that is right for their area. Strategic authorities have flexibility in the use of their adult skills funding, and can use it to support employment and growth in their areas and to link up to other employability-focused programmes. Strategic authorities already consider a wide range of local factors when planning and securing adult education provision, including how adult provision will lead to sustained employment outcomes.
Strategic authorities will also draw on their Get Britain Working plans, which will focus on reducing unemployment in their areas. As I have set out, the Bill provides for strategic authorities to secure education for adults across the skills system. This could include the Government’s free courses for jobs and skills training camps, which are designed specifically to provide pathways into employment. We want strategic authorities to secure adult education to meet local labour market needs. However, these amendments are of no further benefit in relation to this objective.
Finally, let me respond to Amendments 196EA and 196EB on youth employment. Supporting young people into education, employment and training is a top priority for this Government. The Secretary of State already has powers to devolve funding to strategic authorities—and they are using them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is why the Government have recently announced more than £1.5 billion of investment in young people through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy. This investment will provide young people with support to find a job, training or an apprenticeship, and involves close partnerships between the Government, strategic authorities and local authorities.
As set out in the skills White Paper, we will update local oversight and accountability for young people who are not in education, employment or training, with an enhanced role for strategic authorities. This means working in partnership with local areas to explore how to bring strategic authorities into the statutory duties that local authorities already have. As I set out in the discussion on the previous group, these duties require them to support young people to remain in education or training until their 18th birthday, including identifying and tracking those who are not in education or training, as well as working in partnership with local education providers to help them to re-engage with the system.
Strategic authorities are also central to wider local planning. All areas of England, including mayoral strategic authorities, have been asked to establish partnerships to bring together local government, employers, education and skills providers, Jobcentre Plus and the NHS as part of the Get Britain Working plans. Furthermore, as part of the local skills improvement plan process, strategic authorities, businesses and providers are already working together to consider how to boost skills, which will help address youth unemployment.
Strategic authorities already have powers to deliver services to support the youth guarantee and deliver youth employment programmes and pilots. The Secretary of State already has the powers to fund strategic authorities to deliver these services, either with or without ring-fences. Using these powers, the Government have been able to fund and enable eight mayoral strategic authorities to develop and deliver the youth guarantee trailblazers I mentioned earlier; they are receiving two years of funding to test those innovative approaches.
In December 2025, we also announced £140 million to pilot the new approaches with mayoral strategic authorities, which I mentioned during the discussion on the previous group. An evaluation, commissioned by the Government and launched in January 2026, will provide evidence to inform the future roles of strategic and local authorities in supporting the youth guarantee. As noble Lords can see, the Government are already taking steps to empower strategic authorities to deliver youth employment support and to determine their future role in the youth guarantee. Therefore, these amendments are not appropriate while that work is ongoing.
With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. These issues are close to the heart of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and appreciate the funding that the Government are putting into this important issue. We will consider carefully what the Minister has said, and we may well return to her with some specific questions to ensure that we collectively get this right, both nationally and locally.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in between now and Report to take her through some of the work that has been happening in more detail than we can in Committee. Perhaps the noble Baroness could take that back to her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend would be delighted to meet the Minister and I will certainly tell her.
I think we still believe that the Government could go further and perhaps take the opportunities that the Bill provides to do that. I remain convinced that, with the right focus and the appropriate safeguards, the Bill can do more to address the realities of unemployment and skills mismatch on the ground. I know that my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott established a number of successful pilots and that they worked, and I think that it would be useful to also discuss that with the Minister.
I therefore hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the points that were raised today as the Bill continues its passage. Decisions on adult education and employability programmes are best taken as close to the local labour markets as possible. Each labour market is different, each region distinct and each opportunity shaped by local needs. If we are serious about improving outcomes, our approach must reflect that reality. But at this point I wish, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Death of a Member: Lord Triesman
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, on 30 January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Tributes: Lord McFall of Alcluith
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Lord Speaker for that.
It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of these Benches, to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith for his great service to this House as the fourth elected Lord Speaker. Yes, he is a noble friend, but he has also been a personal friend to many of us for many years.
I first met John—my noble friend Lord McFall—in 1986; we were both first-time parliamentary candidates, although he was more successful than me in the general election of the following year, going on to represent Dumbarton in the other place of the next 33 years. A long-serving Labour parliamentarian, my noble friend truly respected the independence of the Lord Speaker’s role during his time in post, as he did in his previous role as Senior Deputy Speaker. Although holding high office, he carried the honour lightly—never pompous or overbearing, with no affected airs and graces, always unfailingly courteous to all. He earned our respect and affection through his commitment and dedication to the role.
Although my noble friend left school at 15 without qualifications, he turned to education after working in the council’s parks department and in a factory, and gained a BSc in chemistry, and then a BA in education philosophy. As a teacher, and later a deputy head, he gained an MBA from the University of Strathclyde, where he later became a visiting professor. He was clearly a role model as a teacher. Imagine his surprise and delight when, just last week, a former pupil took his seat in this House as my noble friend Lord Docherty of Milngavie.
As John and I were talking last week, he told me about a regular visit he makes to a local convent, first as an MP and now as a Member of your Lordships’ House. One of the older nuns remembers him as “the wee laddie from the council who was sent to catch the rats”. Little did any of them think that, decades later, he would find himself championing the refurbishment of an iconic national building so full of rats—the ones in the basement, obviously.
In all the years I have known John, I have never known him to be anything other than energetic, enthusiastic, and dedicated about his work in Parliament—perfect qualifications for Lord Speaker. I saw this at first hand when I first worked closely with him after he drew a high place in the 1995 Private Member’s Bill ballot. He took on a controversial Bill that was going to face a tough time in the House of Lords; that might sound familiar. Never one to shy away from a challenge, he chose to introduce the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which would have outlawed fox hunting, hare coursing and deer hunting. Although not ultimately successful, it paved the way for later legislation.
For me, however, it was always my noble friend’s attention to detail and his ability to engage with and listen to different points of view and approaches while holding to his values that made him so impressive—another perfect qualification for Lord Speaker. He did not seek the office himself: he was encouraged to step forward to take on the role of Senior Deputy Speaker by my noble friend Lord Touhig. After five years, he still had that same enthusiasm to put himself forward as Lord Speaker. Beyond chairing our proceedings, the role of the Lord Speaker is, of course, multifaceted, involving engagement with a wide range of audiences, internal and external. Our noble friend has been notably proactive and innovative on this front, from setting up regular engagement with colleagues on accessibility issues and potential uses of AI to recording messages and podcasts, communicating the work of our Select Committees and taking on a new role of scrutinising the Restoration and Renewal Client Board.
As an ambassador for your Lordships’ House, our noble friend has built on the work of his predecessor with the same drive and commitment. His schools outreach work with teachers and students via the Learn with the Lords initiative has been outstanding. When speaking on the vital role of this House in our democracy, he has been a consistent and positive advocate for the benefits of our work, while promoting ongoing reform. He spoke to the Hansard Society in December 2022, and said:
“We need to work proactively to change the Lords so that we can continue to do what we do well, but do it while better reflecting society and all parts of the country”.
During his first year in post, our noble friend became the first Lord Speaker to visit all the UK’s devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, and he launched the Interparliamentary Forum to consider issues of devolution and joint working. On the international stage, he has co-hosted, with Mr Speaker, multiple state visits to Parliament. He gave a wonderful speech of thanks in Westminster Hall to President Zelensky on behalf of us all.
Whenever our noble friend has been called upon to represent this House at parliamentary events, we have enjoyed, and taken pride in, his engaging, often witty and respectful speeches on behalf of this House. During visits to various European parliaments, he became the first Lord Speaker to attend the German Bundestag and the first to address the Irish Seanad. The period between autumn 2022 and spring 2023 saw great upheaval in our country, with the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. Throughout that time, our noble friend played a vital role in Parliament and major events of national significance.
As I said at the outset, I have known John for nearly 40 years. His genuine interest in people and his inquiring mind ensure that he is good and engaging company. I have valued his friendship and wise counsel. He described being Lord Speaker as the honour of his life, yet his loyalty to and love for his wife and family was his first priority in his Statement to your Lordships’ House last October when he announced the reasons for his departure and his commitment to support his wife Joan with the care she needed. In doing so, my noble friend spoke of the selfless support that she had given him throughout his professional and political life—a true partnership. It really is a pleasure to have begun these tributes today. Although he is unable to be with us today, he will be keeping up to date with our work, keeping an eye on us and wishing us well. Thank you, John.
It also gives me great pleasure today to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who I have spent many years engaging—and, from time to time, sparring—with, both in this Chamber and beyond. It was the late Tony Banks, Lord Stratford, who, on becoming a Government Minister after years of mischievous enjoyment on the Back Benches, admitted:
“There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman”.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has his own transition to make. I think it is fair to say that many a Minister on this side of the House and the other side has learned to fear his forensic and sometimes withering questions—we particularly welcome him to his new role. Those who have worked for him in committees know that he is inclusive and dedicated. Many noble Lords, especially on my own Benches, may be surprised to know that we agree a bit more often than we disagree. When it comes to the work of your Lordships’ House and the commitment to high standards, we stand together. He has the support of the whole House. I am in no doubt that he will be an excellent Lord Speaker, and I welcome him to the role.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the new Lord Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for his time as Lord Speaker. As the House knows, my noble friend Lord True cannot be here to pay tribute, but I am sure that our sentiments are the same: that the noble Lord, Lord McFall, has been a wonderful Lord Speaker. As the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said, he has presided over countless state visits and he has engaged in extensive outreach in schools. I particularly remember, as the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal does, his address after President Zelensky. It was such a powerful moment in this Parliament and we were all privileged to hear it. He has probably travelled around half the world in his capacity as Lord Speaker and he was of course central to the funeral of Her late Majesty and the Coronation of King Charles III. Many noble Lords will have enjoyed his podcasts and his Lord Speaker’s Lectures.
On a personal level, I thank the noble Lord very much for being such an accessible, warm and kind individual. He has been, as the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal alluded to, a humble servant to Parliament. I wish him and his wife some enjoyable downtime together. I am sure that he will have been using his time with our new Lord Speaker, travelling to and from Scotland, to train him on how the job is done. Thank you, John.
Now, on to the new Lord Speaker: I think he looks the part already, but he may find it quite difficult not to opine on a variety of matters. For that, as the Leader of the House says, the Government should be very glad.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, from our Benches, I add our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for carrying out his duties with great courtesy and warmth. Being Speaker—who often cannot speak—of this self-regulating Chamber is a difficult job; therefore, carrying out the duties on the Woolsack, on the commission and the R&R board and the myriad of other responsibilities, the power of persuasion is needed, and the noble Lord, Lord McFall, has been an outstanding persuader throughout all his years of public service.
As a distinguished chair of the Treasury Select Committee, he elevated the House of Commons in a time of great financial concern, so the public knew that Parliament was listening, considering and acting. In this House, as Lord Speaker, he brought his chairing skills of 10 in that committee to 600—not always predictable—Members of this House with great skill; perhaps his teaching abilities were put to good use. From Dumbarton for the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to Montrose, Arbroath and then St Andrews University for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—where, to his own recollection, he was a socialist—who then served Stirling with great commitment, we know that John had very deep political beliefs, but he wore them with a friendly demeanour.
It is often illustrative to read maiden speeches from when statespeople are in their impressionable younger years. John McFall railed against spending money on nuclear weapons in his Commons maiden speech in 1987, while Michael Forsyth criticised the way BT was privatised in his in 1983; he then called for an elected element to this House in his Lords one later. I think we all know which one he regrets the most.
However, we know that both noble Lords have major things in common: a great love of and respect for the areas and the people they represented; a deeply held passion for parliamentary accountability; and their politics are based on ideas, crafting an argument, shrewdness and wit. We are also grateful for the deep instinct of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, to work across parties. In the short time I have been leader of these Benches, I have been extremely grateful for his constant outreach and kindness, and I pay tribute to his highly admirable ambassadorship of this House. I cannot speak for others, but for me, when we have had visiting Heads of State and Government address us in both Houses, it is the foreign dignitaries’ remarks that have been the second best of the occasions.
In the “Lord Speaker’s Corner” conversation between the noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Forsyth, just a couple of years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said something which struck a chord with me. He said:
“It really saddens me to see how the reputation of Parliament and politicians has been damaged. Whereas, as you and I know, the vast majority of parliamentarians are good, decent folk trying to do the best for their country”.
That could readily have directly applied to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who served his constituents with passion and dedication, elevated the House of Commons, and has now been our ambassador; we are most grateful. We wish John’s wife, Joan, and the whole family the very best, as he is now able to spend some time with them.
We wish the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the best. We will be admiring his poker face during Questions on the Woolsack in the months to come. From our Benches, we wish him the best, with all the skills that he brings to bear for this very important role.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow three warm and special reflections on the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I agree with every word and sentiment that has been expressed. On behalf of these Benches, I will just add a little bit of early history of one of our most remarkable colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, is a fellow Scot—albeit that I am an easterner—and I well know Alcluith, the ancient name of Dumbarton and also the great rock on which Dumbarton Castle was built. Indeed, Alcluith, capital of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, ruled mid-west Scotland with an iron rod in the ninth and 10th centuries. As I say these words, noble Lords will be quick to appreciate where Alcluith is in the pecking order in that bit of the world and to sympathise with the poor old noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is, sadly, not in his place.
As we heard, John, a son of Alcluith, was a Dumbarton MP for 23 years. I am sorry that my maths is a bit different from the noble Baroness the Leader’s. Most importantly, he was chair of the Treasury Select Committee for nine of those years, and he had a very well-earned reputation as a fearsome chair, flavoured with being extremely competent. He had essentially weekly meetings with the Bank of England, which much respected his inquisition. Indeed, one Deputy Governor of the Bank of England was quizzed by him over the Northern Rock affair and was accused by him of being
“asleep in the back shop while there was a mugging out front”.
As he stepped down from chairing the committee, the Bank of England organised a drinks reception for him. This is a very rare thing indeed. By chance, a senior member of the Bank of England, who had worked there most of their life, was here a couple of weeks ago, and I asked them about it. They said there were two reasons for holding the reception. The first was to thank him unreservedly for his work as chair of the committee. The second was to check that he really was going.
In 2016, John took over from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to become the newly named Senior Deputy Speaker. He very much created this role, but his most lasting achievement was of course the review of committees, which the whole House agreed to in October 2019. Using this structure, the old EU committees were morphed into what are today powerful and proud self-standing entities, such as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and the Environment and Climate Change Committee. Change is always difficult, yet, speaking as John’s then deputy and chair of the EU committee structure, I saw John seeming to make it easy. It was not. He invoked his Treasury Select Committee experience at the first sign of trouble.
I have said very little of his time as Lord Speaker, but I did not want to repeat the warm words of my three previous colleagues. The common thread of what has been said is of his integrity, his outstanding political instincts and his disarming smile. One recent thing summed everything up for me. John came to the Cross-Bench weekly meeting last Wednesday to reflect on his time as Lord Speaker. As many here today will know, normally, a guest speaker is subjected to searching questions and a comprehensive examination of their brief. Instead, with John, when it came to questions, there was a great number of short contributions expressing gratitude and giving congratulations to him on his various achievements in office. At the end of the session, and quite without precedent, 50 Cross-Bench Peers got up and gave him a standing ovation. We very much look forward to welcoming him to our Benches in due course when he can return.
There are very few words about our new Lord Speaker, but it is of course very good news for the Scottish Peers Association, because we can continue to have our drinks parties in the River Room. If noble Lords like a drinks party, we have a few more spaces if anyone would like to apply to be a member. The new Lord Speaker has wonderful energy and great wit and charm. We have a number of big problems ahead of us, and I wish him a lot of luck, as I know everyone on our Benches does.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I add the thanks of our Benches to our former Lord Speaker. We are enormously grateful for the warmth of his welcome to us, which began from the moment we were introduced to the House, and continued each day, as he introduced the duty Bishop leading Prayers. We also warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose enormous gifts have already been attested, and with whom we look forward to working for the effective work and maintenance of the rights and privileges of your Lordships’ House.
One of my own privileges is to be invited to comment each day on requests for Private Notice Questions. PNQs are an important part of the work of the House. They allow us to raise matters that are urgent and important, and where the Order Paper is unlikely to offer a better opportunity. The wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in discerning which to accept has demonstrated his commitment to allowing the House to scrutinise government, while ensuring that the Questions asked are those which will shed light on an issue rather than simply rehearse familiar argument. We will experience an example a little later this afternoon.
He is of course of a different branch of the Christian faith from my own. Hugely influenced by the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez and the liberation theologians of Latin America so prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, he is as comfortable quoting from papal encyclicals and the documents of Vatican II as from Acts of this Parliament. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will quite follow him in that regard. John’s faith underpins his political beliefs, just as it does his character and moral standing. It was famously quipped of a Speaker in the other place, on a similar occasion to this, that there was Methodism in his madness. Of our own Lord McFall, may it truly be said that there is Catholicism in his kindness.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I wish to add a few words of my own in tribute to my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I have known him since the 1980s, when the bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomond divided us: he was the Member for Dumbarton, and I was the Member for Stirling. We sat on opposing Benches in the House of Commons and often disagreed, but in later years we became firm friends. I came to respect him as an honourable, diligent and trustworthy parliamentarian, guided by principle and driven by the common good.
That instinct was rooted in his upbringing. He grew up in a tough, close-knit, working-class, Clydeside community where there was real hardship but also a strong sense of belonging and of responsibility for others. His mother ran a small newsagent’s shop serving the whole neighbourhood and it gave him an early feel for people and for what holds a community together. He believed everyone should have a second chance at education, as he did, as the Leader pointed out. He left school at 15 and took a job with the parks department, weeding flower-beds. Years later, he went to night school, where teachers spotted his considerable potential and encouraged him. That opened the way to university, a fulfilling career as a teacher and a deputy head, and a lifelong commitment to learning.
His public service showed the same seriousness of purpose, as a Minister in Northern Ireland and as chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, as has already been alluded to. In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, he helped to keep all communities engaged in the peace process. Following the financial crash of 2008, he held leading figures from the City to account in a series of Select Committee hearings which did much to expose the root cause of the crisis and paved the way for the Future of Banking Commission and the reforms designed to prevent another crisis.
In the House of Lords, he served as Senior Deputy Speaker and then as Lord Speaker, improving how the House works—there is more to do—and communicating its value to the country. He helped to steer the House through the Covid period, ensuring that scrutiny and revision continued when normal proceedings were severely disrupted. As Lord Speaker, he was tireless in explaining what this House contributes, encouraging sensible reform, but insisting that critics should first understand the work we do. He strengthened education and outreach, and embraced new ways of communicating, including digital media, to bring the work of members to a wider audience. He was the Members’ champion, accessible to colleagues, attentive to concerns, and determined that the House should serve its members better.
He now steps back from the Speakership so he can spend more time caring for his wife, Joan. He returns home, where he can still see from his window that flower-bed he tended as a young teenager. It should remind him, with pride, of how a life of public service began and blossomed to the benefit of Parliament and the people of the United Kingdom. He has won the affection of Members, staff and officials alike, and I know we all join in wishing him well in the future, together with his wife Joan.
China: Jimmy Lai
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of China to seek the release and return to the United Kingdom of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am delighted to be the first to be called by the new Lord Speaker to beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai has been targeted for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression, and that is why we summoned the Chinese ambassador following his verdict and why we raise his case at every opportunity. The Prime Minister raised it directly with President Xi last week, calling on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. She mentioned the Prime Minister’s visit to China, which followed the granting of planning permission for the Chinese embassy. It led to the lifting of sanctions against two of our Peers, but, alas, not to the far more important release of 78 year-old British citizen, Jimmy Lai, who, as on the 1,860 days he has already spent in solitary confinement, was confined for 23 hours a day throughout our Prime Minister’s visit. Can my noble friend urge the Prime Minister to meet Jimmy Lai’s son, Sebastien, to update him on any private conversations that took place while he was in China that might see his father brought safely and quickly to the UK?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I confirm that the Prime Minister has met Sebastien Lai. I will convey to him the desire for further such meetings to relay any information, or the content of conversations, that may be of interest.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in affirming what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, has the Minister seen what Sebastien Lai said last week in advance of the Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing? He said:
“Whether my father is freed or not is the ultimate test”.
When Sebastien comes here tomorrow night to speak to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arbitrary Detention and Hostage Affairs, what are we to say to him about this 78 year-old man who has spent some 1,800 days in solitary confinement and is likely to die there unless he is released soon? I am not opposed to us visiting China, but why did we go to Beijing with the title deeds to a mega-embassy in our back pocket without first extracting an assurance that there would be some reciprocity with the release of Jimmy Lai?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We agree that Jimmy Lai ought to be released immediately because he should not be imprisoned. It is right that the UK Government engage with China. After such a long time of the UK not having engaged in this way, this is not the sort of situation where we get everything we want with one visit. The relationship will improve. It is good that we are engaging and that we are clear on what we expect and want to happen for Jimmy Lai. Engagement and challenge are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I think there is unanimity across the House on this matter. It is obviously good news that the Prime Minister raised the Jimmy Lai case, as well as the appalling treatment of the Uyghur population—we absolutely welcome that—but can the Minister give us a bit more detail? What responses were received and what happens next? How will they continue the campaign to get Jimmy released?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I advise noble Lords that the Prime Minister will make a Statement in the other place later this afternoon, in which more detail may well be discussed. I am not in a position to pre-empt that Statement now, but I note the Opposition Benches’ support for the Prime Minister raising the cases of Jimmy Lai and the Uyghurs.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am sure people would agree with the Minister that, when it comes to diplomacy, we do not get everything we want. However, we need to be clear in this House that the Prime Minister specifically asked for the release of Jimmy Lai, and that if that release is not very soon forthcoming that it should not be business as usual in the relationship between the UK and China and that there should be conditions. In the reporting of the Prime Minister’s visit, it has been hard to see what we have secured for our relationship with China, other than the welcome release of those in this House who have been sanctioned, or when it comes to Jimmy Lai. Did the Prime Minister explain to President Xi that, unless Jimmy Lai is released, there will be no business as usual between us and China?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is for the Prime Minister to state, this afternoon, the detail of the conversations he had with President Xi. It is not for me to say that now, just an hour or so before the Prime Minister is going to make his own Statement on this. The visit took place because it is the Government’s belief that to engage in this way is absolutely in the interest of the United Kingdom. Trade benefits were secured, as well as the opportunity to raise issues that I know mean so much to Members across this House.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I do not expect the Minister to tell us what the Prime Minister is about to say in the other place, but can she tell us whether the meeting with the Chinese ambassador at the Foreign Office was conducted by a Minister or by a member of the diplomatic corps, and whether the Chinese ambassador was invited to comment in terms that we would understand on the plight of Jimmy Lai, which everyone accepts is lamentable and inexcusable? What precisely did the Chinese ambassador say, and do the Government find what he said acceptable?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is right that the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office, which, in diplomatic terms, is a serious thing. I do not know the contents of the conversation or indeed who was in the room, but I can confirm that this act took place in response to what happened with the sentencing of Jimmy Lai and to indicate the very firm belief of the UK Government that this should not have happened and that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, in my dealings with the Chinese, I have found that very often the best thing is to make sure that they do not lose face. It is much better to talk quietly in the background and actually show that you could make them lose face if things are not done. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether that is not exactly what our Prime Minister has done in China.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our Prime Minister has been very clear on where he stands on the issue of Jimmy Lai. Sometimes, as the noble Lord says, it is appropriate to do things discreetly and quietly, but, equally, sometimes it is important to be clear about what we want and believe. It is an art, as he indicates, but our interests are better served by taking an approach which rests upon engagement.
Nationalised Passenger Rail Services
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what performance improvements have been delivered by nationalised passenger rail services since 28 November 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, public ownership is a vital step towards reforming our railways and rebuilding trust and pride. On average, publicly owned train operators perform better on punctuality and cancellations than those yet to come under public ownership. They are already delivering improvements, with lower cancellations on the TransPennine Express and Northern, and South Western quadrupling the number of new trains entering service. I expect all operators, both public and private, to deliver good performance for passengers.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when the figures were published a month ago, cancellations were reported to have risen by around 50% on South Western services in the months following nationalisation in May last year, alongside a marked increase in delay minutes and late arrivals. Clause 18 of the Railways Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote high standards of railway service performance. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise and enforce those standards in practice, given that the proposed passenger standards authority appears to have no direct enforcement powers and the Office of Rail and Road’s remit in this area is being restricted?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The discussion on the forthcoming Railways Bill will happen in this House in due course. Meanwhile, the Government are pursuing reliability very strongly. If a train company is left, by a combination of the previous Government and the previous operator, desperately short of drivers, with 83 of 90 new trains parked in sidings for nearly five years, it takes a bit of time to recover from that position. That position is being recovered from, in respect of South Western. More than 30 of the new trains are now in service, and two-thirds of the drivers have now been trained to drive them. That takes time. It should have been done before, but it is now being done by this Government.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what progress has been made to address the poor Sunday levels of service and high levels of Sunday cancellations as part of train operator nationalisation? Can the Minister say when passengers can hope to see any improvements in Sunday services?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Sunday position, particularly for drivers in a number of train companies, is very difficult. A number of them, after 30-odd years of the previous regime, have no contractual commitment to work on Sundays and volunteer. That is unsatisfactory. In several train companies, negotiations are taking place to incorporate Sundays into the working week.
In the case of Northern, where a dispute about guards has been going on for seven years, Sunday services have never been satisfactory because there are a number of guards in that company who have never been contractually obliged to work Sundays. We have worked extraordinarily hard with the management of Northern, and I hope that will come to a conclusion very shortly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Just to produce a cheerful note, I can tell the Minister that despite appalling South Western journeys, I travelled a fortnight ago and it was excellent.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I travelled this morning and it was pretty good.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I have asked the Minister a couple of times about transition payments made during the renationalisation process by the Government to the private operators, and the way that happened previously when franchises changed hands. Is he yet in a position to tell us—this is nearly 12 months later, so he really ought to be—how much money has actually been paid in transition payments to the private operators so far?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I should have foreseen that the noble Lord would ask that question. I will have to write to him because I knew he would ask it, but I forgot to research the answer.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Does my noble friend acknowledge that the spokesperson for the Conservative Party has a pretty thick skin to ask this Question? After all, the last Conservative Government renationalised no fewer than four train operating companies during their period of office because of the incompetence of the operators at that time. Can the Minister assure the House that we will not return to those days and that the improvement we have seen in punctuality and service, so far as the nationalised companies are concerned, will continue in future?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right. LNER, in particular, has demonstrated all the excellent characteristics that a public service train company can deliver. The previous Government did not attempt to put back into the private sector any of the other train companies that came into public ownership during their term of office. All those companies are now doing better under this Government’s supervision than they were.
Lord Beith (LD)
Has the Minister assessed the impact of the new timetable on east coast main line punctuality? There have been some very severe delays, which are mainly infrastructure-related and therefore the responsibility of Network Rail, a different nationalised company. It appears that the new timetable does not give space to deal with delays when they arise.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sure that I have just written to the noble Lord on the same subject, but I have been monitoring the east coast main line timetable daily since December when it went in. There have been some very good days, but he is right that there have been some infrastructure failures. There have also been some train failures, one of them really rather catastrophic. On a good day it works quite well; on a bad day it recovers reasonably well. There are a whole host of people working really hard to make it work. It is tight, but it follows £4 billion of investment in both infrastructure and trains, and it is right that the railway should operate as many trains as it can and operate them well.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is ridiculous to expect, after the ruinous privatisation of our rail system and 13 years of neglect by the Tory Government, that we can fix something in 13 months that they took 13 years to wreck?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of the interesting things that has been going on since this Government took office is re-establishing some pretty basic rules about staff allocation—the numbers of drivers and guards and the way in which they are utilised—which in some of these companies was miles away from what ought to have been established. As my noble friend says, it takes a long time to put things right, but we are putting them right.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
If the Minister was travelling on a successful South Western train this morning, he was on a different train from the one I was on. I ask him to look back: the very first breath that this Labour Government took was to give a record-breaking, inflation-busting pay rise to train drivers. One would normally expect, in a public service, for that to bring about better punctuality and improvement of service, yet all those have gone backwards and there has been an increase in the number of complaints. I know some people suggested at the time that it was all to pay for the Government’s friends; we can dismiss that with a wave of our hands. But what is, and was, the point of an inflation-busting pay increase to train drivers if there is no improvement in public service?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Let us reflect on the effect of the continuous dispute with train drivers, which cost £700 million or £800 million in revenue; on the fact that the pay increase was about 2% more than the previous Government intended to pay; and, particularly, on the fact that there were no productivity proposals on the table at the time it was paid, because the previous Government had wasted their time having a discussion with the owners about what percentage of those productivity benefits they took for themselves and, in consequence, there was nothing on the table to put forward. We have changed all those positions.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, there is nothing more annoying than being on the platform early, trying to go to work, when it comes up saying, “Staff didn’t turn up. Train cancelled”. This is happening regularly on TfL, on the line from Elstree & Borehamwood to London. What can be done about that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord will find that that goes via Thameslink, which will be taken into public ownership in four months. It is one of the operators whose management tries modestly hard, but it has a problem with a number of drivers. In due course, the Government will take steps to fix it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, last time the trains were nationalised, they were dirty and late, and the sandwiches were so old that they were curling up at the corners. Why is it going to be different this time?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That is a sort of music hall view of railway life, is it not? The truth is that the system this Government inherited had got to the end of its life—that is a polite way of putting it. You can prove that it did because the train companies that they took into public ownership stayed in public ownership. They chose to keep LNER, which had three failed operators, in public ownership because, frankly, it ran better. That is what we are trying to achieve. The growth in passenger numbers, which is greater in all the publicly owned train companies over the last year than it has been in privately owned operating companies, is testimony to that.
Prisoners for Palestine: Hunger Strikes
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I am, of course, very concerned for every prisoner refusing food. Our highly experienced staff work with prisoners to encourage them to end their refusal wherever possible. Unfortunately, these incidents are a weekly occurrence in our prisons, with hundreds of cases each year. We have long-standing procedures in place to ensure prisoner safety, our NHS partners are responsible for prison healthcare, and prison staff work with them to ensure prisoners can access the equivalent standard and range of services available in the community. If a prisoner requires hospital care, this will be facilitated.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, with many Prisoners for Palestine protesters held on prolonged remand without bail for non-violent offences, having undertaken life-threatening hunger strikes, what immediate measures are there to protect the lives and health of future hunger-striking political prisoners? Over 100 years ago, suffragettes were force-fed, brutally. Will Ministers ensure genuinely independent medical oversight, respect for prisoners’ rights, family access, the proper review and granting of bail, and full compliance with the UK’s obligations under domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights? If any political hunger striker ever died, Ministers would never be forgiven.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Let me be very clear. I do not want to see any person in our prisons die, and I am very grateful for the hard work of healthcare and prison staff throughout the estate to make sure that those refusing food are receiving appropriate treatment. Any prisoner who feels that they have been treated unfairly can raise a complaint through the established process, including escalating to the independent monitoring board, which is present in every prison, and asking the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to conduct an independent review. To grant bail is not a power within the gift of Ministers. The decision to remand someone charged with an offence is for the independent judges, and lawyers can make representation to the court against the decision on behalf of their clients. To reiterate to my noble friend, I am focused on ensuring every prisoner gets the best chance of leaving prison in good health and never comes back.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in the absence of clear statutory guidance on how to balance prisoners’ autonomy with the duty of care, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that prison governors and healthcare professionals have a legally sound ethical framework to follow if a hunger striker’s life is at imminent risk?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and concern, because we were all concerned about what was happening. I spent an awful lot of time making sure that all the policies and procedures in place were being followed, which they were. Obviously, this is about how the health partners in prisons work together. Having spoken to a number of them on a regular basis, I was proud of their professionalism, compassion, kindness and care. They did a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord pointed out that prison hunger strikes are not unusual. Now that these particular strikes have ended, how far have the Government got in considering two issues: first, the length of time these prisoners spent on remand; and secondly, whether it might be sensible to establish a specialist unit within the prison estate to provide, where practical, necessary medical assistance to hunger strikers, within the existing guidelines of course, so as to mitigate the costs, publicity and security implications of transfers to regular NHS hospitals?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
So far as the court backlogs and the length of time on remand are concerned, the situation is of course similar to what I inherited in the prisons. We need a sustainable system. We cannot have a system where we run out of prison places and victims have to wait years and years to see justice done. That is why the review by Sir Brian Leveson is so important. One of the areas where we can make a real comparison with the Prison Service is how we use technology to improve the way data links together, so we can speed things up.
So far as how the system works within our prison estate, unfortunately this is a well-trodden path. Even in my private office, three of my team were prison officers before I worked with them and have all had experience of food refusal. They all told me that there is a highly experienced team that deals with this. So, I am satisfied with the process.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is to be commended for not giving concessions to those who have refused food in this instance. Does he not think that, rather than expressing sympathy for or condoning the behaviour of these individuals, the Government’s sympathy ought to be with the working people who have been terrorised by Palestine Action—which the people on remand and facing charges are linked to—including a security guard who was attacked with a sledgehammer? Is it not more important to protect their welfare than to eulogise this behaviour?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Our prison and probation staff do an incredible job in dealing with some of the most complicated people in this country. When they turn up to work, they turn up to help people turn their lives around, not to get assaulted or be, as has happened recently, hospitalised as a result. It is our job to make sure that we keep our prisons safe not just for those people who live and work in them but also for people who are going into and out of work.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that we have been here before. I express the hope that medical facilities are available to prisoners who need them, but it would be a great mistake for prison authorities to give way to the substantive demands of hunger strikers. To do so would make the prisons unmanageable.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Viscount is correct. This is a clinical decision, and that is why the work with our prison staff and health partners is so vital.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, to build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, can my noble friend say something more about continuity of care when prisoners leave prison, whether they have been on remand or been sentenced? I am not talking just about drug addicts, but a whole range of medical issues which need that continuity. Can my noble friend say something more about how he is building on that care?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. It is vital that, because so many people leave prison with drug, alcohol and mental health issues, we carry on that care with our health partners when they leave. I am really pleased that we are rolling out four new NHS neighbourhood hubs working with the probation team. These are based in probation offices so the teams can all work together. I hope to roll that out further. In some ways, it is a bit like the intensive supervision court model—to address someone’s complex needs, you need more people in the room than just probation staff, even though they do a fantastic job. It is where health partners, DWP partners and so on work. On Thursday last week, I was in Southampton meeting the probation teams there. It was clear from what they were telling me that, apart from needing lots more technology and support, it is about being joined up with other government departments, especially health and housing. That joint approach is vital to ensure that when people leave prison, we keep the support around them so they do not come back.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, prisoners on remand are, of course, innocent until proven guilty and as such are entitled to certain privileges in respect of clothing, family visits and reading materials. Will the Minister agree to meet legal representatives of prisoners and initiate his own review of whether those entitlements are being met in full?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Prison rules are there for a very good purpose, and rules are rules. It is the same for any prisoner, on remand or not. If any prisoner is not content, their concerns can be brought to the independent monitoring board or the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will go to the non-affiliated Benches and then to the Conservative Benches.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a non-affiliated Member, I share the deep concerns of my noble friend Lord Hain. I say to the Minister that it is not eulogising to ask for compassion, fairness and justice for people held on charge, on remand, not proven. Therefore, will the Minister meet with those who could perhaps somehow bring the families and relatives of those in prison closer to them? There is a tragic need for this, and it needs to be done urgently.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I spend a lot of my time going around prisons, meeting staff, meeting prisoners and seeing probation areas as well. There are already well-established routes. If prisoners and their families have concerns, the independent monitoring board and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman are the best routes for them to take up their concerns.
Single-Sex Spaces: EHRC Guidance
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will set a target to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single-sex spaces before the first anniversary of the guidance being sent to the Equalities Minister.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely on sex and gender reassignment. The EHRC has submitted its draft code to Ministers and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I say to the Government that the inexcusable delay in operating this makes it look like political party management is being elevated above the national interest. That is not good enough.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me reassure all noble Lords. We have set out our expectation that service providers follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice wherever necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently. We have always been absolutely clear that due process needs to be followed by all, in line with the Equality Act. Our priority is getting it right. That is why it is so important that we give it proper and due consideration.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time; we will go to the Cross Benches next.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said in answering the numerous questions on this topic that the code must be legally robust. In the absence of any significant leaks to the press over the last few weeks, can the Minister clarify what tests are being applied to reach that conclusion before the code is approved and laid before Parliament?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness understands that, although there has been speculation in the media, it is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly. We have always been clear that proper process needs to be followed so that service providers have certainty over these issues and are not placed in that legal jeopardy. That is why we are absolutely consulting with all, including the EHRC.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am not surprised that the draft code is being carefully considered, as the Government say, because multiple government departments, such as health, justice, local government and employment, all need consistency in a cross-government approach. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that equality or human rights objectives are consistent across departments?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, we have a duty to properly consult. By the way, under Section 14(9) the Equality Act 2006, that also involves consulting with devolved Governments at all relevant stages. Consultation with the Welsh and Scottish Ministers is required, as the code fully relates, but it also relates to all public authorities. Of course, the EHRC has conducted its own consultations on its code twice, but it is important that we fully understand the implications of the ruling.
Lord Harper (Con)
Given that the law is already in force and the Supreme Court has made it clear what that law means, can the Minister confirm that all public services that are delivered by Ministers and the Government are in full compliance with the law, as set down by the Supreme Court, today?
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am a great admirer of my noble friend Lord Rooker. When I worked with him on the secondary legislation committee, he would always ensure that the Government had done their homework, particularly on issues which were fraught and divisive, so I will ask my noble friend the Minister about one particular piece of homework. Can he give an assurance that small businesses will be given sufficient clarity and flexibility to stay within the law, and not be forced into making adjustments to their property which they cannot afford?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. To repeat what I said to the noble Lord, the Supreme Court judgment is absolutely clear and everyone has a duty to apply it. That includes not just public bodies but everyone. To come back to my noble friend, if there is any doubt then, obviously, seek appropriate guidance—seek legal advice. We want to make sure that, when the code is finally adopted, it is legally proofed and cannot be open to further challenges. That is why it is so important that we get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, perhaps this is a very obvious question to come from a bishop, but these are matters that affect people’s sense of dignity, their identity, belonging and everyday lives. Can the Minister say how the Government are ensuring that, alongside legal clarity, the approach taken in considering this draft code reflects compassion, respect and kindness towards all those affected, so that the guidance not only supports compliance but will encourage a much-needed culture of mutual understanding?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate could not have said it better and I strongly believe that. It is really important that we understand that the duties of the Equality Act reflect a duty on us all and apply to all the characteristics. But the Supreme Court judgment is very clear; we have to apply it, and we are determined to do so. That is why it is important that we have a code that can stand any robust challenge.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is a Minister in the Cabinet Office. I know that he would not have wished to have misled the House in his recent response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. He assured the noble Lord and the House that all government is in conformity with the Supreme Court ruling. Is he aware that the charity Sex Matters wrote to the head of the Civil Service, asking for the Cabinet Office to withdraw the model policy on gender identity from 2019 because it was unlawful? The chief operating officer of the Cabinet Office declined to do so, despite acknowledging its unlawfulness. Can he explain to the House how he has made the statement that he is convinced that all government is in conformity with the Supreme Court ruling?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am a Minister with many responsibilities, and I am not sure that I am in the Cabinet Office at the moment. One thing I am absolutely sure about is that I am Deputy Leader of this House, and I would not wish to mislead it. I was trying to convey that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. It may not be what the noble Lord hinted at, but the Government are being very clear that there should be compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. That is why we want the code of practice, which the noble Baroness was obviously involved in, to be fully considered, properly accounted for and robust for the future. That is what we are determined to do, and it will result in all public bodies and companies being fully compliant with the Supreme Court judgment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, if the Government have concerns about the lawfulness of the EHRC code, given their five-month review of 30 pages, have they received any advice from the Attorney-General regarding his assessment of it? When was the Attorney-General consulted?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness knows that I am not going to go into legal advice from the Attorney-General. This is not about whether the guidance or the draft code is compliant legally; it is to ensure that the guidance can be adopted and applied by everyone without future legal challenge. That is what I am saying very clearly. It is robust guidance. After all, it has never been the position to say that the code is not legal. The code may well be, but we want to ensure that it can be applied properly and adopted by all public bodies and companies.
China: Human Rights and UK National Security
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions concerning human rights and threats to UK national security they have had with the government of China.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, human rights are a non-negotiable part of this Government’s approach to China. During his recent visit, the Prime Minister raised human rights and the case of Jimmy Lai with President Xi. The Government will continue to press China on human rights and work with international partners to ensure that China is held to account for its human rights violations. Upholding national security is the first duty of this Government and underpins all our international relationships.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, given that no discussions with the sanctioned parliamentarians have taken place, either before the visit or since, can she give us greater clarity on what was and was not agreed? Thus far, it remains unclear whether the sanctions on my family and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have been lifted. Perhaps more importantly, no mention has been made of the sanctions on Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, Dr Jo Smith Finley, Essex Court Chambers, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and Tim Loughton, one of the parliamentarians who are no longer Members of the House of Commons.
Neither the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, nor I sought or wanted any kind of preferential treatment. We wanted justice for those who have suffered at the hands of the CCP, whether they are the hundreds of pro-democracy advocates who are incarcerated alongside Jimmy Lai in prisons in Hong Kong, or those who have suffered as a result of the genocide in Xinjiang.
In 2021, I moved an amendment to the Trade Bill to outlaw free trade agreements with countries perpetrating genocide. The Minister will recall that we had China and the appalling treatment of the Uyghurs in mind. The Prime Minister himself voted for the amendment three times. On this visit, the Prime Minister said that the previous Government had pursued an “ice age” in their relations with China. Yet those amendments were right then; why are they wrong now? Was the House of Commons wrong to vote for a declaration of genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang? Can the Minister please assure us that the UK’s sanctions against the four Chinese Communist Party officials responsible for the genocide in Xinjiang remain in place, and that no new state visit by Xi Jinping will take place until the genocide ends?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I admire hugely the consistency with which he raises these issues. He is absolutely right to say that, although there is clearly some progress on the measures that have affected our parliamentarians and, as he says, former parliamentarians such as Tim Loughton, those measures should obviously be lifted immediately. We are continuing conversations to get absolute clarity on which measures and which people, and to make sure that that is complete.
On the things that we voted for in opposition, when you are in opposition and have a Government who took the position that they did, there are only certain things that you can do to highlight these issues. The approach that this Government are taking is based far more upon engagement and dialogue and attempting to rebuild the relationship in order to get the progress that everybody here would like to see. We have more options at our disposal now, so we are attempting to approach these important matters in a different way. As the noble Lord knows, I cannot comment on sanctions, but I note what he says.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, although I trust the Minister both expressly and implicitly, she is tied by the problems of being a Government Minister. I am now in opposition, so I have greater freedom to speak and to complain. I complain because the responses that we get from the Government are little more than vague generalisations. That breeds suspicion that nothing much is being done and that the dialogue between the Government and China is no more than formulaic.
Can the Minister please do her best to reassure us—she may well know what the Prime Minister is about to say, or has already said, in the other place—that the fate of Jimmy Lai and our relations with China are not just diplomatic boxes to be ticked with nothing more to be said, and that genuinely positive, concrete discussions, with force behind them, are being conducted by her department and the Government as a whole?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate the way in which the noble and learned Lord put that question, although I assure him that I do not find this in any way awkward. It is important that I am here and fully accountable to this House, above all. The Prime Minister is, I believe, on his feet right now, so the noble and learned Lord will not have very much longer to wait to hear what he has to say, and I expect—although I do not know—that the Statement may well be repeated in this House in the usual way, so there will be further opportunities to make these points.
I assure the noble and learned Lord that there is no sense in which the fate of Jimmy Lai is in any way a tick-box exercise for this Government. We are clear and consistent, and have been for some time, that Jimmy Lai should be released with immediate effect.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a new member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired so ably and fearlessly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Could my noble friend the Minister say something in the light of her comments on the earlier question about Mr Lai? What can she tell us about his condition, given his age and the length of his solitary confinement? Are His Majesty’s Government satisfied with the consular access and support that he has been given?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The short answer to that is no, we are not satisfied, and we have not been able to get the consular access that we would like and which Mr Lai needs. We are concerned about the access to medical care that he needs, and we will continue to raise the issue—not just that he should be released, because he ought to be released immediately, but, short of that, he needs access to consular support and medical attention.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, with respect to the Minister, when we all voted on a number of occasions for trade agreements to have human rights clauses, we did so because we wanted that to be the law applying to all Governments. It is a great sadness to hear the Minister say that the Labour Party took that position then simply to make a point rather than thinking that that was how our trade agreements should be framed.
Can the Minister confirm that, when the Government announce that there is to be a feasibility study on a free trade agreement on services with China, that feasibility study will take into account human rights? If it does not, a Labour Government putting in train a trade agreement whereby MI5 and our security services have indicated that there is an ongoing national security risk will be opening up an area of deep regret. The agreement also indicated that education and skills will be opened up for China. Equally, we know that MI5 has warned us all that that is the source of a major part of China’s influence, so why are the Government refusing to put China on the foreign influence registration scheme, as it should be?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Obviously, national security is the principal concern in everything we do. The noble Lord mentioned trade, and I am pleased to be able to confirm that export deals of £2.2 billion were secured. AstraZeneca committed to £15 billion investment, which will underpin approximately 10,000 UK jobs. China agreed to cut tariffs on scotch whisky from 10% to 5%, in a deal worth £250 million to the UK. Removal of market access barriers, unlocking around £2.3 billion for the UK economy, was secured, along with a financial services package, including the first UK-China financial regulators working group. We committed to a feasibility study for a binding UK-China services agreement.
The conversations we are having, and the engagement, are absolutely in the interests of the United Kingdom and its people, but, as the noble Lord would want us to do, of course, our national security underpins everything.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the latter part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, refers to national security. Given the now acknowledged interest by China in Mauritius and China’s desire to have closer engagement with Mauritius, how concerned are the Government that Mauritius does not have the military capability to police the seascape surrounding the Chagos Archipelago in order to detect and disrupt malign activity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is never long before we get to Chagos in these exchanges. We are confident that the deal that we have agreed with Mauritius is in the very best interests of the United Kingdom and our security, and we will continue to have conversations with the relevant partners and allies to achieve the only deal possible to secure the base on Diego Garcia and give the legal certainty that is needed to continue, jointly with the United States, with the base, which does so much to keep our citizens safe.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in conducting international negotiations, it is always worth reflecting on the probable strategic objective of the other side. In the case of China, I doubt very much that it is about increasing trade with the United Kingdom. It is much more likely to be about dividing those who are trying to contest China’s attempts to make the world safe for autocracy. Have the Government been keeping this at the forefront of their mind in their recent negotiations?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, we keep a whole range of factors in mind. These are complex situations and negotiations, and we do not underestimate that. But it would be very wrong for us to deny ourselves the opportunity to have these conversations, because you do not get a chance to secure the trade that I have mentioned or the discussions on security or human rights, or any of the other issues that we need to discuss with the second-largest economy on the planet, if you do not engage.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed that, in the earlier Question, the House ran out of supplementaries, and, on this Question, it is fairly sotto voce. Will she accept that that does not reflect an unwillingness to engage with this issue, but rather an acceptance that some time has now been allowed for China to take some initiatives itself, but unless it does, and gives reasonable fair play to these people who have suffered so much, the House undoubtedly will want to return to this issue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am in no doubt at all of the level of concern and interest that this House has in the issues that we are discussing. Sometimes, that means that sessions run out of time; sometimes people do not want to ask questions. I do not read anything at all into that. I understand how important these issues are, and I am very happy to come whenever the House would like me to discuss them.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, did the Minister notice the comments the other day by Mr Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, about the role of the middle powers in this digital age of connectivity, which, he argued, could—if we work together—be much more effective than it is now? The role of the superpowers of the past is much less, and they do not hold all the cards, as Mr Trump and Mr Xi sometimes think they do. Is it not time to think along those lines? When we rebuild the international institutions which were started in 1945 and now more or less have run down to nothing, as we must, will she urge her ministerial colleagues to keep that aspect in mind—that in this new age, the middle powers have much more influence and should take a much stronger line than we usually do?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a fascinating question about the changing world order and geopolitics and geoeconomics. I think he makes a very strong point, as Mr Carney did when he visited China very recently, about the importance of us engaging fully and extensively with middle powers. That is an approach with which this Government agree. I think that he will see the fruits of that as this Parliament continues, but it is a really important point to consider.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, do the Government believe the Chinese Government’s assertion that they no longer operate overseas police stations in the United Kingdom? Was this discussed on the visit, and what does the Minister think the new, supersized Chinese embassy will do to that threat?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would encourage the noble Lord to consider the comments that I am sure my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making at the other end of this building as to the contents of the discussions that he had in China. It is obviously for him to speak first on them, but we are very alive to the risks and, particularly, the threats placed and the harassment of people in this country. It is unacceptable; we will not stand for it, and we do raise it at every opportunity.
Conduct Committee
The Earl of Devon
That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of the Earl of Shrewsbury (9th Report, HL Paper 254) be agreed to.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, if I may, before I speak to the Motion, and in the light of the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, from the Front Benches, I offer a brief thank you from the Back Benches for his tireless and devoted service to our House.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Kakkar, who is unable to be present today, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The report before the House on the conduct of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, follows allegations in the Guardian newspaper that the noble Earl had made improper claims for travel expenses. In brief, the commissioner for standards found that the noble Earl had used a rover ticket, purchased with a House of Lords credit card, to travel from London to Stafford and back for a business meeting, and that he had made mileage claims in respect of four journeys that were, in reality, never made. The commissioner dismissed further unrelated allegations relating to the declarations of interest and provision of paid parliamentary services. The noble Earl did not appeal against either the commissioner’s findings or his recommended sanction, which was that the noble Earl be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks.
In the absence of an appeal, the role of the Conduct Committee was limited to considering the recommended sanction, and we gave serious thought to this matter. After an initial discussion, we sought further written representations from the commissioner and from the noble Earl. We are grateful to both of them for supplying this additional information. In our subsequent discussion, we reflected carefully on the various mitigating and aggravating factors. We accept that the noble Earl did not act dishonestly and that he swiftly apologised and repaid the sum involved, which was just under £200. However, we also consider that any breach of the Code of Conduct that involves misuse of public funds is inherently serious. While the noble Earl did not act dishonestly, his use of the rover ticket was intentional and his approach to mileage claims was unacceptably casual. We therefore concluded that a short suspension was merited, and we endorse the commissioner’s recommendation that the noble Earl be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, under Standing Order 68, no debate is allowed on this Motion. I must therefore put the Question that this Motion be agreed to.
The Earl of Devon
That, in accordance with Standing Order 11, the Earl of Shrewsbury be suspended from the service of the House for a period of two weeks; and that, in accordance with section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, in the opinion of this House, the conduct giving rise to this resolution occurred after the coming into force of that Act.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025
Baroness Wheeler
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule, Clauses 12 to 20, Title.
Crime and Policing Bill
Monday 2nd February 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-XIV(Rev) Revised fourteenth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jan 2026)
Baroness Meyer
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 455 in my name seeks to preserve legal protection for unborn babies who could survive outside the womb. Clause 191 would fully decriminalise abortions by stating that a woman would commit no offence in relation to her own pregnancy. In doing so, it would disapply not only Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 but the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. This is a serious change. Much of the attention has focused on the 1861 Act, with less attention given to the removal of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which protects viable unborn babies. When the 1929 Act was passed, viability was understood to be around 28 weeks. Today, it is generally around 24 weeks, but medical advances mean that some babies can survive from around 22 weeks. Our abortion law recognises viability, and this is precisely why there is a time limit.
Clause 191 would remove protections where the death of a viable baby was caused by the mother, meaning that even a full-term baby could be aborted by the mother with no legal consequences. A baby’s protection would then depend not on whether it could survive independently but on who ended its life. This cannot be right. Under the current law, a woman at 32 weeks’ pregnancy—when a baby is fully formed—who contacts an abortion service may receive support, counselling or discuss adoption, but an abortion cannot be performed. Under Clause 191, however, she could obtain pills and end her own pregnancy without breaking the law. The consequence is clear: no prosecution at any stage, for any reason, even when a baby is capable of being born alive. That would overturn the careful balance Parliament has maintained for decades.
My amendment is deliberately modest. It allows the disapplication of Sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act but retains the 1929 Act so that the deliberate destruction of a viable unborn child remains an offence. This is not about reopening the wider abortion debate; it is about ensuring that viable babies do not lose their legal protection rights.
There are also practical concerns. Abortion pills are easily obtained and sometimes used dangerously late in pregnancy. Removing all criminal liability removes an important safeguard and may leave coercion and abuse undiscovered. Judges already exercise compassion in the very small number of cases that come before the courts. Clause 191 goes far beyond that by removing accountability altogether. The current law strikes a balance: abortion is permitted up to 24 weeks, and beyond that, only in exceptional circumstances. Removing all limits is to cross a line. Close to birth, the difference between a foetus and a newborn may be a matter of hours, yet one would be fully protected in law, while the other could lawfully be destroyed. We do not allow infanticides of newborn babies, so why should the law treat a full-term unborn baby differently?
This proposal was not in the manifesto and has had no public consultation. Such a profound change deserves scrutiny. Public support for abortion up to full term is very limited, while support for protection after viability is strong.
I do not oppose abortion in all circumstances, but diluting the already limited protection for viable unborn babies is just a step too far. Without limits backed by meaningful legal deterrent, women may come under pressure to terminate pregnancy late in their terms, sometimes against their own wishes or consent. Clause 191 may also facilitate disability-selective abortion and sex-selective abortion, placing unborn girls at particular risk. For that reason, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, to prevent sex-selective abortions, which already exist in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, has tabled an amendment to remove Clause 191 altogether, and I hope it will command wide support. My amendment sits alongside it and ensures that this Committee focuses clearly on what Clause 191 really does and on the rights of viable babies. If we cannot protect children at the very beginning of life, when they are at their most vulnerable, what credibility do we have when we claim to put children first? I therefore urge the Committee to reject the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 191 standing part of the Bill.
Our role as parliamentarians, especially in this House, is to ensure that laws that make it on to the statute book are safe. Good laws require careful thought and prior consideration regarding any unintended consequences. Clause 191 fails to meet these criteria and should not become law. It was hastily added to an unrelated Bill and concerns a proposal that was neither a government manifesto commitment, nor called for by the public, nor subject to even rudimentary scrutiny.
Let me be clear: the law change proposed by Clause 191 does not relate primarily to one’s views on abortion, on which there will be a range of perspectives in this House. The abortion debate is often presented as pitting the rights of a woman against the rights of an unborn child at varying stages of development. It is not accidental that the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks. That marks roughly the stage at which the baby is fully viable when born. This clause not only fails even to consider that person but would endanger the mother.
Laws exist for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, they exist to deter us from doing things that would cause significant harm to ourselves or others, out of motives that may be devious or simply desperate. The current law prohibiting women from performing their own abortions after 24 weeks is one such law. The existing legal deterrent protects women. For example, if a partner seeks to pressure a woman into an abortion beyond the 24-week limit, a limit which I note is already double that common in most European countries, a woman can currently point to the criminal law as a reason for not doing so. Removing this would make it much harder for vulnerable women to resist such pressure and would be particularly troubling given the dangers of unsupervised self-induced abortions later in pregnancy.
There is a supreme irony that those who claim to support legal abortion on the basis that the alternative would be unsafe—illegal abortions—are now proposing that women can perform such illegal abortions, outside the terms of the Abortion Act, in an unsafe environment. This law change would, in effect, reintroduce back-street abortion, as women would not be able to have terminations in a clinic beyond the 24-week limit but could do so at home, on their own, without the prospect of any subsequent investigation, using pills not designed for use outside of a clinical context beyond 10 weeks. The potential consequences are terrifying.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness accept that none of these things has happened in Northern Ireland? We changed the law and decriminalised abortion in Northern Ireland several years ago and literally none of the things that she is mentioning has happened there—nor in any of the other 50 countries where abortion is being decriminalised.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
If the noble Baroness will bear with me, we cannot have an intervention on an intervention. She must allow the response.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she aware that, despite the extreme abortion regime that was imposed on Northern Ireland by the other place, there is no telemedicine in Northern Ireland? That is one thing we do not have.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I received a letter from a former paediatric practitioner who is deeply concerned about this proposed legislation. She points out that when babies are legally aborted for medical reasons at over 22 weeks’ gestation, they are first euthanised by lethal injection into the heart. This is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to prevent larger sentient babies from being delivered injured but still alive. She asks what will happen if Clause 191 becomes law, this form of foeticide is not performed, abortion medication is taken and the baby is born alive.
Contrary to claims of supporters of Clause 191, women are not facing lengthy prison sentences for illegal abortions. The most high-profile case in recent years, of a woman who was 32 to 34 weeks pregnant but admitted misleading the British Pregnancy Advisory Service by telling it she was seven weeks pregnant, resulted initially in a short prison sentence that was quickly suspended on appeal. Sarah Catt was convicted in 2012 for a 39-week abortion, having been described by the chief inspector who led the investigation as “cold and calculating”. The judge in the case on appeal, Mrs Justice Rafferty, said:
“Mrs Catt caused the death of a foetus at term … She planned what she did with some care. She ensured that when she delivered the infant, it was in private. Somewhere there is a body”.
Under Clause 191, it would not even be permissible for the police to have investigated such a case. When Tonia Antoniazzi, the proposer of this clause, was interviewed by the House magazine and asked about this case, she said:
“If you can be cold and callous, you need to be helped and you need to be taken out of the criminal system”.
That opens an extraordinary vista.
A tiny proportion of the hundreds of thousands of abortions a year have resulted in women facing prosecution. The solution to these cases is not to decriminalise abortion to term for women in relation to their own pregnancies but rather to restore in-person consultations before women are able to obtain abortion pills, to enable a reliable gestational age check to take place. It is for this reason that I support Amendment 460, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Stroud.
Maya Ellis, one of the Clause 191 supporters in the other place, said that a woman should
“not be criminalised for anything to do with or within her body”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 322.]
This is the case for absolute decriminalisation of abortion in any circumstances, and that is the true intention of the proposers of this clause, but it means that up to full term the viable unborn child would have the moral status of property, just as a slave did in the American Deep South in the 18th century. No one could be criminally liable for the destruction of their own human property. I do not consider this progressive.
We are told that Clause 191 is a moderate change to the law that would not affect the 24-week time limit. However, given that most abortions now take place outside a clinical setting and without an in-person consultation, the 24-week time limit would become redundant. Women could simply tell an abortion provider that they are below the legal limit and, in all likelihood, they would be sent the pills by post.
It is for this reason that a legal deterrent underpinning the 24-week limit is more important in the current context. Clause 191 is not moderate; it is radical. Its effect is to decriminalise abortions of babies up to birth if a woman seeks to induce a termination late in pregnancy by obtaining easily acquired pills.
The Bill is an important and lengthy piece of legislation that we have been debating in Committee over two and a half months. It was not designed, and is not an appropriate forum, to bring further widening of already highly permissive abortion laws. It is astonishing that the Committee is being asked to consider such a far-reaching law with so little prior scrutiny.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 456 has the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Falkner, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who unfortunately cannot be here due to a prior commitment overseas.
This is a simple amendment: it would reinstate the offences that Clause 191 would otherwise decriminalise for women acting in relation to their pregnancies. The amendment also provides that criminal proceedings against any woman acting in relation to her pregnancy could not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General. Under the current law, a woman may avoid criminal liability if defences such as duress apply. The effect of Clause 191 would be that, regardless of circumstances, it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to do any act with the intention of procuring her own miscarriage at any stage of the pregnancy. It would, however, remain an offence for any other person to administer drugs or use instruments to cause an abortion. If Clause 191 is adopted, we would end up with a law that simultaneously denies criminal responsibility to the principal—again, regardless of individual intent or circumstances—while maintaining it for others.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for the very useful meeting that she arranged before Christmas for some of us and the proponents of Clause 191, in particular Ms Antoniazzi MP. As the proponents explained to us, what has prompted Clause 191 is a rise in completely unmeritorious investigations against women. Some of these cases are genuinely appalling. For example, we know of the case of a woman who went into spontaneous premature labour, called for help and instead of being met by medical support was met by the police. While she was still trying to resuscitate her prematurely born baby, even before the paramedics arrived, the police were in the house searching the bins. She was separated from her critically ill baby and investigated for a year for abortion offences, despite medical tests confirming she had not taken any medication.
There are other cases where women have been forced to take abortion pills by an abusive or violent partner, and they were put under criminal investigation while the partner was not. These investigations seldom result in prosecutions and the very few prosecutions hardly ever result in a conviction.
Under our amendment, the consent of the Attorney-General would be required to institute criminal proceedings, not to open an investigation, but there are reasons to believe that this procedural requirement would have a restraining impact on the investigation phase too. The Attorney-General cannot give consent retrospectively. The CPS’s guidance for offences that require AG consent makes it very clear that prosecutors should seek consent before charge.
The current policy for these offences also requires the involvement of senior officials. Before a case is submitted to the Attorney General’s Office for consent, a deputy chief crown prosecutor or deputy head of a central casework division must check that the case has been prepared to an appropriate standard. Following on from that, a lawyer at the Attorney General’s Office will review the application before placing it before the Attorney-General. That lawyer may seek further information or clarification from the relevant prosecutor and their line manager. It is also necessary to ensure that the Attorney-General is allowed sufficient time to consider the case, so that he can make his own assessment.
Finally, for all these offences, the role of the Attorney-General does not end with the consent to prosecution. The Attorney-General will have to maintain an interest in the progress of the case and be kept up to date.
The amendment cannot rule out the risk of an inappropriate or unmeritorious investigation. That risk cannot be ruled out for any offence on our statute book. The amendment seeks to balance competing legal and moral principles, while taking into account the reality of the situation.
The requirement for Attorney-General consent should discourage the police from investigating cases that will not pass muster not only with the CPS at a senior level but with the Attorney-General. The requirement would also offer an opportunity for a tightening of the policy in respect of these offences so that the risk of unmeritorious investigations and prosecutions is further reduced. The amendment does not specify a requirement for the Attorney-General to introduce guidance on the circumstances in which consent would be given, but it is to be expected that such guidance will be published and could make it clear that the bar is, indeed, high.
This is a probing amendment. There are other amendments in this group that I am interested in and inclined to support to mitigate what seems a rather radical approach in Clause 191. It would be of assistance in this debate if the Government could help us understand a bit more about what is really happening with these investigations.
To conclude, I have three brief questions for the Minister. First, what is the latest available data on these investigations, and do the data confirm an increase in criminal investigations against women since 2020? Secondly, how do the Government explain this rise in investigations? Finally, other than Clause 191—which, of course, was not part of the Bill originally—what policy steps have the Government been considering to remedy this problem?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 461J. I thank my noble friend Lady Goudie, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for supporting it.
The amendment seeks to add a new clause after Clause 191 that would pardon women who have had a conviction or caution for an offence abolished by Clause 191. Because of the existing 1861 legislation, abortion is classified as a violent crime. The record means that these women will permanently have to declare it as part of a DBS check, thus continuing the damage caused by this offence. It would ensure the removal of women’s details from police systems.
Like Amendment 459C, Amendment 461J seeks to right a wrong and an injustice. Of course, it is not the first time your Lordships have sought to do this, when something which has been unlawful and unjust is abolished. I am referring to the changes of the law on homosexuality and what followed.
The amendments in this very large group that seek to amend or get rid of this clause—passed as it was by a vote of 137 to 379 on a free vote in the Commons—will form the debate this afternoon. For example, Amendment 455, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, seems to profoundly misunderstand what it means, because if abortion remains criminalised after 24 weeks of gestation then, under the current law, only women who have an abortion after 24 weeks of gestation are targeted by the police, even when, in most cases, they have had a spontaneous miscarriage or a stillbirth. That amendment would make no difference to the current cruel situation, but the noble Baroness actually says she wants to get rid of the whole clause anyway.
Amendments 456 and 456A, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, would, essentially, reverse the change agreed in the Commons and mean that abortion would remain criminalised. But I am aware that some noble Lords who are very concerned about this clause also support reproductive rights for women. We have already had many meetings about this, with the royal colleges and others. I ask that, between now and the next stage, those of us who take the view that reproductive rights are important but have concerns should continue those discussions.
Unlike what the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, said in her speech on the clause standing part, this clause was not plucked out of thin air in the Commons. It is the product of years and years of trying to mitigate the criminalisation of women under cruel and awful circumstances. There have been entreaties to the DPP, discussions with the policing bodies and discussions with our legal systems, and every single one of them—I could bore the Committee by giving dates and facts—has taken the view that Parliament has to take a view on this matter. This is not something that can be mitigated by changing guidelines or rules. Indeed, Parliament took a view on this and decriminalised abortion in Northern Ireland a few years ago. As I said, this had no detrimental effect.
This clause seeks to ensure that women in England and Wales are no longer subject to year-long investigations and criminal charges—the kind of situation that the noble Lord just explained. Since 2020, around 100 women have faced police investigations. Six have gone to court; one has been sent to prison. The clause will not change the wider abortion law, or the existing time limits of the 1967 Act. It is supported by 50 organisations, including the medical royal colleges, violence against women and girls groups, every group that represents abortion providers in the UK and other women’s organisations. We should discuss our concerns about the clause and whether it does the job we want it to do, but there is support for it. Fifty countries in the world have not criminalised abortion. Why on earth should we in England and Wales?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 456C, but I support Amendment 456, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. The purpose of tabling Amendment 456C is to see if a compromise can be achieved between those who favour Clause 191 in its present form and those who are strongly opposed to it.
Late-term abortions are, of course, already lawful if they fall within the permissive provisions of Section 1(1)(b) to (d) of the Abortion Act 1967. Those paragraphs, of course, permit late-term abortions if there is a serious risk to the health of the mother or a serious risk of abnormalities in the unborn child. But Clause 191 goes very much wider than that. It would permit a mother, without any restriction in law, to abort a child right up to the moment of birth. I find it very difficult to make an ethical or moral distinction between killing a child immediately after birth and killing a child immediately before birth. One has been born, the other has not, but I cannot discern any difference in principle.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, can the noble Viscount please assist me? I understand all the legal reasoning that he has put forward. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot challenge any of it. But I ask for his assistance on what actually happens in reality. In reality, lots of mothers lose their baby as a stillbirth. It happens at all periods of pregnancy. A lot of those losses are unexplained, and every health professional has a real concern when it happens, but for decades we have not been able to find reasons for unexplained stillbirths. If a mother, after 36 weeks of pregnancy, has unexpectedly lost her baby and she delivers a stillbirth, under this amendment, if I have interpreted it correctly, if she is reported to have interfered with that pregnancy—even if she did not—she would be made to prove that she was mentally unstable or financially handicapped. In the circumstance that she was neither of those things but had lost her baby naturally and inexplicably, how would the noble Viscount’s amendment work?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I agree that all investigations in this matter should be conducted with great sensitivity. I take the noble Lord’s points, but at the end of the day you have to establish a principle. May I complete my point before the noble Lord intervenes further? If there is powerful evidence that the mother has wilfully terminated the birth of a child immediately up to the moment of birth, it is right that Parliament should set out a process whereby she has to be investigated. If she falls within the defence, she will have a defence. I admit that that would not prevent an investigation, but at the end of the day you have to determine where you stand on whether or not this House is really going to guard human life.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
How will we know? The noble Viscount needs to tell us how you would know that it was not the loss of a baby through natural circumstances? Who will decide?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
It would be part of the process of investigation. In that context, I sympathise very much with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which would provide a further filter. There should be a prosecution only in cases where there has been a clear breach of the law. These are very sensitive matters and need to be conducted sensibly. But we have to stand on principle here.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Viscount, but I fear there is a difference between speaking in theory and practical reality. I want to point out that I have certainly killed at least one baby at term myself; possibly two.
There is a condition called ectopic pregnancy. Very occasionally, pregnancies grow outside the womb or motor outside the womb during the course of the pregnancy. They are left outside the uterus, where they leave a huge hole in the abdomen, placing the bleeding mother at grave risk when the placenta is removed. In this situation, without any alternative, I did what I thought was a caesarean section in both cases to find that once I had opened the abdomen, the uterus was not in fact pregnant, but I was faced with a baby outside the uterus with a placenta. One baby was clearly very abnormal, with various limb abnormalities; the other baby looked completely normal. Both babies were delivered and—thank goodness, with the help of my colleagues—we were able to save both mothers’ lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will agree, the bleeding is a very frightening situation in the operating theatre.
If I may, I will tell the Committee the story of someone who was a patient of mine for about seven or eight years. Laura had a very rare condition—there are many rare genetic conditions—in her case, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. This is a curious disease which tends to affect only boys but can occasionally affect any foetus. Laura had a series of pregnancies. About four of them ended in miscarriage. She desperately wanted a baby. Eventually, she conceived successfully, although she was often infertile, and finally had a baby. She gave birth to a baby rather prematurely, about four weeks before term, who had Lesch-Nyhan syndrome.
Peter was seriously abnormal. He had all sorts of neurological problems. He was unable to eat properly. He was unable to move properly. As a teenager, he had to be strapped in his wheelchair to prevent him mutilating himself. That did not stop him mutilating himself and eventually he started to bite off his lips and his tongue, so he had to have his teeth extracted, and that was not sufficient. He could not be moved around in his wheelchair, because if he was upstairs he would want to tilt himself downstairs. Peter continued to live a very long time; I do not know exactly when he died, but I think he was about 18.
We could do nothing about this lady, but we realised she had this genetic defect. For a long time, we tried to work out the mechanics of it. We eventually sourced the DNA. It was a particular mutation which occurs in very few families in this country. Mutations such as this occur in different ways in different pregnancies, not infrequently; in this case, her mutation was very difficult to deal with. After eight years of trying, she attempted to have more pregnancies because she desperately wanted to have a baby who was free of disease. The risk to her, of course, would be having another baby who might be handicapped and that, of course, would be an immense hardship for that family. That is often one of the big problems for people who try to terminate or deal with these sorts of conditions. Anyway, she had about a dozen pregnancies and eventually we put back into her uterus an embryo which we thought was normal—there was a great deal of resistance in Parliament at the time to this kind of procedure—but she had a live baby, who fortunately was well and was a boy.
That is another example, but it is also fair to say that there are many situations where you have obstetric abnormalities; for example, a baby born with very severe skeletal abnormalities. That could sometimes be unknown. A woman may not report to have her baby for whatever reason during pregnancy until screening is too late and she has not had ultrasound or any other care. That happens in poor families generally. It is inevitable in any society, however good your medical practice might be.
Sometimes, when close to term, a woman is suddenly found to have an abnormal pregnancy in her uterus, which would prevent labour being successful. A caesarean section would probably result in a dead baby but, alternatively, sometimes these babies have been what we call morcellated: you actually try to disintegrate them because it is the only way you can save the mother’s life, if she is critically ill at that stage.
This is a very serious issue and unless one fully understands that these things are possible, one has to recognise that you cannot—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord. I wonder whether he will give way; I thank him. The situations which he describes are all provided for in the Abortion Act.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for her point, because I appreciate that she is giving me a brief rest during a very emotional speech in my case. I apologise for it being an emotional speech, but when you have dealt with such patients frequently for many years, you forget exactly how serious this can be.
I have seen many women requesting terminations at all stages of their pregnancies, even very early and sometimes after in vitro fertilisation to get them pregnant. That is an extraordinary issue and you would not expect it to happen, but actually it happens throughout pregnancy. The women have such serious problems which may not show up as the kind of psychological problem that has been described.
I do not believe that any woman goes through a termination of pregnancy lightly. She certainly does not want to damage herself and do her own abortion. That is an extremely rare situation. The risk here is that we are trying to make law which is just impractical, in the real sense of the word, when we have such a range of syndromes and a population in which we cannot in fact diagnose pregnancy all the time, and never will be able to in people, for example, who are very poor or otherwise live in very serious circumstances and are damaged.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, the debate that we have just been having illustrates perfectly why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is so apt. His amendment would insert a requirement for the Attorney-General’s consent before criminal proceedings could be instituted in these cases, and that consent would require the Attorney-General to examine all the circumstances of the difficult cases we have been discussing in detail.
I have a few brief comments. As we have heard, Clause 191 arose from an amendment to the Bill in the other place but, astonishingly, it received less than two hours’ debate, as I understand it. It was approved without evidence sessions, yet it would be a major change to abortion law. Given that polling apparently reveals that a mere 1% of the public support abortion up to birth, and having regard to the scant debate in the other place, I am hesitant about making such a radical change to abortion law. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is the perfect solution. It is a compromise: a balanced amendment which maintains the existing criminal offence but recognises that there may be more finely balanced cases—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This is not about abortion up to birth, because the Abortion Act 1967 still stands. It is really important that noble Lords try to be accurate in how they describe this. I am not disputing anything the noble Lord says, except that it is not the case that this is about abortion up to birth. This is about the 1967 Act staying in place and about not criminalising women, is it not?
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
That does not detract from the fact that Amendment 456 would create a robust filter, through which prosecutions would have to go before instituting criminal proceedings. That would need the consent of the Attorney-General and without that consent—
Lord Patel (CB)
Can we just clarify what we are talking about? I am tempted to say that those putting forward these amendments are living in a world of fiction, but I am not so rude as to suggest that. I am not suggesting even that they are misguided. I think all these amendments and their proponents are doing this with a total conviction that wrong will be done if this provision gets through, so let us just address what wrong will be done.
The wrong that will be done is that a woman may try to abort or kill her baby at a late gestation or an early gestation. The criminality would be the same because she is doing so outside the 1967 Act. That will be the case, but that is not what the problem is. The problem is that hundreds of innocent women are wrongly accused of a criminal act and sent for police investigation. One person was sent to jail, and 10 of the other 100 that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned had further investigations carried out and were then taken to court.
The Whip is trying to accelerate me, but we cannot accelerate unless I can address the issues raised.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise, but can I remind Members that interventions are short and sweet? But because this is Committee, people can participate in the debate at their chosen point.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, to conclude, I do not have long comments on this. The Attorney-General would be there in such cases to examine whether something illegal and wrong has occurred, and he could withhold his consent for a prosecution if he considered that that was not the case. He would look at the particular circumstances. He or she would act quasi-judicially and independently of government.
Amendment 456 strikes a perfect balance and should give reassurance to women who have good cause to have a late termination, while preserving the criminal offence for those cases where a late abortion cannot be justified. It therefore meets Clause 191 half way, and I urge fellow Peers to support it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can I clarify something in relation to the amendment? Very often the women we are talking about are not prosecuted and do not end up in court. The problem is that the process is the punishment—as we know from other instances.
How does the noble Lord deal with the fact that the majority of the women we are talking about—it is still a small group—are having police raids when they have maybe just had a baby? There was a 19 year-old who gave birth, who did not even know she was pregnant, and there was a police raid. Her family were completely disrupted. She was completely distraught and traumatised, and that process went on for six years before she was cleared. This amendment would not solve that, would it?
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I cannot speak to that sort of case, and I entirely agree that it sounds terrible. But the police are there to investigate; that is their job. They have to do it according to rules and codes of practice and, if the system works properly, that sort of case should not arise. At least in this amendment there would be a filter before any criminal prosecution could be instituted.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 460, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud—who very much regrets that she is unable to be here today—to which I am pleased to be a signatory. I acknowledge the support of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who will speak later.
Amendment 460 would reintroduce mandatory in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be prescribed. It is a common-sense amendment that would protect women and ensure good practice. Amendment 460 would also offer a more satisfactory solution to the supposed problem that we are told lies behind Clause 191—the small number of prosecutions in recent years of women who have induced their own abortions beyond the statutory time limit. These prosecutions have taken place because abortion providers have been able to send abortion pills to women by post without reliably assessing their gestational age. This includes those who claimed to be under the legal limit of 24 weeks but who, in reality, were not.
Indeed, the two most high-profile cases highlighted by supporters of Clause 191 would not have been able to take place if gestational age had been properly assessed in a face-to-face consultation. Carla Foster was found guilty of an illegal abortion at 32 to 34 weeks’ gestation after admitting to deliberately misleading the UK’s largest abortion provider, BPAS, about her gestational age, telling it she was seven weeks pregnant.
Nicola Packer was charged with an illegal abortion after the UK’s second-largest abortion provider, Marie Stopes, sent her pills even though she was over the legal limit. She was acquitted after telling the court that she was unaware of how far through her pregnancy she was. It is remarkable that one of our leading abortion providers should respond to its own mistakes—sending pills to women beyond the legal limit through a scheme for which it lobbied and from which it benefits—by trying to push for even more radical laws that minimise accountability.
The solution to such cases is not to decriminalise self-administered abortions up to birth, as Clause 191 proposes, which endangers women and renders the 24-week time limit largely toothless. Such a course would be irresponsible and widely out of step with public opinion. Polling has found that only 16% of the public support the removal of offences that make it illegal for women to induce their own abortions after the legal time limit, with a clear majority supporting the current legal deterrent. For that reason, I support the stand part notice opposing Clause 191 from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton.
The obvious better solution to all this is to restore in-person appointments before women can obtain abortion pills. Such appointments were the norm before the Covid pandemic but, in response to campaigning from the same groups behind Clause 191, the pills by post scheme was introduced when the pandemic began. Although many had significant misgivings—based on concerns that later proved prescient—about how this was rushed through without due process, and suspected that it was a thinly disguised ruse to bring in such a scheme permanently, one could perhaps at least understand the logic during a pandemic.
However, it was never the intention that pills by post abortions would be permanent, and in February 2022 the Government announced that the scheme would end after 70% of respondents to a public consultation called for its immediate end. However, amid late-night machinations in this House—not too dissimilar from the way in which Clause 191 was added to the Bill in the other place—an amendment was tacked on to the Health and Care Bill at the 11th hour, making the scheme permanent for England and Wales.
Shortly afterwards, stories started emerging of exactly the kind of incidents that many of us were so concerned about, demonstrating how pills by post endangers women and weakens the safeguards in our abortion laws. Amendment 460 offers the Committee a chance to undo a critical aspect of this law change. Under the amendment, women would still be able to take pills at home, should they wish, but not without the safeguard of a prior face-to-face consultation with a medical professional.
There are three principal reasons why restoring this safeguard—or, should I say, returning to former best practice—is essential. First, it would enable reliable gestational age checks before at-home abortions can take place. This is the primary reason why recent court cases have happened. An accurate gestational age check ought to be the bare minimum that we expect of abortion providers, which receive, on average, a reported £580 of taxpayers’ money per abortion—an increase of 42% in the five years since the pills by post scheme came in—even though their costs have been slashed by the removal of in-person appointments. In-person gestational age checks would not only prevent women wilfully misleading providers about their gestation but protect women who may mistakenly believe that they are in the early stages of pregnancy but who are actually further along.
Secondly, reinstating the in-person appointments would protect women from the significant health risks that accompany taking abortion pills beyond the legal limit. Reliable gestational age checks protect women, since at-home abortions are permitted only up to 10 weeks’ gestation because of the increased dangers to women of taking pills beyond the early weeks of pregnancy.
Indeed, the introduction of pills by post has led to a significant spike in medical complications. The Express newspaper reported a study based on FOI requests to NHS trusts that suggests that more than 10,000 women—that is one in 17 women who took pills—had to receive hospital treatment following the use of abortion pills in England between April 2020 and September 2021, which was after the pills by post scheme was introduced.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is an exceptionally difficult issue because of the conflicting interests, which cannot, in my view, be balanced.
The first is that under existing law, many women who have recently suffered miscarriages are subject to distressing and intrusive investigations when they have not acted unlawfully. However sensitive the investigation carried out by the police, it will inevitably be intrusive and distressing to the woman concerned. That is the first interest. On the other hand, we have to recognise that there will be women who terminate their pregnancies at a late stage for impermissible reasons, such as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We have to recognise that, if Clause 191 is enacted, there may well be more such cases. These are two conflicting interests, and I am very doubtful that either of the proposed compromises is a solution to this problem—that is, the identification by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of further defences, or the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, of a requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General.
The reason why neither of these compromises works is that they will not prevent the investigations of women who have recently suffered the loss of their child. No view can be taken on whether the defences identified by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, apply or whether it is right and proper for the Attorney-General to give his consent to a prosecution, unless the facts and circumstances of the case are known; so the investigation has to take place, and it will inevitably be distressing to the woman concerned.
Therefore, it seems to me that we simply have to make a policy choice here, and it is a choice between two evils: the evil of the investigation of many, many women in very distressing and sensitive circumstances when they have acted perfectly lawfully, or the evil of allowing the women who have acted improperly not to be prosecuted. We will each have our own view on which is the greater evil.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
There is a further consideration that the noble Lord should perhaps address, and that is the value that Parliament should place on human life.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course Parliament should place a value on human life, but it should also, should it not, place a value on the interests of the unfortunate women who have, in the most distressing of circumstances, lost the child they are carrying. Therefore, to talk about the value of human life does not answer the profound dilemma which Parliament faces in addressing Clause 191. There are two evils here and the question is how we best address the problem.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggesting that where sensitive matters are investigated, we should change the law? Let me refer to the case of a coroner investigating a death at home. I can cite an example only last Saturday of a friend of mine who died at home of natural causes, but his wife and family had an investigation and understood it was par for the course. They were very upset at the death of their father and their husband; none the less, the law is required to investigate suspicious deaths even in the most sensitive circumstances.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I take the noble Baroness’s point, and I very much sympathise with those who have been bereaved and who face such an investigation. However, there is a profound difference in what we are considering here, which is an investigation of a woman who has just lost the child she is carrying and who is being investigated with a view to the real possibility of a criminal prosecution of her. We have to recognise that a woman in those circumstances is particularly vulnerable and sensitive. We have to weigh that interest against what I accept is the real concern that there will be women who have acted improperly and unlawfully who will get away with their criminality.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I wonder if what the noble Lord describes, with which I have a great deal of sympathy—I say this as a signatory to Amendment 456—would be ameliorated in terms of the distress of the investigation if the Attorney-General were to adopt guidance, and that guidance set out strict criteria that would at least remove or ameliorate the risk of the distress these investigations can cause. The Attorney-General can define very narrowly the circumstances in which the police would be entitled to do that, can he not?
Lord Pannick (CB)
He can, but as I have already said, the difficulty is that, however sympathetic the guidance, the circumstances of the woman concerned have to be investigated in order to identify whether her case falls within those criteria. Therefore, the damage he has done to the woman who has recently lost the child is caused, however sensitive the investigation and whatever the criteria. That is the problem.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble Lord says that there is a profound difference. However, there are circumstances—maybe others are aware—where parents lose a very young child in the home to sudden infant death syndrome. In certain of those circumstances, the police have to come through the door. There is no profound difference there: unfortunately, we need to investigate sensitive things, and that is not a reason to not change the law.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I entirely understand and accept that the police will investigate many alleged possible offences in highly sensitive circumstances, but the issue that arises for Parliament, and your Lordships’ House in particular today, is whether we should adopt special criteria where the sensitivity and the distress relate to a woman who has recently lost the child that she is carrying. It is very difficult, in my view—I am obviously not an expert on this; women in the Committee will have a stronger view than I do—but I can understand the real, particular and damaging concern that arises where a woman who has carried her child for however many months loses that child and is then the subject of a criminal investigation. It is difficult to imagine anything that is more distressing to the woman concerned in those circumstances. The Committee therefore has to take a view on this. My current view—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very reasonable case, but is it not really an issue of proportionality and balance? He talks about the level of distress but did not really answer the points made by my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lady Berridge. The fact is that this has affected approximately 100 women in terms of criminal investigations, as against 1.5 million abortions since 2020. That is an important point to make in terms of informing the argument that he is making.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Committee will take its own view on whether I have answered the questions that have been put to me. I do not think that a reference to 1.5 million abortions really takes the argument any further forward.
I recognise the difficulties of this, and each Member of the Committee will have their own view, but my current view is that the nature of the investigations, the distress that they cause and the unlikelihood that they would lead to a prosecution is the paramount consideration. I therefore see great force in Clause 191.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 459C, to which my name is attached. I very much support Clause 191, which I believe would modernise our society, but Amendment 459C would halt ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions for repealed abortion offences, no matter when committed. This would tighten up Clause 191 on technical grounds. It would stop ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions for repealed offences, no matter when they were committed; currently, Clause 191 applies only to actions after the Bill becomes law.
We are aware of multiple women who have been reported to the police by medical professionals in the months since the House of Commons voted in support of Clause 191. There was a clear signal from that vote—it passed by 397 votes to 137 votes—that Members of Parliament wanted women to stop being targeted. Existing guidance obtained from FoI requests indicates that Parliament cannot rely on police and prosecutors to make the decision to discontinue ongoing cases without a clear legislative process. This amendment would provide clarity for everyone.
I also want to lend my support to Amendment 461J, which my noble friend spoke about. This is about pardoning women with criminal records for abortion offences, in line with the Turing pardon. It also chimes with the scandal of young women who were the victims of the Pakistani grooming gangs, many of whom ended up with criminal records, which I am sure we will all agree was unforgivable.
Many of us in this House have spoken up bravely and passionately about the grooming gang scandal and talked about the plight of those young women and girls, and how vulnerable and alone they were. Well, let me tell you: many of the women who seek an abortion outside the law are often the same girls, and young women who face very similar circumstances. They are desperate. They have often been groomed, abused, violently attacked and raped, and they find themselves in very isolated situations. They do not have a loving partner or a lovely, warm family, and they do not trust the state at this point.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, and I was delighted to see her come to the House. However, I think it would be in keeping to withdraw a comment that could be misinterpreted as ageist and genderist.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I hear the noble Baroness’s point, but I think this is really important. The outside world will look at some of the comments that have been made in this Chamber and will look at the age profile of those making them. That is okay; it is the truth. I am just looking around at who we are. We have many wonderful people with great wisdom and expertise, but we are currently talking about a group of women who are not adequately represented in this House. That is the point I was trying to make.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Would the noble Baroness agree that we are all part of the same human race? Here in this House, we must legislate on behalf of everybody, not as if we were gender-blind about who we are as legislators but in the interests of society at large. I know the noble Baroness would agree that we must always consider the most vulnerable, and this debate is partly about who is the most vulnerable in this matter.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I absolutely agree that we must think about who is the most vulnerable, but the point is that we have heard a lot of language about the rights of the unborn child. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, however, what about the rights of the living woman—often a younger woman—who has found herself in the most distressing of circumstances? As I said, she may have been raped, or part of a terrible domestic violence situation where she does not feel like she has much support, and she feels very alone. I really think this is an important point: so few women take joy from having an abortion, particularly a late-term abortion. I do not think women do it lightly, with a skip in their step, to try to go on a holiday or anything like that. It is a very visceral, emotional, physical experience. We have heard from eminent members of the medical profession about the physical toll that it takes on a woman’s body.
We must understand how vulnerable a lot of these women are. We heard an example earlier from a colleague about a woman who went into premature labour at home. Seven police officers searched her bins before the paramedics arrived. She was not allowed home for a week because her house was considered a crime scene, and she was not allowed contact with her partner. Her forensic samples eventually showed no trace of abortion drugs, but she remained under police investigation for a year. She was allowed only limited supervision with her baby, who had survived the birth despite the very traumatic circumstances.
There is another case study that I want to raise, because the human stories are very important here. Laura was at university, and she was the mother of a toddler when she pled guilty to ending her pregnancy using illegal drugs. She was also in a very abusive relationship and her partner told her not to go to a doctor under any circumstances, so she was very much left to her own devices. She ended up being sentenced to two years in prison. The abusive partner was never investigated. Let that sink in: an abused mother of a toddler is sent to jail while her abusive partner gets off scot free. This is not Kabul, by the way; this is here in the United Kingdom.
I do not know about you, but I want my rather overstretched police services to be investigating crimes such as domestic violence or other serious crimes, instead of rifling through the bins of a traumatised woman who has just given birth. I would like our rather overcrowded prisons to be housing serious offenders, not abused women who have small children. I feel that it is simply morally wrong, an utter waste of police and criminal justice time, and a waste of taxpayers’ money to go after these kinds of distressed and vulnerable women. They need psychological and medical help, not a costly investigation. I think most of us in this House are coming to a consensus that the police have been wasting their time on things such as non-crime hate incidents, so surely common sense would dictate that going after these women is misguided. The police should be catching criminals.
There has been a lot of heated debate around the question “what is a woman?” I know what a woman is, and I believe in her right to choose what is best for her reproductive health. I believe in protecting women when they need help the most, not hounding them like a criminal. That might be okay in some repressive regimes far away, but I know we are better than that.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I am one of those old men. I am also a single man, so I have no children of my own, but I am regularly in contact with very young families through baptism. Only last Thursday, I was in hospital in an acute cardiac unit for babies, anointing a two week-old baby who had just had open-heart surgery. So I know quite a lot about babies through a very long ministry. I also offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for a television series that he oversaw about seeing a pregnancy from conception to delivery some years ago. That series reinforced my conviction about the sanctity of life.
The fact that we are here today in this Chamber means that we must recognise that we are on precious ground. Of course we are here to support women who have been abused and coerced. I think that the amendment proposing that we should require the Attorney-General to intervene would be rather too late if there had been a year-long investigation of a woman in between. I have been investigating this with the Lincolnshire constabulary: we need to look at how police procedure can be changed and invested in, enabling us to move away from treating these women as criminals to treating them as witnesses and victims, so that the police activity is primarily engaged in going after coercers and bad actors. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness in how that should proceed.
At the same time, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that I entirely endorse the Church of England’s principle position in opposing the abortion of late-term foetuses who are viable, unless otherwise affected by the Abortion Act. I would like to see a different way of interpreting the law, which is differently enforced, which does not decriminalise or take away investigation, precisely for the protection of women and the preservation of unborn life.
To do that, we need to look urgently at how we allow investigations to take place and how we seek to support a woman, often a woman going through acute distress and bereavement. I quite understand the point about unexplained deaths, and we need to make sure that women are protected. But I signed a letter with 200 other clergy, back when Clause 191 first came out, expressing our dismay at the way in which this decriminalisation could so easily lead inadvertently, even if it is only a small number of babies, to the termination of the lives of viable children into the future. That, I am afraid, I could never support.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am just wondering if the Committee would allow me to speak at my extreme age. I have put my name to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I do not propose to repeat anything he has said. But there are two aspects I will speak about, particularly those raised by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Pannick.
First, in what they are both saying, we are looking at women who are not guilty of any offence. We are being asked to pass a law to protect offenders for the sake of people who are not offenders. Speaking as a former lawyer, I find that an extraordinary proposal. I absolutely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is saying, about the difficulty of balancing. But he is talking about the innocent. We are being asked to pass a law that would actually protect the guilty for the sake of the innocent. It is the first time anyone has pointed this out, and I find it rather extraordinary. We are being asked to look at women who have suffered a stillbirth or an abortion not at their request but because it has happened at a very late stage, who are now being investigated by the police. I gather the whole thing has gathered momentum after pills were being sent by post. Prior to that, the police did not investigate a lot of cases, but because of the pills being sent by post, the police are now investigating to a greater extent.
Particularly in relation to those who are suffering domestic abuse—this relates to the amendment the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I have put forward—it looks to me as though we are being asked to change the law because the police are taking a year to investigate, treating women extremely badly in the process. But surely, we should be looking at the guidance to the police. I am very relieved to hear the right reverend Prelate is going to get Lincolnshire Police to have a look at this. We should find out why the police are not looking at potential abusers or investigating the partner as well as the woman. We are being told again and again that the partners are not being investigated but the woman is being investigated. It is taking a year or longer—in some appalling cases, six years. But that is the failure of the police. We know they are overstretched, but it is an appalling failure, particularly if they do not investigate.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
Would the noble and learned Baroness, with her outstanding history in the law, recognise that women and men are not treated equally in the criminal justice system, nor in police investigations; that it is the case that women, when they are convicted of an offence, are often sent to prison for offences for which men are not sent to prison; that women are sent to prison for longer than men for the same offences; that there are many women in prison for things that men would not be put in prison for; and that exactly the same is the case in investigations? We have to ask the question: why did it take six years, why are the police not—
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
We have to ask the question of why there are these inequities. Other noble Lords have made longer interventions; I do not know why I am being barracked in this way.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
Order—that was an intervention.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I have not quite finished.
I understand exactly what the noble Baroness is saying. I was not a criminal judge; I do not think I ever sent a woman to prison, so I am not qualified to speak on those issues. All I am really asking the Committee to reflect on is that we are principally being asked to change the law to support those who are not guilty of offences, and because the police are not behaving as they should.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have two questions for the noble and learned Baroness. Why does the noble and learned Baroness think 50 countries have found this not to be a problem? Abortion is decriminalised in virtually every country that has had abortion legislation since the 1967 Act. So, I am wondering why the noble and learned Baroness thinks that is a problem. My second question is: why does the noble and learned Baroness think that adding further complications, which the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would, would make this any better?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
You cannot have two interventions.
I do not know the answer to the first question. I have not looked at what goes on in other jurisdictions; I do not know how well it works or whether it works. Secondly, it seems to me that there should be a lot of changes to the way this is all dealt with. If the police investigated the man as well as the woman, one would hope they would not pursue their investigations.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it is Committee. Everyone can have a turn, as long as they stick to the speaking limits, so perhaps we could just take it around the Committee.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I would just be grateful, and I will be brief, to get a clarification—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Before the Government Whip sits down, could he please remind the Committee that interventions have to be brief and cannot go on into speeches? Can he also remind the Committee that those who have put their names to these amendments should be heard prior to those who have not?
Lord Katz (Lab)
First, there are no points of order in our self-regulating House. Secondly, the noble Baroness makes the point about interventions very ably. Thirdly, as I said, there is time for everyone in Committee to both move their amendments and speak to other amendments, so I suggest we just take it in a reasonable order. I will leave it to the Committee to decide who speaks next.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief—I would just be grateful for a clarification. I strongly believe in women’s rights, including reproductive rights, and I do not want women in distress subjected to criminal investigation, if at all avoidable. But I am struggling to understand why Clause 191 is considered not to amend the Abortion Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, among others, asserts. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said it would be “toothless” if Clause 191 is agreed.
If I have understood it properly, people other than the pregnant woman concerned would still be committing a criminal offence if they gave any kind of assistance. That is why it is considered that the Abortion Act 1967 is not in fact amended. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, referred to repealed abortion offences, so we seem to be relying on the fact that only the woman herself would be regarded as decriminalised. I am not generally happy about decriminalisation, such as in relation to drugs. I prefer dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s and having legalisation—or not.
Have I understood that correctly? Maybe it is only when we come to the Minister that I will get full clarification as to whether or not we are amending the Abortion Act 1967, which I broadly support, even though it is a compromise. I have never supported the simple but simplistic “a woman’s right to choose”, because there are other considerations. I support the Abortion Act as a compromise on a difficult subject, as I think many people do, but I seek clarification that the Abortion Act is not being amended and that we would simply decriminalise the woman concerned while supposedly leaving the rest of the Abortion Act as it is.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
What our amendment does is disapply the Abortion Act so far as the mother and late-term abortions are concerned.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Then I am not terribly attracted by the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I am rather more attracted by that of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, although I have heard the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can I assist the noble Baroness? Clause 191 is perfectly clear in that no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. It simply does not affect the criminal offences that are committed by any person, whether a doctor or otherwise, who assists a woman. There are precedents for that distinction in the Suicide Act 1961. The act of suicide is lawful, but it is unlawful to assist.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I do grasp that point, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for assisting me. In a broader sense, can it be relied on that Clause 191 would not have a wash effect over the Abortion Act 1967, which has been subjected to various attempts at amendment but has largely held the course since 1967? I understand all the very good reasons for it, but how we can be sure that this decriminalisation of the woman concerned would not ultimately lead to an amendment of the Abortion Act 1967.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Verdirame has explained, my noble friend Lady Wolf cannot be here today, so I will pick up some of her points in this intervention as she is not here to make them herself. If we want to change the law, many say that Clause 191 will improve the situation for women’s bodily autonomy. I am all for that, but only after a considered debate, which we had in the past when we amended the Abortion Act 1967 to bring it into conformity with changing medical science and social attitudes. It is not as though we are stuck in aspic. This Bill is not the place to do so, as the breadth of amendments that this clause has attracted demonstrates.
I will concentrate mainly on the Covid-era regulations which permitted the obtaining of pills by post at any point of gestation, whereas previously, later stages required face-to-face consultation between the pregnant woman and doctors under the Abortion Act. This may have been necessary during lockdown, and it is a failure on the part of the then Government not to have contemplated a review after lockdown ended. As things stand, Clause 191 will facilitate changes where decriminalisation of late-stage and full-term abortions may well create additional dangers to women’s health, as pointed out at Second Reading by numerous noble Lords. It will also open the door to coerce women to seek late-term abortions against their own wishes. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is not in her seat, but I think that is the point that she was trying to get to in her intervention.
If there is no sanction in law, what reason can one give a controlling partner who insists that it is perfectly permissible in law? Decriminalisation suggests that there is nothing to prevent the woman from aborting late-term through the convenience of pills by post, virtually no questions asked. So you have the perverse effect that, alongside the certainty of greater autonomy for women, we may well see the risk of coercive control and deception. I am sure that is not what the movers of this amendment in the other place sought.
My noble friend Lady Wolf made the point that while home-based abortions have become common, they normally use two drugs in the form of pills: mifepristone, which blocks progesterone, needed in pregnancy, but does not kill the foetus; and misoprostol, which basically causes cramping, bleeding and the emptying of the uterus. If taken early in pregnancy, the result is the same as an early miscarriage, in effect, and in England and Wales it is allowable for abortions up to 10 weeks of gestation.
The pills are advertised as simple to use and as creating early miscarriages with bleeding and perhaps some bits of tissue. So the descriptions are reassuring and encouraging. However, the reality may be very different and life-threatening to the woman, who, whatever her reasons for wishing to terminate the pregnancy, may not appreciate the complications. Pills by post do not require further safeguards than those put into place by the 1967 Act other than a phone or virtual call, which is the least satisfactory method of ascertaining stress, emotional distress or, indeed, coercive pressure.
I want to share with the Committee some examples of emotional pressure. Noble Lords may be aware of the case of Stuart Worby in December 2024. I am grateful to the prosecuting counsel, Edmund Vickers KC of Red Lion Chambers, for giving me some background information to this case. I should add, before I say anything further, that the victim is subject to lifelong anonymity.
In December 2024 the judge summed up the details of the case. A central aspect was that the victim married the defendant after the commencement of the pregnancy. He wished to terminate the pregnancy, but she wished to keep her baby, with or without him. He set about securing the termination without her knowledge and used a female friend to obtain abortive drugs from an online private clinic. The judge pointed out that he must have known that this was dangerous for his wife, as he knew she was many weeks past the time limit to use the drugs safely.
When Mr Worby received the drugs, he first added mifepristone to food and drink. The next day he told the victim that he wanted to try something sexually new in bed, which involved blindfolding her and tying her up. The real purpose was to insert the second type of medication, misoprostol, into her vagina. Shortly after he had done that, she became unwell, and the next day she suffered a miscarriage, losing the baby that she so badly yearned for. The judge’s remarks explained that the offence of administering poison to bring about a miscarriage was made more serious by Mr Worby’s prolonged research and planning over many weeks, by his involving others, by bringing about a miscarriage, and by the devastating effect it had on his then wife’s dream of having a child.
This sorry tale attempts to demonstrate that it is not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the woman who may wish to terminate her pregnancy or the unborn child. There is a further factor here: the partner, the husband or other members of the family who may seek coercion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That is a shocking story, but nothing in Clause 191 would affect the criminal liability of the man who behaved in such a disgraceful manner.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I find that very interesting. I am sure it will be a welcome debate among lawyers. I will look into that and take it into consideration when I come back with a renewed amendment on Report.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am sorry, but this is simply not a controversial issue. Clause 191 says that
“no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”.
It simply does not affect the criminal liability of anyone else.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, we are coming back to the terminally ill debate that we had on Friday. Women may well be—although not in this particular case—coerced by partners to take pills when they would not otherwise have wished to do so. Perhaps noble Lords who have tabled amendments to do with face-to-face consultations have that in their minds, as a face-to-face consultation would require deeper insights on the part of medical professionals—pills by post do not.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I would like to proceed a little further and then I will give way to the noble Baroness.
If we wish to change abortion law, we are perfectly entitled to do so as a society, but this clause raises significant questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, even though—I accept this—the Government said on Second Reading that they remain neutral on the clause and that they anticipated a free vote. As the clause seeks to repeal Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, can the Minister explain how charges could be brought in a case such as Mr Worby’s and others? This was a poisoning and an attempt to procure a miscarriage without the woman’s consent—and it happened without repealing those offences.
As the Government have not carried out a consultation on this proposed change, how will providers of pills by post be regulated further to ensure that late-term pregnancies still carry protections under the Abortion Act and other criminal law? Will the Government commit to carrying out an overall review of the extent of the problem with police investigations of these women and to opening discussions with the relevant authorities to ascertain how better to focus police interventions? That is the objective of our Amendment 456.
On all sides of the Committee, we recognise the distress caused to women by unfounded police intrusiveness. There must be other measures that could address how that can be done with care. Upholding the rights of women in terms of their bodily autonomy, as well as society’s obligations to provide the appropriate medical care for them at this vulnerable point of pregnancy, exists on the one hand. On the other, we have obligations to the rights of the unborn child.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I will say one more sentence before I sit down, and I will be happy for both noble Baronesses to intervene then.
We have obligations to the rights of the unborn child, as that is what very late-term abortions are about in terms of viability. These things engage our ethics and responsibilities in law. I suggest that the Minister seeks to engage with those of us tabling amendments to guide us on how we in this Committee can do both responsibly.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
If you are being coerced into ending a pregnancy outside the law, and if you report that to the police, you yourself will be investigated for a criminal offence. That would be the case even though it is clear—as we know from that court case—that the man is the person who has coerced you into doing that. Can the noble Baroness say how this can be right? If a woman goes to the police in those circumstances—why would she?—she would be investigated for a criminal offence. That is what the law says now.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
In the Worby case, the woman discovered what had happened to her, went to the police and was not investigated.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, please excuse my enthusiasm but the Committee can see that, every time I blinked, somebody else jumped in.
I will speak in support of my Amendment 461B, which is focused on protecting underage girls. Before I do that, I will pose a few questions to the Minister on the back of the debate we have had today. First, an assertion has been made that this is happening all over the place and that many women are being prosecuted. Can the Minister give us access to the figures that she is working on to answer that question?
Secondly, is there any proof that the police are targeting women? That assertion has been made a number of times.
Also, what work are the Government doing to improve the nature of police investigations? The right reverend Prelate made that point very well. Surely, any woman in this situation should be treated as a victim until there is some very strong evidence that she is anything but a victim. What are we doing to help the police perform their duties better?
I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika. The notion that you can represent only people that you are of is one that we should fight very hard. I come from a very poor community and have spent my life representing people who have no relation to the way I look, where I come from and who I am. That is something we should fight very hard. I am a man and a father of two. When we talk about pregnant people, there is at least some idea that a man is 50% of how that situation arose, so I think I have some stake in the debate.
Finally, there is no debate on this side about what a woman is. If somebody is pregnant, in my world they are most certainly a woman. I cannot envisage any situation where somebody other than a woman would be pregnant. I am happy to take direction from the noble Baroness if she has such things.
My Amendment 461B is focused particularly on protecting young girls. To address this gap, my amendment would introduce a mandatory safeguarding investigation whenever an abortion is performed on a girl under the age of 16. This measure is in the best interest of vulnerable women and does not impede lawful medical care. It would simply ensure that when a child undergoes an abortion, relevant authorities are alerted and must promptly investigate the circumstances. Specifically, the investigation would seek to determine whether the pregnancy resulted from a criminal offence, such as rape or sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act; whether the girl was subjected to coercion, exploitation or abuse; and whether any person involved, such as the abuser, may be liable for prosecution under existing laws.
One thing I know from my many decades of community work and dealing with vulnerable people in vulnerable situations is that an investigation-free zone is ripe for abuse. If you are an abuser, what you need is privacy. Clause 191 would provide privacy for many abusers, and that needs to be looked at very seriously.
The idea that there is a surge of young women who are being investigated needs to be taken into account, because this clause stands or falls on the idea that there are a lot of young women who are under a lot of pressure because of the things that are being suggested.
Clause 191 will bring about the most radical change to abortion laws in a generation, and it was done on the back of very little scrutiny and debate in the other place. I believe it falls to us in this Chamber to give it our full, undivided attention.
The other question I pose to the Minister is: what level of support is there for this publicly? We have heard that many of the professional bodies support the Bill, but do the public support it? Are they in the same place? Have they been consulted on what this would mean? I do not mean, “Do they support abortion?”; I mean, “Do they support the effect that this Bill would have?”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way because I can save the Minister here. A study in 2023 by the National Centre for Social Research found that the majority of people did not want to see women criminalised in the kind of circumstances that we are talking about.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, but, of course, the wrong question was asked. Let us be very clear, I personally do not want to see anybody criminalised, and I doubt that people want to see women who have gone through a very distressing situation be criminalised. But they would probably want to see a law, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, across the way, that dealt with the balance much better. Currently, that was the wrong question to answer.
I tabled the amendment because I am very worried about the real-world consequences for young women in vulnerable situations where, when they are being coerced, their abusers would know that no investigation is even possible. No matter where you stand on the question of abortion, surely noble Lords can see that the most vulnerable young women should be protected by us in law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, talked about women who had suffered from rape gangs. They are exactly the kind of women I think would have benefited from some kind of investigation. As it stands, Clause 191 will prevent that happening.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 461 and in support of the Clause 191 stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton. I have put my name to that stand part notice, too.
As other noble Lords have observed, Clause 191 was passed in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact. In moving the amendment, the Member for Gower noted that it was about ensuring only that
“vulnerable women … have the right help and support”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 306.]
I am sure that we all support the provision of appropriate and timely support for a woman considering an abortion. However, it drastically understates the effect of Clause 191, regardless of the intent of its mover.
We must confront the radical legal reality that this clause removes all deterrence against a woman performing her own abortion up to the very moment of birth. How does that ensure that women have the right help and support? The clause will decriminalise actions by a woman at any stage of her pregnancy, including actions which are criminal at present under the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
In 1929, they knew that a child who has been in the womb for 28 weeks was capable of being born alive. Now, we know of children who are born alive at 22 weeks and live. In 2020 and 2021, 261 babies were born alive at 22 and 23 weeks, before the abortion limit, who survived to be discharged from hospital. Why is abortion so distressing? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said, it is because, by 23 weeks, the unborn baby has all its organs, muscles, limbs, bones and sex organs, it may hear, and it makes facial expressions, responds to loud noises, is getting into a pattern of sleeping and waking, practices breathing and it definitely feels pain. After that, they just keep growing.
Proponents of Clause 191 have been at pain to say that the Abortion Act is not changed and that the time limits remain the same, but that is not the reality of the clause. Clause 191 may not repeal the Abortion Act but it renders its protections largely symbolic in practice. At present, the Act operates as a tightly drawn exception to criminal offences that otherwise prohibit ending a pregnancy. Its force comes from the fact that abortion outside its conditions is unlawful. Once associated consequences are removed, the framework ceases to be a deterrent or a boundary for conduct and becomes, in effect, merely a regulatory code for providers, albeit with criminal consequences for clinicians who are left untouched for now. It is a profound shift. Time limits, certification requirements and clinical safeguards would no longer operate as meaningful legal limits on a woman’s actions.
Clause 191 is not an outworking of modernised enforcement; it is a hollowing out of the underlying settlement, which nullifies the protective structure built into the 1967 Act, particularly its recognition that abortion law is not a matter of personal autonomy but one of safety, safeguarding and the status of the viable unborn child. Both lives matter. The issue is not whether the Abortion Act still exists on the statute book; it is whether it still performs the function that Parliament intended. Clause 191 leaves the text intact while removing the mechanism that makes its limits real. I strongly urge noble Lords to support the removal of Clause 191 from the Bill.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
I wish to finish my sentence.
The woman may be unable to deliver it. It may get stuck in the birth canal. If it survives the attempt to terminate its life, it may be born alive, as babies still are. What then? What of the mother? When one gives birth, one is monitored by doctors to ensure no crises occur, if possible. Those crises can include haemorrhage, damage to the womb and bladder, and, in the worst cases, death.
If the Bill is passed and a mother chooses to terminate her baby other than as provided for in the Abortion Act, she will not be prosecuted. She may have been coerced into it, as we have heard at length, for a variety of reasons, but, despite being decriminalised, she may die or face life-changing injuries.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
The noble Baroness paints a very vivid picture of how traumatic it is for a woman to go through this once late-term. I am sure all of us would agree that nobody would do this lightly. Does that not reinforce why it is so important that the woman should not be in a position where she thought she could be investigated by the police at this point and why she should go and seek medical advice, safe in the knowledge that she was not potentially going to end up in prison?
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
There are situations in which the woman in that case, under the Abortion Act, can seek help. I would expect that she would, but there are situations in which she may not. I simply ask the Government how they expect it to happen. Doctors administer these drugs. Doctors look after us in childbirth. We do not do it ourselves.
I move to Amendment 461. A considerable danger associated with Clause 191 is the activities of abusers and exploiters. The shield, which would be reimposed if telemedicine were stopped, is a requirement for all women considering abortion. It is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman’s privacy and that she is not being coerced, or to verify that the person seeking the medication is the person who will actually take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking. It is important that the medication is not taken by a woman whose pregnancy exceeds 10 weeks. The NHS reported in July 2025 that, since 2020, 54,000 women have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from birth pills. Last year alone, there were 12,000.
In removing the criminal status of abortion, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, we perversely incentivise abusers to pressure vulnerable women into dangerous, isolated and self-administered late-term abortions. My Amendment 461 is a safeguard against that, which I hope noble Lords will be minded to support. It would create a provision analogous to that found in Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961—a special offence of encouraging or assisting an abortion which is unlawful under the terms of the Abortion Act.
The amendment would not chill medical advice or online information. It requires intent, which is a distinct threshold. Ordinary clinical counselling or neutral provision of information would not meet the test. The amendment does not engage with or change what is lawful under the Abortion Act. It concerns only unlawful terminations and intentional encouragement or assistance. If an abortion is lawful, the offence does not arise. Perhaps most importantly, its desired effect is safeguarding vulnerable women.
Under the current wording of Clause 191, there is a risk, if self-administering an abortion is no longer a crime, that the woman can be pressurised. By legislating expressly where safeguarding is paramount and creating a clear specific offence, we would send a strong protective signal for women. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and to talk to clinicians, et cetera. It is a measured, reasonable and necessary response. I urge noble Lords to support it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise with a certain level of trepidation and fear to convey a contribution during this debate, as I am not a mother. I have never enjoyed motherhood; therefore, I do not have the experiences of many women right across this Chamber. But I rise to support Amendment 460, to which I am pleased to be a signatory and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has already spoken, and the clause stand part notice on Clause 191 from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton.
I support Amendment 460 because the health risks of obtaining abortion pills without adequate prior in-person checks are now well documented. I feel that if they are to be available—if that is the way you support—you need an ultrasound and a full investigation.
I simply add one further example to those which have already been cited. The Irish Medical Journal published an article in March 2024 explaining how a woman in Ireland nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy after taking abortion pills. The article reported that the case
“could have been prevented by an ultrasound”.
If women once again had mandatory in-person scans, it would protect them, allowing ectopic pregnancies and other possible health risks to be picked up more reliably.
However, as has been noted, the woman is not our only consideration. I agree that there is a need to protect the woman but also the unborn child. By allowing Clause 191 to stand, we would remove the legal safeguards that exist to protect an unborn baby after the point of viability, when a baby could survive outside the womb. I contend that this is a radical and unpopular proposal. Indeed, this is an issue that should unite those of us who are pro-life and those of us who are pro-choice. In an article for the Times entitled “I’ve always been pro-choice but this is too far”, the well-known pro-choice commentator Janice Turner wrote
“I find it discomforting that a woman could abort a full-term baby and face no sanctions”.
She is not alone. Polling in 2024 found that only 1% of women support abortion up to birth, while just 16% of the public support removing a legal deterrent after the 24-week limit. In fact, 70% of women would like to see a reduction in our abortion time limits, not permitting women to induce their own abortions up to birth, as would de facto become the case under Clause 191.
As a Northern Irish Peer, I echo the earlier comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, regarding Northern Ireland. I was concerned to hear suggestions in the other place, during the truncated Report debate on this clause, that there are considerations about whether to introduce pills by post in Northern Ireland. I am deeply worried about this possibility. If supporters of Clause 191 really wish to bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, as they claim, I make a simple suggestion that they ought to support Amendment 460 and reintroduce the in-person appointments that we rightly continue to have in Northern Ireland.
I finish by quoting the Times leading article, published two days after Clause 191 passed in the other place:
“Even the most ardent advocate of a woman’s right to choose must see that this change risks a host of unintended consequences. While women considering ultra-late termination must”—
I support them in this—“be regarded” and supported
“with the greatest understanding and sympathy”,
as well as with compassion and humanity,
“the possibility of a viable child being killed shortly before its birth is not a prospect to be treated lightly”.
I know there are different views on that issue right across the Chamber, but I hold my view, and I respect the views of others who take a different viewpoint. There has been no great public clamour, I believe, for this change. I very much hope that Clause 191 will not remain part of the Bill, and I also support Amendment 460 to which I am a signatory.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 459 and in support of other amendments that have been tabled in this group, in particular the clause stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, and Amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Clause 191, were it to become law, would open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Although these consequences may be unintended, they are not unforeseen. After all, many of us warned about exactly what would happen if the pills by post scheme was introduced. Indeed, the only reason we are having this debate is because, tragically, those warnings proved to be accurate, and the supporters of pills by post now wish to decriminalise late-term, self-induced abortions as a result of and, dare I say, to conceal the results of this reckless scheme for which they lobbied.
Those consequences were foreseeable, and if Clause 191 makes it on to the statute book we can foresee what its consequences would be too. Although women ending the lives of their unborn children after the 24-week limit may be spared prosecution under the clause, I fear they will not be spared the grave resulting dangers to their physical health and the lasting trauma that would accompany such abortions. It is for this reason, and many of the others that have already been set out, that I wholeheartedly support Clause 191 not standing part of the Bill, and Amendment 460, which would reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be obtained, should be approved.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness how criminalisation of the mother would provide any protection against abortions on sex-selective grounds. That is the argument she is making, it appears to me. How would criminalisation stop this?
Baroness Eaton (Con)
The criminalisation is known by both the partner and the mother, and it gives the woman a reason to say that this is a dangerous process that easily could lead to one or both of them being accused of an illegal act.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
The noble Baroness has had one intervention, and only one is allowed.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, the noble Baroness can take as many or as few interventions as she wishes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Well, that is not the information that was given earlier, but there we are. I think I have answered the question.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
No, I have already had one, and I am happy with it, thank you.
This is not scaremongering. We need only to look at other countries to foresee what the consequences of decriminalisation would be. Sex-selective abortion has been a significant problem in Canada since abortion was decriminalised. An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal has outlined that:
“Easy access to abortion and advances in prenatal sex determination have combined to make Canada a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons”.
Evidence of sex-selective abortions has also been found in Victoria, Australia, since decriminalisation—so much so that one doctor was investigated by the medical board of Victoria for failing to refer a woman for a sex-selective abortion. Australian broadcaster SBS reported that there are higher numbers of boys than girls being born in some ethnic communities in Australia since decriminalisation.
If we go down the path proposed by Clause 191, we could expect the same to happen here, risking profound social and demographic problems. Estimates suggest there are more than 140 million missing women and girls across the globe, in most part resulting from sex-selective abortion and postnatal sex-selection infanticide.
Sex-selective abortion in China, arising in part because of the country’s one-child policy, created enormous demographic challenge in the country, with media reports describing how millions of men have struggled find a wife in the country.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness accept that sex selection has to be done under the auspices of the regulatory authority, the HFEA, and that it is illegal in this country and has remained illegal? It would be very difficult for clinics to use that technology without the support of the HFEA.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
I remind the noble Lord that there is already an issue in this country: BPAS suggests online that it is not illegal to have sex-selective abortions, so there is some dispute about that information.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 461—
Baroness Eaton (Con)
I have not finished. That was an intervention. Sorry; I have nearly finished.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I ask the noble Baroness to conclude her remarks: it is well over her 10 minutes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Yes, sorry, it is. I will just read the last paragraph. It is the interventions that have taken time.
Some of these examples may sound fanciful or seem extreme, but the worst consequences of a policy rarely announce themselves plainly at first sight; otherwise, we would always pass perfect laws, and we do not. We would be foolish not to learn from evidence in other jurisdictions. I contend that it would be far wiser to reject Clause 191 altogether. Doing so would protect women—both baby girls in the womb and the mothers who carry them.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 461J, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, spoke so eloquently. It addresses the pardoning of women who have already been criminalised. When Clause 191 becomes law, I look forward to this amendment being part of it because, as your Lordships all know, having a criminal record precludes you from some jobs and from getting visas to some countries. It is a very serious thing, and this small amendment is well worth while.
The overwhelming support from the professional bodies must weigh heavily on your Lordships, even those who are doubtful about Clause 191. I am grateful to those in the Committee who have experience in this field. It struck me that if the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of General Practitioners are all behind, who are we to raise many of these issues? That is not to say we should not debate the important points. However, where those involved in delivering healthcare for women are so overwhelmingly supportive, this seems to me to be the right course.
The noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, asked about surveys. Well, I have one from YouGov that cites 70% of the public as saying that women should not face criminal prosecutions for having abortions outside the set rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, made the comment: what is the role of this House? Well, the role of this House, which I am glad to say it is undertaking very well this evening, is, as we know, not to overturn the will of the Commons, where the vote was 379 to 137.
There are many amendments in this first group that seem innocuous. We debated some of them a while ago—for example, the requirement to keep statistics—in the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. But they are not innocuous; they are really just a back door into undermining the very idea of Clause 191.
My last point is about an issue addressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. I have understood that decriminalisation does not encourage more, or later, abortion. In the countries that have practised it, such as Canada and New Zealand, it has not been the case that it has encouraged more or later abortion. Other noble Lords have eloquently made the point that abortion is not something that you, as a woman, just choose lightly. I have not had an abortion myself; I have had only a miscarriage, and I happily have two children besides, but that was enough to tell me that you would not lightly go and choose this. Getting rid of Clause 191 is an essential part of moving us into the 21st century and away from the very Victorian attitude that has prevailed until now.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, before I discuss the substance of the amendments in this group, including my Amendment 461F, I want to make a brief observation. In my experience, both in the other place and as a Member of your Lordships’ House for a little over three years, the issues we are considering today in this group of amendments and the two that follow have become increasingly difficult to discuss openly. By that, I mean that we seldom consider the merits of the arguments put forward in good faith and instead fall back on principled objections. I regret that abortion has become such a binary and closed-off debate in this country. One’s views on the subject are put into a box: compassionate or unfeeling; morally progressive or morally regressive; forward-looking or Victorian. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this serves nobody well, whether in this place in facilitating constructive and reasoned debate, and thereby serving the watching public well or, perhaps more importantly, in promoting the safety and well-being of women and unborn children.
There are, I would hope, things that we can agree on. Statistics released by the Department of Health and Social Care on 15 January show the highest number of abortions ever recorded in England and Wales, with 278,740 taking place in 2023—a 10% increase on the previous year. When added to figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland, this amounts to nearly 300,000 abortions across the UK in 2023. Nearly one in three of all pregnancies ended in abortion in 2023.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I think we can all agree on the fact that there are a certain number of people in this Committee who have never been pregnant and never had to go through this. That does not mean that everybody else does not get to have an opinion on it, but there will be a lot of young women looking at this debate because the consequences of this debate will be very profound. That was the point I was making.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I have never committed murder or been a hangman, but I can take a view on capital punishment from a moral view. To disaggregate people and their right or obligation to comment on the debate is not helpful. I caveat that by saying I have an awful lot of respect for how eloquently the noble Baroness put her case.
As I said at Second Reading, this will harm women, increase the number of late-term abortions and dehumanise children in the womb in a way I find chilling. But that has not been reflected on in the way that this has come to form part of the Bill.
During the debate on Report in the other place, which lasted a little over two hours in total, three new clauses were debated: proposed new Clause 1, which is now Clause 191; proposed new Clause 20, which proposed an even more extreme form of decriminalisation than that which we are considering today; and proposed new Clause 106, which I am delighted to see tabled again as Amendment 460 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stroud, which, needless to say, I strongly support.
In fact, saying that there were two hours of debate on such a significant proposal is perhaps overly generous. Sandwiched between the remarks of the three Members moving the proposed new clauses and the responses of the Front Benches, just 46 minutes were given over to speeches from Back-Bench MPs. The point is that there has been a scandalous lack of consideration of this change in our law and its impact.
I accept that some aspects of abortion law are an issue of conscience, but that is not a “get out of jail free” card for failure to undertake any form of due diligence, particularly on proposals that many of us regard as potentially dangerous. There is no impact assessment, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny and there has been no consultation of any kind. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this group, addresses those issues.
I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in her proposal to remove Clause 191 from the Bill and will do so again on Report. However, the danger of Clause 191 is compounded by the continuation of the pandemic hangover policy of pills by post, which provides for easy access to abortion pills without sufficient checks. I am afraid I simply cannot understand the view that holds that Clause 191 is pro-women. In combination with the ongoing availability of pills by post, it instead seems to me to offer the worst of both worlds. It opens the gates for overly expeditious access to less-than-safe care.
As the Member for Reigate in the other place has said:
“Being pro-choice should not mean supporting fewer checks and worse care for women seeking an abortion. Indeed, this is an issue where both sides of the abortion debate ought to eschew tribalism and unite in support of common-sense measures that safeguard women”.
I hope that we can rise above tribalism on this issue and find some common ground.
There are amendments in this group which I strongly support, including Amendments 455 and 459, but I will move on to my own Amendment 461F. While I would pick out other excellent amendments from this group, in the interests of time I will speak to my amendment particularly. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the investigation of offences relating to abortion and infanticide within 12 months of the commencement of Clause 191. The amendment is concerned with providing clarity and clear protocols to distinguish between what would be a decriminalised self-induced abortion and a criminal act of infanticide or child destruction.
My amendment is also designed to reassure proponents of Clause 191, including some who advise concern about possible intimidation or distress caused to a woman who may have experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth. I recognise those concerns. Women facing miscarriage, stillbirth or medical crisis deserve care, dignity and compassion and nothing in my amendment would change that. However, I point to the other way around and suggest that the absence of clear guidance is what can produce overreach and inconsistency. When professionals are left uncertain about the law and about thresholds, practice understandably becomes variable. Some cases may be mishandled—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am puzzled by something that the noble Lord has said and perhaps he would like to clarify. I am not quite sure how jailing women is pro-women.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will forgive me, I did not quite hear the last part of her question.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The noble Lord has talked about being pro-women and I would like him to explain to the Committee why jailing women is pro-women.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The simple point is that if Clause 191 is incorporated into the Bill, we will have a situation where many more women are under threat of coercion and many more women will face complications. Even the incomplete and substandard figures produced by the Department of Health on abortion in 2023 show that, at over 20 weeks’ gestation, 60.3% of women per 100,000 experienced complications arising from abortion in all clinical settings. That phenomenon will continue and will get worse. I hope that that is sufficient for the noble Baroness.
My amendment is directed towards striking an appropriate balance by providing legal certainty that would prevent overzealous investigation, weighed against the need to protect children. By defining clear thresholds for investigation, we protect vulnerable women while maintaining a shield for infants born alive. Clause 191 fundamentally changes our legal landscape and it is appropriate and reasonable to require updated public consultative guidance so that police and prosecutors understand what remains investigable, what standards apply and how to act lawfully and consistently.
In conclusion, if Parliament insists on decriminalising the woman’s role in procuring her own abortion, it has a profound moral duty to ensure that the law can still protect the infant the moment it leaves the womb. Amendment 461F is a measured attempt to ensure this and arguably the bare minimum in terms of responsible lawmaking. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment and others in this group, which seek to protect women and the most vulnerable lives among us. I urge Ministers to consider my Amendment 461F carefully as the Bill moves to Report.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, until recently I was head of the Royal College of GPs. Our college is fully in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. As Professor Hawthorne said:
“No woman should face prosecution under antiquated laws that were created before women were even allowed to vote. This change in the law is a vital piece of protection for the reproductive and health rights of women”.
I would like to pick up a few issues. I have been fortunate enough to work in the NHS, in a legal state in terms of abortion, which has been absolutely fabulous, because I have seen many young women and girls and older women coming and needing terminations of pregnancy and I have guided them through it. I want to talk about a few things—for a start, telemedicine and “medicines by post” and the assumption that this is somehow a bad thing. I would like to turn it all round and say that this is a patient-centric initiative. Imagine having to travel far and to have to go past your abusive husband or abusive partner to say where you have been all day. This is humane and patient-centric and about 50% of women choose this option.
It does not mean that they do not get a proper assessment. Many people are assuming yet again that it is a sort of tick box. It is an hour-long consultation with pre- and post-termination counselling and at any point the woman can be seen face to face. I have also been hearing an assumption that it is an unsafe procedure. I think that I heard—I may have misheard—that one in 17 women end up having complications from having had a medical termination. That is not the figures from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It says that, under 10 weeks, one in 1,000 women have heavy bleeds and at, over 20 weeks, four in 1,000 do. Those women are in hospital. Clearly it is very different. It is nothing like one in 17. You also have to compare that—we have the comparator—with women who miscarry at home without having an abortion, who probably end up in hospital, as I did twice as a young woman when I had miscarriages. I also want to pick up the issue that somehow telemedicine is a process without any legal requirements. Of course it has legal requirements. It is currently, and will continue to be, regulated under the abortion law. What we are doing is decriminalising it.
I then want to talk about foeticide or foetal sex selection. Foetal sex can be determined as early as 10 weeks and many women choose, for one reason or another, to know the sex of their child. Both my daughters-in-law—I was going say my sons but, of course, for the purpose of this, boys cannot become pregnant—chose to determine the sex of their child, just as many people do. It is perfectly legal to determine the sex of your child—at the 20-week scan, anyway, you can choose to determine the sex. Women can then choose to have a legal termination if they so wish, though I am struck by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, saying that there are legal implications. This is conflating the issue of decriminalisation and sex selection. I personally am against sex selection, but it is not part of this argument about decriminalisation.
I would also just like to address the under-16s and compulsory safeguarding assessments under what I assume would be a multi-agency assessment, including the police and social workers. As the law stands, women under 16 can obtain an abortion and obtain sexual health advice and contraception without safeguarding implications—clearly noble Lords all know about Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines. This would be a retrograde step. These young girls would not come to see us. They would probably end up like one patient who I saw very late in pregnancy. She presented with a rash on her abdomen, which is the rash with stretch marks; she was 32-weeks pregnant. She was so terrified—and this was before the law changed—of admitting that she had had unprotected sex and had not had her period. Compulsory safeguarding is a retrograde step and has nothing to do with this decriminalisation, which I fully support.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I mainly want to defend Clause 191 remaining in the Bill, but with some reservations. Before that, I want to acknowledge public interest in this issue and a popular worry that it is all about legalising abortion up to birth. That is what is being discussed. Worse than that, people believe that somehow this legal change was rushed through the other place almost by the back door. Legalising abortion up to birth is not what is contained in Clause 191, but I have sympathy with the public’s confusion over that and criticism about how the clause was added to the Bill in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke about some of this and everybody else has now mentioned just how little time was spent discussing this in the other place. More important, most people did not know it was coming. Most members of the public were not expecting such a big change in the law. Wherever you stand on this, abortion might be a settled entitlement for women—most people accept that abortion exists in society—but it is still a morally charged, difficult discussion. For some, conscience is involved. There are contestations, certainly about when life begins.
We cannot deny it: if anything talks to going beyond 24 weeks—and, as we have heard today, even 24 weeks is contentious or becoming so; it should not be, but it is—the public are perfectly right to be a bit furious and feel that somehow the democratically accountable system has been snubbed. I say that because this debate needs more discussion and depth. I am glad to hear that we are getting some of it here, but we certainly did not get it when the clause was brought into the Bill in the House of Commons. That has led to a big backlash, which, as it happens, is not necessarily the best atmosphere in which to conduct a rational, reasoned debate.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I want to speak to the three amendments which I have tabled in this group. I urge noble Lords to show the normal courtesies that we extend when a Peer is speaking to an amendment that he or she has tabled.
I will start with my Amendments 456B, 461H and 461K. Amendment 456B is the third amendment in this group. As matters stand, the law allows for abortions only under certain clearly defined conditions after 24 weeks. Amendment 456B aims to ensure that women follow these conditions after 24 weeks. I suppose it is the most important of my three amendments, which is why I am speaking to it first, bearing in mind the problems and consequences to which other noble Lords have already pointed.
Clause 191 leaves abortion over 24 weeks as unlawful, but in practice it also leaves open the possibility for a woman to have such an abortion without consequences. My Amendment 456B would help to ensure that present-day legislation is observed by stipulating that criminal culpability is removed from the woman only if the abortion takes place before 24 weeks. As the law stands at present, there is a big difference between before and after 24 weeks. The law is clear that before 24 weeks there is a procedure and regulations to be complied with, and it is a relatively straightforward procedure. In practice, abortions before 24 weeks are allowed to go ahead once the paperwork has been done. By contrast, after 24 weeks abortions are allowed to go ahead only under a defined, limited process and subject to stringent conditions, such as that the mother’s life would be endangered or that the child would be born with serious defects.
These matters have been raised as if they do not exist. These stipulations have been raised in the Chamber as if they were not already part of the law. When a woman procures an abortion outside the legal procedure before 24 weeks, she almost certainly would have had the abortion lawfully. The fault is one of failing to go through the proper procedures. However, for abortions performed outside the law after 24 weeks, the position is completely different. These are abortions which may not have been permitted under the law had the woman sought permission. To put it bluntly, in these cases, the woman kills her own baby when she has not been legally permitted to do so and might have been denied the permission. Remember that, in cases post 24 weeks, the babies concerned may well be viable.
The new clause removes criminal culpability from women for abortions at any time. It is hard to see how a reasonable distinction can be made between a baby who is ready to be born and one who has just been. I was very impressed by the speeches of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on these points.
I will conclude on this one, which will be the longest. It has been pointed out that the next stage in these matters is to decriminalise infanticide. What do we think of a society which kills babies a day before being born—indeed, as they are ready to exit the womb? Although the act remains a crime, the law excuses the main perpetrator. This would leave us with an act that remains a crime but the law excusing the main perpetrator of any blame. Is this the sort of society we want to create?
I move on to my Amendments 461K and 461H.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
While the noble Baroness finds her notes, I will say that I think Amendment 461K is a really interesting one. How are the Government going to make sure that providers of a variety of abortions actually operate within the law and make those checks? This is something I will be discussing regarding my amendment shortly as the debate continues.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but I will go on to Amendment 461H on in-person consultations. We have already heard from the proposers of Amendment 460, which would require that this consultation be in person. My amendment would require this, but it would also add that the gestational age of the baby should be ascertained by a medical scan or other equivalent means. Usually this means an ultrasound scan, which can be given at seven weeks onwards. First-trimester scans are generally safe, non-invasive and commonly used to confirm pregnancy, identify the due date of the baby and—
Lord Patel (CB)
May I just, for information, correct that? First-trimester ultrasound scans are carried out with a vaginal probe, so they are invasive.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Lord for that. But I think one of the American learned societies of obstetricians, gynaecologists and other kinds of medicine that indicates—as do other sites—that there is technology that is successful from seven weeks on, and certainly from nine or 10 weeks. There are differences. These differences are the subject of debate among medical professionals. I can see the noble Lord shaking his head.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Just as a matter of information, I must tell the noble Baroness that in a clinic I have run for over 40 years which does ultrasound on every patient with a high degree of expertise, these measurements are not that accurate; they really are not. There is a real risk that you get the wrong stage of the foetus completely—at least a month out, if not more.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, and I respect his expertise, but I think there is a debate about how successful scans are and from what stage. We can debate that on another occasion, but there is evidence that scans can be used successfully. I will not take any more interventions, because my time is running out and I have one more amendment to go through after this.
There is evidence that first-trimester scans are generally safe, non-invasive and commonly used to confirm pregnancy, identifying due date et cetera. At the moment, the requirement is that the medical practitioner believes in good faith that the pregnancy will not exceed 10 weeks when the medicine or the first dose of a course is administered. I contend that the condition stretches the idea of belief and good faith unreasonably widely, so the medical practitioner simply accepts what they are told, perhaps by the pregnant woman who may be speaking in perfectly good faith—we have seen tragic cases of this—but is mistaken, or else that it is only after the gestational age of the baby has been reliably ascertained that the medical practitioner is in a position to believe in good faith that the pregnancy meets the conditions stated. My amendment would not change the Act.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I will certainly bring my remarks to a conclusion. I will just briefly introduce my last amendment to Clause 191 if I may because of those interventions and, I have to confess, my loss of notes. Amendment 461K, my last amendment, proposes to—
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I will make an intervention in general about this rather lengthy debate. I draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 4.46 on page 63 of the Companion, entitled “Reading of Speeches”. I will read it out very clearly so that everybody can understand what it says:
“The House has resolved that the reading of speeches is ‘alien to the custom of this House, and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates.’ It is acknowledged, however, that on some occasions, for example ministerial statements”—
or statements from Front Bench speakers—
“it is necessary to read from a prepared text. In practice, some speakers may wish to have ‘extended notes’ from which to speak, but it is not in the interests of good debate that they should follow them closely”.
I also point out that the advisory time limits are made to include interventions. If there are interventions, that does not mean that you go over time. The reason that ministerial statements at the end of a debate are given 20 minutes is that that allows for interventions.
Lord Farmer (Con)
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the Companion says that we should not read speeches, but there is an argument that that is classist and sexist. Many women are not used to speaking ad lib—
Lord Farmer (Con)
Well, they are not. Many of us have not been parliamentarians for long, and we have not been at the right schools that have debating societies. If we want to say something important for the good of the common—
Lord Katz (Lab)
Order. We need to return to the debate. I suggest that the noble Baroness concludes her remarks imminently so that we can carry on with the debate.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 461K agrees that the people who support this clause say that they are not trying to legalise abortions that would otherwise be illegal. If that were to happen, it would be extremely important to ensure that proper mechanisms exist for prosecuting the party culpable—that is to say, the abortion provider—so that they are not above the law or beyond the reach of the law. We should not forget that, for the most part, it is non-medical clinics that provide around 80% of abortions, with taxpayers funding the bill. Like all service providers—
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness has had a lot of the Committee’s indulgence. We will take that as her finishing.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was in danger of no longer wishing to be heard. That is where the Committee was moving. When the Whips tell us to conclude, we really should conclude.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, some of us have been sitting through this debate right from the very beginning. Others have come in late and then made certain speeches. I notice that the noble Lord had to read what he had to say as well. Therefore, I will just say to him very gently, and as graciously as I can, that this is a very vital issue. There are those of us who believe that it is important to say what we have to say carefully and clearly, and we are therefore seeking to put a point on the record.
People are watching this. I must be honest, having sat here for so long, one can be very confused in our debates. On Friday, we were debating allowing and encouraging sick and elderly people to end their lives as quickly as possible, but now we are debating something that does not allow healthy babies to even live their lives, so people outside are confused about where we stand. Therefore, there is a matter that we need to deal with on this issue.
I say this as a father; my wife and I have five children, and we lost one child. I therefore resent anyone saying that I do not know what this is. As a father of five children who has brought them up through all those years, I certainly know, even to this day, what it is to bring up children. Women who are pregnant, whether it is an intended pregnancy or not, deserve compassion, support and honesty from us in this place as we debate these matters—as do children who are capable of being born alive. My concern is that Clause 191 unsettles a delicate legal balance—one that many of us already feel is too casual—on the rights of the unborn child, without the security that such a change demands.
In the other place, two hours and 15 minutes were found for a Backbench Business Committee debate to consider government support for the fishing industry. Debate on the forthcoming business lasted one hour and 17 minutes. These are important matters. I do not cite those figures to denigrate either the topics that were debated or the business managers in the other place. I am pointing out that I find it remarkable that the entire debate on this issue in the other House, which concerned not only Clause 191 but the more extreme decriminalisation proposal—as well as a sensible, reasoned amendment to reinstate in-person consultation before prescribing abortion pills—lasted just two hours.
In fact, it is even worse: some 46 minutes were available for speeches from the Back Benches. That is how long the other place took to come to a conclusion on decriminalisation concerning this issue. This is not responsible lawmaking on a matter that carries profound consequences for the status of the unborn and the safety of women. That is why I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in opposing Clause 191, and associate myself entirely with those who have spoken on that issue in support of her.
This is not simply a matter of differing worldviews or perspectives on the subject of abortion. Legal opinion, including that of Stephen Rose KC, confirms that Clause 191 would permit a woman to perform her own abortion at home for any reason, right up to the moment of birth, with no legal deterrent. We have heard another legal opinion, but, as we know, lawyers make their money by disagreeing with one another.
I am clear that science tells us that life begins at conception, but I also accept that this is not currently reflected in our law. However, whether one agrees or disagrees with the law as it stands, it is at least clear. In removing women from the existing criminal framework, as Clause 191 does, we upend our current settlement. As the gestation of a pregnancy advances, the state’s interest increases. This is not arbitrary: it recognises the view that with increasing viability must come increasing protection for the unborn. This is an explicit recognition not only that are two lives involved in any pregnancy but that they both require protection.
This is also a matter of safety. On complications, a government review published in November 2023 found that medical abortions after 20 weeks, even in clinical settings, have a complication rate more than 160 times higher than that of abortions under 10 weeks. The Government’s own commentary on the publication of abortion statistics for England and Wales in 2023 acknowledges that data on complications does not present a true picture. It says that,
“where … medication is administered at home, complications may be less likely to be recorded”.
Without an in-person check, women can obtain pills, perhaps mistakenly or through pressure, far beyond the 10-week limit for pills-by-post abortions. As it is, this seems a recipe for a disaster, but, with the deterrent effect of the current law removed by Clause 191, I fail to see how this problem will not be exacerbated and how more women will not be placed in precisely these higher-risk situations.
This is why Amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, ably supported and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, matters. By restoring in-person consultation before pills are prescribed, the amendment simply returns us to a best practice model with regard to women’s safety and the protection for viable unborn babies. It provides a crucial opportunity to assess gestation accurately, to screen for potential harm and to identify coercion or abuse. This is not a restrictive or regressive measure but a pro-safety one which, according to the poll of 2,103 adults by Whitestone Insight shortly before Clause 191 passed in the Commons, is supported by two-thirds of women, with only 4% in favour of the status quo.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking late in the debate and others have made many points. I just want to speak to the amendments in my name in this group and say a few brief words about the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, to which I am a signatory. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud, Lady Eaton and Lady Lawlor.
I consider myself very fortunate to have never had an abortion, and I wonder how many of us in your Lordships’ House have actually had one. I want to make it clear that I do not oppose abortion altogether. No woman would choose an abortion lightly, and I fully recognise the points that have been raised about the distress of police investigations for women at that time in their lives. But we owe it to ourselves and to the women affected to be honest about the reality of what we are discussing.
In 2022, 260 abortions in England and Wales took place at or beyond 24 weeks’ gestation. These abortions must be performed in NHS hospitals. The woman is awake—she goes through actual labour, including painful contractions; she will deliver a fully formed infant via a vaginal delivery. We may wonder whether every woman going through this is fortunate enough to be in a bereavement suite with specialist care, or will she be in the next room to someone delivering a healthy baby? At 24 weeks, a baby is 12 inches long, weighing about 1.5 pounds, with a fully formed face. The NHS website tells us that at 32 weeks, an unborn baby is perfectly formed and just needs to put on weight. Once delivered, we wonder what happens to the infant. They are classified as clinical waste to be incinerated; at earlier gestations, women are advised that they can take the remains home, bury them in the garden, flush them down the toilet or place them in household rubbish.
There is no extensive research on the long-term emotional impact on women of late-term abortions, but natural human empathy tells us that this must carry significant emotional impact and distress. My heart goes out to those who are in this position because of foetal abnormalities, but I ask your Lordships whether extending this experience to any point in pregnancy, including up to full term, is truly in the interests of women and girls, many of whom are victims of reproductive coercion, domestic abuse, child rape, trafficking or modern slavery, when we have so little understanding of the long-term effects.
In fact, there is complete silence around late-term abortions. It is a taboo subject associated with complex feelings. There is hardly any information about what it actually involves or how it will impact women and their bodies. Removing any legal deterrent, as this clause does, means that we put more women in a world of scary and unsafe unknowns, and we leave our public services to pick up the pieces without any plan. These are almost certainly not women with significant resources, resilient mental health or strong support systems. We are leaving the most vulnerable at greater risk of exploitation.
I come at this, respectfully, from a totally different perspective from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and others, because we know that abuse often takes the form of reproductive coercion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, explained in the case of Stuart Worby, and we know that this is a pattern for grooming gang victims as well. I fully accept that this is not the design or intent of the policy, but it very much is the unintended consequence. How many of us can genuinely say that we always pass perfect laws without unintended consequences? It is not the case. This situation could happen via the pills by post scheme, or by coercion or other reasons.
Those who support this clause present it as a feminist fight for women’s rights, and accuse those of us on the other side of the debate of ignoring the suffering of women. They tell us this radical law change is necessary because dozens of women are facing life in prison under a Victorian law. But almost every part of this claim is questionable. The law in question, the Offences against the Person Act 1861, may be old, but it is still the basis of our laws today against GBH and manslaughter, and nobody would suggest that they are obsolete. The idea that women are facing life in prison is also fanciful. The one high-profile conviction in recent years under the Offences against the Person Act resulted in a short prison sentence that was suspended on appeal. As for the numbers, the groups who are campaigning for this tell us that six women have been prosecuted over the past three years. Given that there are now almost 300,000 abortions a year, it is hard to see why this justifies such a significant change. Of course, it is regrettable if there are women who have been wrongly investigated, but that is a police matter. We do not disapply other laws simply because people are sometimes wrongly investigated. It is critical that we make the distinction between babies who would and would not be viable outside the womb; that is why we have the 24-week limit.
The Member in another place who tabled Clause 191, Tonia Antoniazzi, is on record as saying in an interview that she was comfortable with women being able to abort at 37 weeks without committing an offence. Are people really comfortable with passing a law that means a woman could abort at full term for any reason without committing an offence, as would be the effect of this clause?
Many have spoken about the dangers of telemedicine, so I will not expand on that, but we discussed that in the assisted dying debate. Under that Bill, two doctors would at least have to make sure that the person applying for an assisted death was actually terminally ill by examining relevant records. But the pills by post scheme permits women to obtain abortion pills with no reliable way of ascertaining whether they are under the limit before which it is legal and safe to take pills or even pregnant at all.
I turn briefly to my Amendments 459B and 461G. While I sincerely hope that this Committee will support the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in case it does not, I have tabled Amendment 459B to introduce a sunset clause requiring the Secretary of State to renew the legislation after each of the first three years. The related Amendment 502A is to make the regulations in proposed new subsection (3) subject to the affirmative procedure. In so doing, it encourages awareness and scrutiny of the provision and provides an opportunity to reverse the effects of Clause 191, should the consequences be as I fear.
I have also tabled Amendment 461G, which would require an annual report concerning abortion drugs that have been obtained illegally, maybe online, which I worry will become more likely under Clause 191. Of course, this need not relate solely to women considering an abortion themselves—it might relate to third parties or traffickers who obtain pills illegally to coerce an abortion or cover up abuse. It establishes ongoing transparency and oversight concerning what I fear will increasingly become a matter of public health and a safeguarding concern.
I should mention that I was unable to table any amendments to require the Government to collect numbers of pills by post that are issued or to require that this is captured on women’s medical records because those issues are not in the scope of the Bill. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would look at those issues because I think they are very important.
There is a genuine worry that with the numbers of abortions rising and young women turning to that option more frequently, the future consequences for their reproductive health are simply unknown. We have many noble Lords in this House who practise medicine, yet we could see women coming to them and not disclosing that they have taken pills by post in the past. The cases that have led to the clamour for decriminalisation up to birth have resulted from pills by post and the inability to ensure that safeguards are maintained. Taking these pills outside the 10-week gestational limit is a dangerous course of action. The Department for Health and Social Care consultation found that the risks of this would include an ongoing viable pregnancy, reduced efficacy of abortions and death. I hope the House will consider my amendments as additional safeguards for women and girls, and I commend them to the House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid it is clear that there are still a number of Back-Benchers who wish to speak on these amendments as well as the Front-Benchers, so I now propose to adjourn the debate on Amendment 455, move to dinner break business and then resume the debate on the Bill. I advise your Lordships’ House that notice has been taken of those who are here for the debate on Amendment 455, so when we resume, we will be able to continue the debate in an orderly fashion.
Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but it does not, in my view, completely address directly the issue that lies at the heart of the anger felt by many WASPI women. I am assured that the maladministration identified by the ombudsman, and the associated question of a financial remedy, arose from decisions taken under a Labour Government that were the responsibility of Labour Ministers. In the years that followed, there was notable and sustained support from Labour Members for the WASPI campaign, including calls for compensation, voiced by individuals who now occupy the most senior positions in government.
Now that Labour is in power, that position appears to have been abandoned. The result is not merely disappointment, but a profound sense of betrayal. It is no wonder that WASPI women are furious. At no point in the Oral Statement, as far as I can see or understand, was this reversal acknowledged. Instead, attention was diverted towards general references to changes in the state pension age, which did nothing to address the specific findings of maladministration or the expectations that were so clearly raised.
There is a strong sense of frustration surrounding this issue, not only among Members of this House but, more importantly, among the WASPI women. Much of that frustration arises not simply from the substance of the decision but from the manner in which it has been handled and communicated by the Government. From welfare reform to the winter fuel payment, and now this, a pattern has emerged of poor communication and delayed decision-making. Too often, it is not the policy itself that causes the greatest anger but the uncertainty, delay and lack of clarity that surround it. Indecision is itself a decision. In this case, it has meant leaving people’s lives and expectations suspended for months.
In recent months, expectations appear to have been raised only to be lowered again. Following the ombudsman’s report, many campaigners believed that a different outcome was genuinely under consideration, only to be told once more that nothing had changed. The Minister will recall suggestions that decisions on this matter were left unresolved until after the general election in 2024. That is not entirely accurate. Statements made before the election set out the Government’s position with some clarity, which makes it legitimate for WASPI women to ask why more recent communications appeared to imply that the issue and situation remained open.
Against that background, can the Minister explain how the Government now intend to communicate their position clearly and directly to WASPI women? Will letters be issued setting out the decision and the reasons for it? If so, when and in what form will that communication take place? Given the strength of feeling among those affected, this must be treated with the gravity it deserves. More broadly, there is a sense that poor managerial experience has characterised the handling of this matter, further undermining trust.
That damage has been compounded by the contrast between earlier rhetoric and the position now being taken. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary spoke of a cliff edge facing WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said she was fighting for a fair deal. The Chancellor said she wanted justice. The current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions publicly associated himself with MPs campaigning for a better outcome. Those who once stood beside them now appear, in their eyes, to have turned away.
I know that the Minister referred to pension credit and the importance of take-up, and I completely share that with her. I did my very best when I was in her position to make sure that we did everything we could to ensure that pension credit was taken up and increased. I am not sure if progress has stalled or whether there has been any improvement, so can the Minister clarify the position on take-up of pension credit and whether this can be used to placate some of these genuine WASPI women?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. The Government say the WASPI women should have known about the changes. I am reminded of a quote from the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
“But the plans were on display … you found the notice, didn’t you? … It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’”.
Another relevant quote from the same book said:
“All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 … years”.
The issue here is whether these women were communicated with adequately. Some 3.6 million WASPI women have been badly treated. They were given some hope; we have an ombudsman who made a recommendation to provide some justice and pay some compensation. Can the Minister say why this recommendation has been ignored? We have heard apologies but no compensation.
If you were a woman who knew that, at a certain age, you would receive a pension you probably did not give it another thought that the rules had changed. Of course, lots of announcements were made, and lots of letters were sent—sometimes belatedly, as the ombudsman said—but the truth is that the messages were not received or understood. The ombudsman has recommended compensation of £1,000 to £2,950 per person. I ask the Minister, very bluntly, why this recommendation has not been implemented. It is not a question of justice, but a reluctance to spend money on a group of people who cannot fight back.
Can the Minister take back to her colleagues in the department that there is a feeling—I hope—across this House that the WASPI have been maltreated and that the least they should expect is for the recommendation of the independent ombudsman to be put into effect? It is not enough, in my view, but it has come from the ombudsman, and I would like to hear what reasoning the Minister can give for ignoring this. I hope that she will take back to her colleagues in the other House and in the department the feelings of this House that the ombudsman’s decision should be honoured.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their questions. Last November, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told Parliament that the Government would make a new decision in response to the ombudsman’s findings on state pension-age communications. That followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced in December 2024. The Secretary of State has now concluded the process to make a new decision, and there is a copy of the Government’s full response in the Library.
We need to be clear as to exactly what the ombudsman did and did not investigate. The ombudsman did not investigate the decision, first taken in 1995, to equalise the state pension age nor to accelerate the increases. There are different views about the raising of the state pension age and about the decision of the coalition Government in 2011 to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66. However, that is not the subject of the ombudsman’s decision. What the ombudsman investigated is how the change in state pension age was communicated to the women affected and whether, within a specific and narrow time period, there was maladministration and injustice, and if so, whether it warrants compensation. The ombudsman concluded that the department’s communications met expected standards between 1995 and 2004. However, it found that between 2005 and 2007 there was a 28-month delay in the DWP sending personalised letters to the women affected. The ombudsman found that this was maladministration. We accept that those individual letters could have been sent earlier and the Secretary of State has apologised for that. We also agree with the ombudsman that the women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.
The question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. However, the evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Further, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions, the very women who most needed to engage with a letter and where it might have made a difference, were least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning and the department stopped sending them.
The evidence also shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide range of public information, including in leaflets, through education campaigns, in GP surgeries, on TV and radio, in cinemas and online.
To compensate specifically only those women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women. That includes whether someone genuinely did not know the state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess conclusively the answers to those questions.
The alternative might be to introduce a targeted scheme, which we considered could possibly allow people to self-certify, but that could not be done in a way that was fair and represents value for money. Even if we asked women to self-certify that they experienced injustice, we would have no way of verifying it. As for a flat-rate scheme, it would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes.
I fully recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Many women born in the 1950s have experienced significant disadvantage, not least in the labour market. We will continue working towards equality for women in the workplace now and in future, and ensure that those with lower pension outcomes due to the inequalities they have faced in the past receive the right support. We are delivering support to low-income pensioners and pensioners more broadly by increasing the rate of the state pension, supporting the poorest through pension credit, and investing more money in the NHS to reduce waiting lists and to strengthen vital services.
For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned, our pension credit take-up campaign has been promoted to eligible pensioners and their friends and family. That is having a good effect and I would be very happy to talk more on that if noble Lords are interested. We are seeing significant numbers of increases in claims and awards, which is really helpful.
I turn to a couple of the other specific points that were mentioned. The noble Baroness challenged us as to why Labour in opposition took a different view. I will just say two things to her. The first is that she will appreciate, having been both in opposition and in government, that there is information that one has in government that one does not have when one is in opposition. We understand that many people are unhappy with what has happened. Although she is suggesting that it is entirely Labour’s fault, I suggest to her that quite a bit of the anger is about the rise in the state pension age and, in particular, the decision of the coalition Government to accelerate that in 2011, which meant a significant number of women finding that their state pension age went back more quickly than they had expected.
This decision is not about that; we need to separate the two things. We considered the ombudsman’s report very carefully, not just once but twice, and gave it due and proper process, including the information that Ministers were not able to see before they were in government. We concluded that it is right to apologise for the maladministration, but we believe that the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the right one.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that is the reason we made the decision. We accepted the ombudsman’s finding of maladministration. We did not accept the ombudsman’s approach to injustice for the reasons that I have explained about the impact of the not sending of those letters. The finding was narrowly about a 28-month delay. Because the evidence suggests that the majority of women were aware that the state pension age was changing, we do not accept that it is possible, on that basis, to construct a compensation scheme that would be targeted at those who experienced injustice.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, challenged me about the ombudsman. The ombudsman did their job, and the findings were fully and properly considered, but decisions on a compensation scheme of this scale are properly for Ministers and the Government to take. That is the case and, indeed, always will be.
This is a challenging issue, but it was right for the Secretary of State to review the evidence and to reach a decision based on due process and on the body of evidence. Looking forward to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement to make sure that things like this do not happen again and to help them to build a better life for themselves and their families.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I should let the House know that I am joint chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Inequality for Women, which serves to bring the concerns of many 1950s women to the attention of parliamentarians. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister, in answering the question, accepted the Government’s previous position that there was maladministration here. The Statement itself does not use the word. I was going to ask whether the Government still accept that there was maladministration; clearly they do, because my noble friend used the word twice.
My concern about this Statement is that it says:
“We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay”.
The trouble with that is that it ignores the first part of paragraph 12 in the ombudsman’s report, which puts that into context:
“We find that maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control”.
The report goes on at a later stage to say that this is a material injustice. So, although there was no financial loss, there was a material injustice found by the ombudsman. I could ask a whole series of questions, but my specific question is: do the Government accept that damages can be ordered by the ombudsman even when there was no direct financial loss? The Government appear to put considerable weight on the idea that there was direct financial loss, but there has never been a requirement by the ombudsman to require the Government to pay compensation. Does my noble friend accept that point?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I do not. I will try to explain. We accept the PHSO’s—the ombudsman’s—findings on maladministration, but we specifically do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice. The reason for that is that the evidence taken as a whole, including the evidence from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited letter. As I said, those less knowledgeable about pensions, the ones to whom it would have made the most difference, were less likely to read it. Therefore, the point is that a letter would have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age.
It is on that basis that we decided it would not be appropriate to pay financial compensation. We accept that the ombudsman recommends it, but it is based on the ombudsman’s approach to injustice, which we do not accept. If we do not accept that it is possible to construct a compensation scheme to compensate only those who have suffered injustice, because we believe the vast majority of those knew that state pension age was changing, then it would not be appropriate and that is the basis of the decision.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this is not the opportunity to relitigate the rights and wrongs of equalising the retirement age at 65 or even 66. Unusually, this was signalled well in advance. When I started my career in 1990, 36 years ago, our private scheme equalised pension retirement age at 63 and only five years later, the state followed at 65. It has been known for a long time.
As the Times newspaper said over the weekend, hyperbolic language about appalling utter “betrayals” and so forth could be applied to other state failings, but not this. Elsewhere, consequential changes introduced overnight with no notice, consultation or communication should be questioned. I am thinking about IHT on private businesses, the taxation of private pensions upon death and the introduction of huge increases in national insurance overnight. They are the sort of things for which hyperbolic language should be reserved.
Therefore, I am not going to line up and criticise the decision. It is one the last Government concluded was the right one and it is one that this Government have also agreed with. If I do have a regret, it is over all the nods and winks that were given to a group of women—and the cynic in me notes that this rhetoric was delivered in the pre-election period in a most regrettable manner. It is plain as a pikestaff that if the Government had weakened on this one measure, at a cost of over £10 billion, where would it have ended?
So, while the Government have marched the WASPI women all the way up to the top of the hill and down again, like the grand old Duke of York, the outcome was always inevitable. But that is a problem, because the false hope that was given has undermined confidence in the pension system among those who should be saving the hardest. Saving for a pension is a good thing; it fosters personal responsibility, security and safety for self and family—suffering pain today for pleasure tomorrow. It therefore needs long-term stability but successive measures such as reducing incentives to save for the future, undermining confidence in the system itself and adding complexity in the Pension Schemes Bill before this House make it worse. We are seeing mandation, where the Chancellor can tell funds what to invest in, size limits, where there is a veto for existing players to keep out an innovative competitor, preventing certain types of investment from being eligible into pension funds and so forth. Even salary sacrifice changes, which noble Lords will be debating on Wednesday, will incentivise employers to drop incentives altogether.
Taken together, these mixed messages—WASPI women included—have undermined the long-term thinking that everyone needs to save for a pension and have understandably led to the feeling of complexity, that, “Well, personal pensions are just not really for me”. Consequently, too many people are putting too much into tangible assets they can touch and in which they have confidence, which is driving bubbles. That was good business until last Friday, but now silver is down one-third and crypto is down 40% over the last few days. With this complexity in mind, does the Minister agree that when it comes to pensions, less is more? Does she agree that acquired, stable, patient capital is much better, so that those who want to save can do so and do not rely upon the state in old age?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, tempting though it is, I will save my wider comments on the Pension Schemes Bill for tomorrow, when I look forward to seeing the noble Lord once again in Grand Committee. It has been a great delight in recent weeks and I look forward to having the pleasure of discussing these things again tomorrow.
In answer to his questions, the decision was not inevitable. The Secretary of State looked at the evidence, assessed it all carefully and made a decision. Having made that decision based on the evidence, he issued a statement and put his reasons for the decision in the decision document which has been placed in the Library of the House.
I have two further points. One is serious, in that I agree on the importance of people saving. The Government are pursuing the Pension Schemes Bill and all the measures in it to make sure people get proper returns on their money, to ensure people can save more. That is why we set up the Pensions Commission to look at questions of adequacy. Secondly, if the noble Lord’s Government had really wanted certainty on this matter, they could have made their decision at any point before the election—but they did not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following the previous question, I note that saving for a pension is extraordinarily difficult for so many people who are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. It is really important not to preach to them about savings that they cannot possibly make.
I declare an interest in that I first met the WASPI women in 2015 and advised them on their first petition to Parliament. I am afraid I had to somewhat gently say that yes, they would get 100,000 signatures on that petition and Parliament would debate it, but it did not mean that the obvious sense of their argument would suddenly win. Politics does not work like that. So, here we are now in 2026.
My question to the Minister refers to one particular WASPI woman I met on the road outside here. She had quit her job at the age of 59 because her company was making redundancies. She thought she would get a pension very soon, so she left and took the redundancy so that younger people could keep their jobs. She then found that she would not get her pension for years. She ran out of the redundancy money and ended up on jobseeker’s allowance. She applied for job after job and did not get them. She had been an office manager for decades for a medium-sized enterprise. Then, the Department for Work and Pensions insisted that, to keep her jobseeker’s allowance, she must go on a CV-writing course and a whole lot of other really basic pieces of training. She felt utterly mistreated and abused.
I understand why the terminology in this Statement is the way that it is, and that the Government are talking in careful legalese, but as we have seen in reports today, the WASPI women are planning to fight on, and good on them. More than that, can the Minister understand how people who have been put through that ringer of a decade of poverty and struggle, and of being thoroughly disrespected by the system, would also like to hear words that acknowledge that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, and I am grateful to her for bringing an experience into the conversation, rather than talking in generalities. Obviously, she will understand why I cannot comment on the individual’s situation, but she makes a number of really important points there, which I would like to acknowledge. Clearly, there were a number of women who had hoped to retire early and then found they were retiring later. The challenge is that the specifics of this decision were about what difference it would have made had those letters been sent 28 months earlier, because that is what the ombudsman’s finding was about. I know that the issues people are angry about are much wider than that, so the debate has been much wider than that, but that is what the Government had to respond to, which is why it has been said in the way it has.
I was also sorry to hear that that individual did not get the support she would have wanted from the DWP. The Government are now investing very heavily in supporting people of all ages. Some of them find they are not well enough to be in the labour market until retirement; others want to get a job but find it is difficult, and it is hard to be older. But we are investing heavily in trying to support people in all those circumstances, such as those who find that their health is struggling but would still like to get back into work because they are not ready to retire, and those who want to carry on because they need the money. We are investing a lot in our work programmes and work coaches, tailoring the support there. I really hope that if that woman came along to a jobcentre tomorrow, she would get a warm welcome and someone to support her, enabling her to do that. In the meantime, the benefits system provides support for those who cannot work but are not yet ready to retire. I thank the noble Baroness for sharing that experience.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has made the case for why the Government did not provide any compensation. Quite clearly, the retirement age had to be aligned fairly quickly. In the interests of fairness, we would all support that. But will she accept that, in the wake of what the ombudsman said, the group of WASPI women has once again felt led up the garden path, feeling that they are going to get something at last only to be let down again?
One of the most depressing things in this whole saga is the conviction that these individuals, despite the delay—the maladministration in informing them—would not really have taken any notice of the letters anyhow. Could the Minister tell the House quite what the Government are doing to make sure that people are well aware of what their retirement package will be? The pensions dashboard is all very well, but it is clearly not going to reach the parts that have failed to have been reached in the past. Given how hard retirement will be for a lot of people, is she sure that they are now getting the message?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I fully understand that the fact that the Government had to take the decision twice will have caused uncertainty, but the decision had to be taken again because of a piece of evidence that emerged during the legal challenge. Therefore, the Government faced a choice: should they just ignore that fact and carry on regardless, or should they withdraw the decision, review all of the relevant evidence, including that piece, and make a decision? The Secretary of State took the right decision: to withdraw the decision, look at the information presented to him and the relevant evidence, including that piece, and reach a view.
On the position of individuals, the evidence across the piece suggested that a clear majority of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was changing and therefore had the opportunity to find out more. But the noble Baroness raises a really important point: a lot has happened since then, so we have a campaign going on to encourage people to check their state pension age. It is very easy to do this now. You can do it online, which most people can, or you can find non-digital ways. I do it myself every now and again. It tells you when you are going to retire and how much state pension you will get.
Also, bringing forward the dashboard for those who have private pensions will enable them to find out, if they have pots stashed in different places, what they have in them. And there is other support coming through in the Pension Schemes Bill, again to make sure that people get the kind of help they need. We are making sure that in future people will get clear and appropriate amounts of notice and we will do all that we can to communicate with them in a range of ways, so that the message gets across.
Lord Doyle (Lab)
My Lords, given that the person who has studied this the most, namely the ombudsman, said that there was not any direct financial loss from the delay in writing out to people, would my noble friend the Minister agree with me that, given the complexities that she has described of designing a fair scheme, the best use of what are at the end of the day very tight government resources would be to support those pensioners who we know are in financial difficulty through policies such as the pension credit and the triple lock, so we can be confident that we are giving the maximum support to those who really need it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question, particularly for the recognition that this sounds simple and in fact is very complex. One of the things that has made it so difficult is that it sounds so simple, but the Government had a very specific job to do, which was to respond to a particular report from the ombudsman which had particular findings, and that is what my honourable friend the Secretary of State did. He reviewed what the ombudsman said, looked at the evidence presented to him and made a decision. But my noble friend is right; the Government want to make sure that we support pensioners. For example, a commitment to the triple lock will mean that pensioners could see their incomes rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of the Parliament. Through our investment in encouraging people to claim pension credit and in extra help for people for heating their homes, there is lots that we are doing to support pensioners, and that is the place to put scarce resources.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is obviously a very difficult situation? I know noble Lords might not believe this, but I speak as a WASPI woman born towards the end of the 1950s. It might have been different for those born between 1950 and 1957, but I am absolutely certain I got a letter telling me that. The issue around women retiring at 60 and men at 65 was done from a post office worker in York, I understand. It was always going to be difficult, because they were never going to put men’s down to 60; it was always going to be the other way around.
I also had a friend who worked in the department at the time, who was absolutely certain that letters did go out. We cannot guarantee that everybody got one, but he is absolutely certain that people probably did. Women sometimes made choices. When I got married, I did not have the option of paying the small stamp, the married woman’s stamp, but people before me did. So, it is about getting that message out to people now that you cannot rely on somebody else’s pension support; you have to do it for yourself.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. That is why we are trying to get people, particularly women, to check their state pension age and check exactly what they are going to get. Especially now that the new state pension is different from the old state pension, it is important they all know.
I thank my noble friend for her honesty. It makes an important point about the nature of letters. The department did and does write to people sometimes about different things, but people’s recollection of unsolicited letters is not very good. I confessed when we discussed this the last time that when I first went to the department, I said, “I never got a letter about my pension”. And they said, “Well, Minister, we definitely sent them out”. I said, “Well, I didn’t get it”. And then, just over a year ago, I moved house and, when I unpacked a box, what should I find at the top of the box but a letter from the department telling me about the change in my state pension age?
At that point, I became much more open to the notion that most people would not have made a different decision had we sent the appropriate letters in that 28-month period—which is not to say that we should not put all the efforts into communicating as well as we possibly can through all the different ways we can to make sure that everybody knows what is happening. There is little more important when you are coming towards retirement age than knowing you will be able to pay the bills and look after yourself, and I hope we will do all we can to support that.
Crime and Policing Bill
Monday 2nd February 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-XIV(Rev) Revised fourteenth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jan 2026)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Committee may be pleased to know that I plan to be comparatively brief.
Before the dinner break, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, asked how many people in your Lordships’ House have had abortions. Of course I cannot answer that question, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that one in three British women will have an abortion during their reproductive life. That is the reality for very many women in the UK today. They will need this reproductive healthcare.
I will not go over what has been said before, but I want to respond to some of the things that have already been said that need a response, and I will raise a point that has not been raised but which is important for contextualising our debate. It relates to a comment made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about why we have seen an increase in investigations into what are often entirely natural miscarriages and late-term apparent or possible abortions. We have not discussed how the global political context has changed. There is an extremely well-funded global campaign around the world that is seeking to reduce women’s reproductive rights. For context on that, I went to the website of the Organization of American Historians and read an article by the historian Jennifer L Holland. She notes that,
“the antiabortion movement, in its many iterations, has radically transformed Americans’ ideas about women’s bodies, reproduction, feminist politics, and of course, fetal life. In the two centuries the movement has existed, its constituencies, tactics, and tools have all changed. But what has remained is the effect this movement has had on women’s lives”.
She adds that the movement
“transformed ideas as it also restricted the … ability of American women to access reproductive healthcare”.
The article goes on to note that, until around the 1840s, having an abortion in America was an unexceptional and “largely stigma-free” practice. That was because it had inherited the law from the UK that regarded anything before quickening as not being an issue; that is usually regarded as four to six months of gestation.
There is a reason why the law that we keep referring back to is from the 1860s. That was when we started to see a global movement, particularly an American-driven movement, which is now here in the UK, through very well-funded organisations and with millions of pounds coming from the US, through the huge power of social media, having an impact on whether people will think about these issues—whether they are a medical practitioner, police officer, et cetera. When we look at why we have seen an increase, we really have to consider the framework in which this debate is being conducted.
A long time ago now, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is not in his place, said that
“all investigations in this matter should be conducted with great sensitivity”.
What has become clear from our debate is just how invasive and damaging investigations are. I will not go through the cases that have been rehearsed here today. There have been GCSE students who have had their phones taken away and their lives totally disrupted—it is absolute chaos. That is the reality. I do not think it is possible to do this sensitively.
I will briefly address the amendments that seek to attack—and we have heard a concerted attack on it today—telemedicine. I link the remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gerada and Lady Fox, who both, in very different tones, perhaps, made it very clear that this has been an extremely successful delivery of healthcare. This is a safe and convenient way that has seen the average gestation at treatment for abortion fall substantially, with more than half of all abortions now taking place before seven weeks’ gestation.
If we were to stop telemedicine, as quite a number of noble Lords have called for, there would be a drastic increase in waiting times, women would have to travel long distances for care—even at the earliest gestations—and many women would be driven to buying pills online through legal, quasi-legal or simply illegal sources because of the lack of availability of that provision.
This brings me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who spoke about the number of abortions occurring in the UK. I hope the noble Lord and, indeed, the entire Committee would agree that that figure is a reflection of the inadequacy of contraceptive provision in the UK. I hope we can all agree that we want better contraceptive provision and therefore that would be a way to reduce the number of abortions.
I note that a study from BPAS found that nearly half of women found it difficult to access contraception because of long wait times, difficulty in securing appointments, and financial hurdles when they went to secure their preferred method of abortion.
I have two more brief points—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Is she aware that the World Health Organization defines a safe abortion as
“meaning that they are carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the gestational age, and by someone with the necessary skills”,
and that recommendation 30 in its safe abortion guide states that medical abortion at 12 weeks or greater should be managed only by doctors in a healthcare setting—in other words, a self-managed medical abortion from 12 weeks’ gestation is deemed to be “unsafe” by the WHO?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord has very powerfully made the case for ensuring that we are able to make that provision as early as possible.
I particularly want to address one amendment that we have only really heard the presenter address. Amendment 461B from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, would subject any female accessing legal abortion under the age of 16 to a mandatory investigation by police and child protection agencies. It is worth stressing that since 1985 it has been the law in England and Wales that under-16s can access contraception, abortion and sexual health care confidentially.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, first, I ought to say how I approach this debate. I had not intended to speak. The issue—passionate though people feel about it on both sides of the argument—is one that I hope I have always approached with an open mind. Abortion is a terrible thing in contemplation for anybody concerned, but it is a practical necessity for some. That is something that I have always felt strongly about.
One of the things that we could have been confused about in hearing the debate today is that the police are investigating every stillbirth and every miscarriage, which is not the case. If the death takes place or the child’s life is lost in a medical setting, usually the police are never involved. The time when the police become involved is either when there is a medical referral because there is a concern by medics or, alternatively, when there is an emergency at home or somewhere else.
I mention this because we have to be realistic, whatever the decisions made about Clause 191, about how the police respond. There are some ways the police response could be improved, but we have to give some understanding to the officers who deal with these emergencies, say, in a home or at a place of work. It could be a public toilet, or it could be that something is discovered in the middle of a field. At the beginning, the officers do not know whether they are dealing with a baby, a late-term foetus or a child who might have taken a breath or not; they have a very confused situation, and they cannot just walk away from it.
My first point is that there has to be some sensitivity. At a far earlier stage in the debate, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, raised sudden death syndrome for babies. The police have got far better at dealing with that sort of situation, because 30 years ago we did not know that sudden death syndrome happened. Now we do, so it is dealt with in a different way from how it was 20 or 30 years ago.
The bottom line is that there is a requirement to freeze the scene in terms of evidence, because it is no good two or three weeks after the event when a judge, a coroner or someone turns around and says, “Well, you must have seen this at the scene and gained the evidence”, and they say, “Well, actually we did not seize it; we did not freeze it”. There is a difference between starting an investigation and freezing the scene and making sure you have as much evidence as is available, without too much intrusion, at that first point.
It is really important to be clear about this. If we set off and say that Clause 191 will come into effect and there will certainly not be a criminal investigation into the mother, that does not stop the need to collect evidence right at the beginning, when no one is sure. I think we have to be a little realistic about this.
On improving the police investigation process, there are two things that would be really helpful. Number one is that a senior detective with some experience attends the scene as soon as possible—I would say within an hour—to see what they are dealing with, so that if there is evidence to be seized, it is done sensitively and the family are protected as much as possible. Probably as importantly, unless there is an immediate need to start an investigation—for example, we could imagine that there might be injury to a child or a foetus that is not possible to explain by what appears to have happened to it medically, for example a knife or something else—you need to consider that set of circumstances. But generally, within a period of time—let us say 48 hours—the police must seek medical advice about how this child or foetus died and what, if anything, should happen thereafter. That starts to create a process that we could all objectively rely on.
My second point is that there has been a little confusion about the fact that, if the woman is coerced, Clause 191 does not mean that the coercer is innocent. It has nothing to do with that at all. It is only about the mother, if it is decided that that should go ahead.
I would like to make two final points. I just want to sit here and learn, but one thing I have not heard addressed in the debate—the problem, it seems to me—is that there are some women who, at 24 weeks and onward, need help. Whether the state says they can have an abortion or not, they might take that decision. Where do they go? We all agree that a back street abortionist is not a good idea. They cannot go to a medical professional, who would then be complicit in providing the abortion, perhaps, that they cannot legally have. If they end up with these online tablets designed for those under 10 weeks, that is not a good outcome. But I am not sure that what the state says—what we say—will help them in that terrible dilemma, because the need that they feel to have that abortion beyond 24 weeks has not gone away. If we abandon them to that decision alone, I do not think we help anyone. I would like to understand this myself, regardless of the decision about Clause 191: how do women in this position get some help?
With an open mind, there were three points that I do not think we have yet clarified. One thing that I was really interested to hear was that the pills designed for under 10 weeks are available online for people beyond that, and it seems as though that is not a good idea. They are designed for people under 10 weeks because that is when they work best. At 24 weeks and beyond they sound like an awful option—but what if they are your only option? How are we going to deal with control of those pills? I do not understand, from Clause 191 or the existing law, what we intend to do about that.
The second point, from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was that there is this fundamental dilemma: the woman has not committed a criminal offence, but the people who enable her to do this act do commit an offence. I am not a lawyer, but that sounds like a contradiction. I think there has to be some explanation of how that gets remedied.
On the final point that was raised, I am not sure about the answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, did not think it relevant, but the point about sex determination as a reason for abortion seems to me a real risk. I do not know whether Clause 191 makes it more or less likely to happen, but it is a risk and nobody should allow that. It happens now, potentially, but if Clause 191 makes it more likely, what is the mitigation of that risk? I have not heard it. That needs to be addressed if Clauses 191 is to remain.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, for the benefit of the absent noble Lord, Lord Russell, I will attempt to speak in a paperless fashion, which means that if I engage in verbal streams of consciousness I hope that the Committee will forgive me. There is a range of amendments in this group, many of which I support, a number of which I have sympathy with and a few that I oppose. That is perhaps natural, given the fact that a number of amendments in this group pull in completely opposite directions.
Of the amendments that I support, I draw particular attention to Amendment 460, which would require that before an abortion could take place there is at least a clinical appointment, that guidance is given and that it is done through that route. Noble Lords have come up with a range of solutions to what we all appreciate is a sensitive situation and have tried to square the circle. The evidence from prosecutions that have taken place, and where there have been convictions, is that in almost every case there has been an absence of clinical support and someone has, in effect, gone on a form of solo run. Albeit that it may well have been in very difficult circumstances and taken with a heavy heart, nevertheless that is the route down which they have gone.
In the limited time available, I will concentrate on supporting the Clause 191 stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, because, with respect to those who drafted Clause 191, it is somewhat disingenuous, radical in its implications and dangerous, particularly for women. Let me explain why.
Mention has been made that it does not legally change the time limits. In a strict legal sense, that is true, but it does turn those time limits into a façade. If you have a situation in which an act that remains illegal can be carried out but the person who carries it out is immune and protected from prosecution in all circumstances—in blanket circumstances—you have a law that is utterly ineffective. It is the equivalent of saying that we will retain speed limits on motorways but anyone found driving on a motorway beyond that speed limit will not be prosecuted. It is somewhat disingenuous. A more honest approach would have been an amendment that simply said, “We want to move the time limit to the point of birth”. That is, in effect, what Clause 191 does, but the changes that it makes are disguised as the mirage that has been put in front of us.
This is a radical change. Within this Committee and society as a whole, there is a wide spectrum of views on the issue of abortion. Some, and I am one, would take a much more restrictive approach towards abortion and feel that with our current laws the balance is wrong. Others take a much more liberal or permissive view. The settled compromise between those positions is to say that, at present, the determining line between what is legal and what is not is whether a child can be born and viable at the point of birth. The point has been made that that line has shifted from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. There is a good argument that it should come down a little bit more. But Clause 191 will, in effect, shift the ground in some cases to a situation in which that abortion can take place up until the day of birth. That is a radical step that is out of sync with public feeling.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the mitigating amendments from a number of noble Lords, but I particularly support the proposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, that Clause 191 should not stand part of the Bill. I do so for a number of reasons; some are to do with principle and some to do with parliamentary procedure. Listening just now to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and before that to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I think that there are plenty of reasons why this deserves the kind of detailed examination that we have been giving it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House today, whatever our personal views may be.
Abortion is not just a medical procedure. It is not just about choice; it ends the life of a nascent human being. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said early in our debate, it is about the sanctity of human life. That is one of the key questions that we must always wrestle with when we come to this issue.
Since 1967, when Parliament permitted what were supposed to be terminations carried out in rare and exceptional cases, there have been more than 11 million abortions in the United Kingdom. That is one life taken across the UK every two minutes. Since 1990, we have permitted eugenic abortions on the ground of disability right up to birth. That includes things such as cleft palate or club foot; 90% of all babies with Down syndrome are now aborted in the United Kingdom, according to NHS figures.
Laws have profound consequences. We are not a debating society but we do send signals. Laws, to some extent, are like semaphore: they send a signal to society. They have profound consequences—social, personal, economic and demographic—and not just for the unborn child. Clearly, from what noble Lords have said this afternoon, there are consequences for the women and everybody else who is involved. The amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Maclean, Lady Meyer, Lady Lawlor, Lady Coffey, Lady Stroud, Lady Foster and Lady Eaton, and my noble friend Lady O’Loan, make it clear that this has profound consequences for women. We should take that into account as well.
Some noble Lords have touched on the question of law and whether international norms require us to do this. I remind the Committee that there is no such recognised right as the right to abortion in the European Convention on Human Rights. Decisions from the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that the convention does not guarantee a right to have an abortion, nor does it guarantee a right to perform abortions. The court has also been clear that Article 8, which guarantees the right to private and family life, does not confer a right to abortion. The court has ruled that domestic laws that prohibit abortion do not violate Article 8. In contrast, human rights laws grant protection to the unborn. The preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, states that the child
“needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.
We need to ask ourselves, when we talk about conforming with what other jurisdictions do, how well we conform to those norms as well.
Things have changed as a result of the Health and Care Act 2022. I took part in the proceedings on that legislation. On the fourth day, an amendment was brought forward to make permanent the Covid arrangements permitting at-home abortions. Let me remind the Committee of the words of the then Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who told the House, when announcing the end of the policy in February 2022,
“that it was always intended to be a temporary measure”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1820.]
Too often, though, temporary measures become permanent and new arguments are brought forward to justify them.
One of the key arguments put forward in support of Clause 191 today is the alleged rise in the prosecution of women in recent years. If there has been a rise, that is intrinsically linked to abortion pills by post. I was particularly struck that Jonathan Lord, now of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a former medical director of Marie Stopes, acknowledged that for the 160 years prior to 2022,
“only three women have ever been on trial”.
Between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022, data from the Metropolitan Police shows that of 42 arrests under Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Persons Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 34 of those arrested were men, and that of the seven who were ultimately charged, none of them were women. Prosecutions of women, I am glad to say, remain very rare indeed.
I know that there is agreement across the Committee, because we have all said it during the debate today, that any investigation of a woman following a pregnancy loss is a matter that requires deep compassion and sensitivity. Like others who have spoken in the debate, those of us who are fathers may have experienced the loss of a child as a result of miscarriage. We know what that means for men, as well as for women—what it means for everyone. It is the loss of a new child. Either life begins at conception or it does not. If it does, then the sanctity of human life that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, described earlier surely must be a consideration.
I acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which accessing care and support may be less straightforward, but that does not justify the removal of in-person clinical safeguards altogether, particularly where there are well-documented risks around gestational error, coercion and missed complications. A compassionate and appropriate response would surely be to address access problems through properly funded, local, in-person services and targeted support for vulnerable women who may be coerced or even trafficked, rather than relying on a remote model that prioritises speed and convenience over safety.
There are radical alternatives to the defeat. As many have said in this debate, wherever we come from on the substantive issue, abortion itself is not something that is good or desirable; we must do all we can to try to find alternatives to it. Instead of asking a Select Committee to examine the sorts of arguments we have heard, instead of pre-legislative scrutiny, instead of examining the dangers to women or the inevitable increase in the number of terminations, instead of looking for alternatives which promote the well-being of both mother and child, instead of—as one noble Lord rightly referred to earlier—an impact assessment or any of the normal requirements in promoting legislation, this new clause was added simply as a Back-Bench amendment at a late stage of a Bill which is not primarily about abortion, and it was given a cursory 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate in the House of Commons. That would not have happened in my day in the House of Commons. This is no way to make law. The Government would be well advised to withdraw this clause, pending further consideration of the practical issues that it raises.
The uncomfortable truth which all of us must wrestle with, irrespective of our in-principle views on abortion, is that with Clause 191 on the statute book, if a woman intentionally induces an abortion at a very late stage and the baby dies in utero or during the process and is not born alive, there would be no criminal offence available in respect of her actions, regardless of gestation.
Abortion pills are powerful drugs. They can involve significant bleeding, pain and complications, and they can be tragically misused. The purpose of an in-person consultation is not delay or obstruction but to provide a vital clinical and safeguarding checkpoint. I urge noble Lords, even if they cannot support the substantive objections that I have made to Clause 191 in supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, to at least support Amendment 460, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I hope that, when we return to this question on Report, there may have been some movement in that direction.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 461A, which would amend the Abortion Act. It is worth briefly stepping back. I completely understand why people have very different views on whether this is right or wrong or similar, or whether this is a healthcare treatment, but we have a law in place that puts restrictions on when abortions can happen.
It might perhaps feel that those restrictions are really just lip service. I say that because, in 2013 and 2016, the number of abortions was about 185,000 in England and Wales. It is now 278,000. A particular change started to happen in the statistics back in 2019, as, for the first time, people were allowed to take the second abortion pill at home. The first pill had to be taken in some kind of clinical setting, and then people could take the second pill at home. We saw a jump at that point, to about 207,000. I think I am right that 36% of abortions were taken at that point—that is about 75,000—where we saw the second pill be taken at home. We are now in a situation where, with the significant increase—a 50% uplift from a decade ago—72% of abortions are undertaken by both pills being taken at home. That is about 200,000 abortions in the year 2023, so there has been a significant change.
For what it is worth, I think that that is quite a sad figure. I appreciate that there will be people in this Committee who do not care what the number is—it is a woman’s right to choose. I do not agree with, or even respect, that point of view, but I understand it.
As has already been eloquently pointed out, we are now in a situation where Parliament still agrees that a crime may have been committed, but that, through Clause 191, the person carrying the foetus cannot be held responsible in any way. Therefore, the point of my amendment is to suggest that, instead of relying on good faith from the providers, we move to beyond reasonable doubt. I think that there is an element of my noble friend’s Amendment 461K, which proposes a new clause to make sure that the services provided are done in a lawful way.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can the noble Baroness help me by clarifying what her amendment would mean? Currently, a provider, or anybody who counsels a woman seeking abortion, will take in good faith what the woman might say to them about her gestation. But the noble Baroness’s amendment would move that to “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is at the level of a criminal court and not a social justice or civil court. That would mean that, in every case, the health professional who counsels the woman would have to provide evidence that they believed her beyond reasonable doubt. That would mean that there would have to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, one reason why I have chosen that phrase particularly at this stage—I might reconsider it for Report—is we are talking about a crime. If this happens beyond the terms which the law sets, it is a crime. This is about the change that happened, moving from taking the second pill at home to then just having both pills wherever. The case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred earlier was one in which another lady got the pills and gave them to the chap. They were then applied unlawfully, obviously, and the other lady was also convicted—admittedly, it was a suspended sentence. But there was accountability.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is it not the problem that in criminal cases where the reasonable doubt test applies, you often have external evidence, such as witnesses or documents? What my noble friend is talking about here is really an oral conversation, and the only material available to the service provider will be what the prospective mother has to say. It is very difficult on that basis to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
That is why I am not convinced that the situation that we have is satisfactory to uphold the law.
The other reason why noble Lords are concerned about Clause 191 is that Tonia Antoniazzi, who put this measure forward, has said publicly that she is very comfortable with abortions happening at 37 weeks—she has no problem with it at all. But I appreciate that that is not what everybody is in favour of.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to forgive me: I want to speak to a few other amendments, and I am conscious of the time.
The other thing that I am keen to mention is in relation to Amendment 459 in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton. It is specific to Clause 191. The issue was debated in the Commons in 2014, and the House said then that it was informed that it was completely unlawful. Of course, in the situation we have, you cannot use sex as a reason for an abortion; that would be unlawful. But one way in which this often get used is that someone might say that it would cause huge harm or distress if they were to have a boy or a girl contrary to the wishes of their family. It can be used as an alternative reason to access the various grounds in that regard.
Obviously, we are covering a lot of issues in this one group, which might be a reminder to people that it they could be spread over a few more groups. But we need to tread carefully. I am conscious that the Commons passed this by a huge majority, but I felt that it was just very blanket—almost like they wanted to decriminalise abortion entirely. That was how it came across. Nevertheless, it is our role to consider whether this is where we want to head, or do we actually want to find a better way of upholding the law than we have today, without the unnecessary affliction that some expectant mothers may fear?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 456 and 460. I have been saddened by the lack of appreciation of the protective role that the criminal law brings, and I appreciated the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. But it is important to consider some of the cases that have resulted in convictions and have not been controversial.
Sarah Catt, as reported by the BBC on 17 September 2012, aborted her baby at 39 weeks. She was prosecuted and sentenced for eight years; the body was never found—she disposed of it. The authorities realised because she had been for certain hospital appointments and no birth was registered; they went and investigated, and she said that she had had a legitimate abortion. It turned out that, when they searched her computer, because it was 2012, she had got pills from Mumbai and took those pills, and her husband knew nothing of what was happening. It is important to note that she was sentenced for eight years, and that is important particularly in relation to the amendments that seek to retrospectively pardon people. How will those connected to that lady, grandparents and potentially her husband, feel if that was no longer an offence because it was not controversial at the time? That is what we are dealing with here, that it would no longer be a crime at 39 weeks.
Having listened through many hours of debate now, I am unsure about the clarity and process of the law here. We have seen much suggestion that the pills by post are causing more investigations and heard about the nature of those investigations, but we need more detail and more evidence to legislate properly. Many noble Lords have tried to predict, “Women’s behaviour will do this” or “Women’s behaviour will do that” or “Things on the street”, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said, “will be different”. But we do not know that because we have not had that really important pre-legislative process.
We have also had evidence that there is, in fact, sex-selective abortion going on, and we have had no equality impact assessment. I think that is a big flaw if we legislate on this. However, we do know from evidence in New Zealand that there could be an increase in late-term abortions, and we know that there have been more emergency calls as a result of more complications when the pills are taken after the 10-week window.
One point that has not been covered is that, obviously, the ambulance crew are often the first people through the door, so I would be grateful if the Minister could actually give some clarity and restate what the law is for those emergency providers faced with that situation. Concepts like birth, born alive and the first breath are not that easy to apply in this scenario. If you look at the Medical Law Review, there is a very interesting article by Elizabeth Romanis, in the winter 2020 edition, looking at advances in medical technology which mean that you can now operate on a foetus and there is a potential for having artificial wombs so this legal personality at the first breath might not be so easy to apply. Do the ambulance crew need to use all of their professional skills to ensure that that baby is born alive or not?
Also, the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, in Article 45, is very strict, unless it is a matter urgency or necessity, to ensure that people who are not medically qualified do not intervene in the birth of a baby; it is actually a criminal offence to do that. So I think we need to know from the Minister the boundary there as well, if there might be people with the woman as she is taking the pills in a late-stage abortion.
Finally, many noble Lords have said that this only had 46 minutes of Back-Bench time in the other place. I have pondered whether there is an opposite to the word “filibuster”, because I think it applies to this particular situation. It is a sadness now, I think, when one looks at Parliament’s granting of conscience issues to MPs and Peers, that somehow we have ended up in the position where these issues have lacked the pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation that are vital to ensure that we pass good laws. I do not think this one is fit, at the moment, without the involvement of the public in consultation, a White Paper, et cetera.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, the debates today are of tremendous importance and, I think, of comparable difficulty to the painful debate about assisted dying, though that other Bill has rather overshadowed this clause. However, I think, in effect, that what we are talking about here does have some of the characteristics of a Trojan horse. It is a bit like a Private Member’s Bill hidden inside a government Bill. We have got just one day to consider the clause and to try to put some sensible restrictions and safeguards on what is clearly a risky proposal. I think the comments of many noble Lords have shown this.
I spent seven years responsible for Ofsted’s inspections of social services for children, and I saw a lot of the very worst of what parents, both male and female, will do to their children. On the Bill on that subject, debates have often been dominated by justified concerns for children’s welfare and safety, yet this clause goes the other way in explicitly legitimising the ultimate harm of killing a viable child if it is done by the mother, even where there is clear dishonesty or other wrongdoing by the mother and no mitigating circumstances whatever. I am not sure that that is a position that the majority of the public will ever see as progressive, inevitable or the way that the country should go.
It is, as various people have pointed out, a de facto removal of the term limit on abortion. With telemedicine coupled with self-declaration, what we have is something that is, I believe, really quite significantly unsafe. We simply do not have either the data or the monitoring systems to have the level of confidence that we should. By the way, I think we know that self-declaration and trust is not working as well as had been hoped in quite a number of Covid-era programmes where decisions are made remotely off the back of self-declaration. Some of the country’s woes come down to needing to find the political courage to say so and deal with that.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we have all received briefings on this clause, telling us that, unamended, it would allow abortion up to birth. I will address that in two ways. First, Clause 191 does not fully decriminalise abortion or alter the legal time limits. The legal framework remains for medical staff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, set out very clearly. It has the advantage of stopping women facing investigation after miscarriage or a stillbirth, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out, but it would also ensure that the very small number of women who have ended their own pregnancies outside the law receive healthcare, mental health support and referral to appropriate support services rather than facing year-long police investigations. That is what Clause 191 sets out to do.
Secondly, I understand that some are concerned that this change in the law may increase later-term abortions. Clearly, later-term abortions have higher rates of complications than abortions at earlier gestation, but that still remains relatively low. We can, however, look at evidence from other jurisdictions. Although the noble Lord, Lord Weir, is right to point out that there are lots of different gestation limits across Europe, bringing women into the decriminalisation zone would bring us in line with 50 other jurisdictions, including France, New Zealand, Australia and the whole of the United States, where no women can be prosecuted for having her own abortion.
Evidence from these other jurisdictions shows that abortion law does not affect the likelihood of later-term abortions, and decriminalising abortion does not cause or correlate with any increase in third-trimester abortions. That is confirmed by the WHO and robust global evidence from countries including Canada, New Zealand and Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out.
Looking at those in a little more detail—I am aware that it is late—in Canada, abortion was completely decriminalised in 1988. It is regulated as a health service with no criminal law or gestational limits, which goes much further that Clause 191 does. Over decades, data shows a stable pattern of early abortion and no increase in later abortion, despite that complete decriminalisation. In Northern Ireland, where abortion was decriminalised in 2019, almost nine in 10 abortions happened before 10 weeks, and there have been no reported cases of women ending their pregnancy at late gestations outside of medical frameworks.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making, but would she accept that the telemedicine is illegal in Northern Ireland? Pills by post is not an option, so the only route that any woman in Northern Ireland can use is the clinical route and within the timeframe. It is pretty obvious why there have not been any prosecutions; it is because there has not been a situation arising out of that.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
It is not the prosecutions that I am referring to, it is the cases themselves. I absolutely acknowledge that telemedicine is not available through medical services in Northern Ireland, but the pills are available illegally online and people are purchasing them. However, because women are decriminalised, they are never prosecuted for taking them.
The proportion of abortion procedures carried out before nine weeks’ gestation has increased in most countries with more liberal abortion laws. As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, that is why this change is so strongly supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and many other health experts. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the meeting with these experts was really helpful. Perhaps we could do another one of those before Report so that noble Lords who have further medical questions can ask them.
Amendments 455, 456, 456B, 456C and 461F would retain the criminalisation of women in relation to abortion law, and women would still face arrest, investigation and prosecution under the law. I very much appreciate the efforts to find some compromise in Amendments 456 and 456C, and it is important to discuss whether this is possible. However, the harm that Clause 191 seeks to address would remain if those amendments were to be included in the Bill, as investigations would still be ongoing and we would still see women being pulled into the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out.
I will briefly touch on vulnerable women. It is important to consider how this clause and the amendments would impact those women, who could be in a situation of abuse or coercion. Noble Lords have rightly raised concerns around this. Importantly, non-consensual abortion would remain a crime under Clause 191, including in the terrible case that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to.
Experts in this area have been really clear that the clause will be beneficial to women in this situation. The threat of criminal sanctioning can dissuade women from seeking help or even telling anybody what has happened to them. That is why it is supported by so many violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Refuge, Rape Crisis, Karma Nirvana and many more. These groups came and did a very helpful briefing to noble Lords; perhaps we could replicate that again before Report. I understand noble Lords’ concern around coercion, but we should listen carefully to the experts in this area.
I will address telemedicine and Amendment 460, which would repeal its provision. Like other noble Lords, I was here for the legislation on its introduction, and I will present what has happened since. A large national cohort study undertaken in England and Wales published in the International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics found that telemedical abortion is
“safe, effective and improves care”,
and is preferred by women. Full telemedicine is now essential for abortion provision and is being used by over 100,000 women every year in England and Wales. It has meant that once a woman decides she wants an abortion, she is able to access it more quickly and, therefore, more safely. Since the introduction of telemedicine, as the noble Baroness said, we have seen the average gestation at treatment for abortion falling substantially, with more than half of all abortions now taking place before seven weeks’ gestation. As we know, it is much safer to have an abortion as early as possible.
Telemedicine also provides a safe and confidential way for women in abusive and controlling relationships to receive abortion care. Safeguarding is an essential part of abortion care provision. Any patient that causes professional concern is provided with a full safeguarding assessment, and pre- and post-abortion support and counselling is available to all patients. Abortion providers are regulated by the Care Quality Commission, NHS England commissioners and the Department of Health and Social Care, which all have regulatory oversight.
I will address the medical complications point, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There have been 54,000 complications to medical abortion over the past five years, but that covers all gestations for all forms of medical abortion—in clinic, at home, telemedical or in person, scan or no scan, and at any gestation. Those complications are not reflective of pre 10-week medical abortion and are not exclusive to telemedical abortion care. No information has been included before 2021, when telemedicine was launched, so there is no analysis to see what has happened since then.
This also looks at the basic numbers of complications rather than rate, so it is an incomplete picture. As noble Lords have mentioned, over 1 million abortions have taken place in that five-year period. The number of abortions has gone up, which means the number of medical abortions has gone up. Therefore, sadly, the number of complications has gone up. But rather than looking just at the total figures, when you look at the rates shown by the latest abortion statistics and the hospital episode statistics, the rate of complications for medical abortion has fallen by 25% since telemedicine was introduced. That is why telemedicine is supported so strongly by medical professionals. Put simply, it is better care for women.
Telemedicine is a choice for clinically eligible women, not a requirement. A woman can always choose—
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
The noble Baroness talks about the number of complications being reduced in telemedical abortions, but the NHS statistics have shown a rise in the number of complications following the use of telemedical abortions, such that 12,000 people presented to hospital last year. Is the noble Baroness also aware that there is no collection of any statistics in Northern Ireland other than statistics delivered in accordance with the law? There are statistics on medical abortions and on surgical abortions, and that is it. There are no other statistics. I do not see where she is getting the evidence to support what she is saying in reference to abortion being decriminalised in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, as I said, I acknowledge that the number of complications has gone up, but we have actually seen that the rate has gone down, because the number of abortions has increased. Even though that number has gone up, the actual rate has dropped by 25%. I am very happy to share the figures.
On the Northern Ireland statistics, that comes from the Northern Ireland medical association that provides the abortions. I completely agree that the more statistics and information we can have on this the better, so we are able to make fully informed decisions. Again, I am very happy to share that with the noble Baroness.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
The statistics in Northern Ireland are collected from the health trusts that deliver the abortions; they are not collected from anyone else.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
Yes, from the people who provide the abortions. As I say, I am very happy to share that information with the noble Baroness.
Telemedicine is a choice—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am aware of the time, but can the noble Baroness, in the information she provides, please comment on the November 2023 government review, which says that the complication rate is higher when you are over 20 weeks’ gestation?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I am specifically referring to telemedicine here, which is provided under 10 weeks. That is what I am talking about when I refer to complication rates. I have absolutely already acknowledged that later medical abortions have a higher rate of complications. That is why telemedicine is a good thing, because it brings the abortions earlier. As we heard, over half now are under seven weeks’ gestation.
I am running out of time, so I will stop there on telemedicine, but maintaining the option of telemedicine up to 10 weeks’ gestation for women who want it is safe, effective and helps ensure that women who have made the decision to have an abortion can access it as early as possible.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
The noble Baroness has invoked foreign jurisdictions a lot, but is she aware that a lot of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, explained, have lower term limits whereby an abortion might be legal? She mentioned the United States, where she said there was no prosecution for abortion at all. Is she aware of how many states in the United States simply do not allow abortion? It is hardly surprising that there are no prosecutions if you do not allow abortion at all.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. I was talking about the decriminalisation of women. Those are the jurisdictions which never prosecute a woman for ending her own pregnancy. I acknowledge, as I did previously, that gestational limits differ and whether medical professionals are included in decriminalisation varies, but in over 50 states, including all the United States, even those with the strictest abortion law, no woman is ever prosecuted for ending her pregnancy. That is important to acknowledge when people say that this is a huge change which is going to impact behaviour. Our law dates from 1967 and lots of people who made abortion legal after that never criminalise women.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for setting out the context behind this debate, which takes place against a backdrop in this country of large-scale funding by anti-abortion groups across the piece and almost daily articles in our newspapers about anti-abortion. That is one of the reasons why we have seen an increase in women being arrested. Noble Lords were very careful in the statistics they selected. Some chose to talk about 2018-22. It is undeniable that in the last three or four years there has been a huge increase in the number of women being investigated.
There are three groups of people in your Lordships’ House. There are those who are fundamentally opposed to abortion, and we have heard from many of them today speaking to many of the amendments. There are those who, like me in speaking to my Amendment 459C, support a woman’s right to make informed choices and who, for the last 10 years, have followed this debate about decriminalisation. To those who say that this was brought in as a measure by the back door, suddenly sprung on the House of Commons, that is wrong. For 10 years we have been discussing decriminalisation. Dame Diana Johnson brought Bills before another place. We have had a great deal of discussion about it at different stages. Then there is a third group: the people who have doubts. The speeches of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, typified some of them. They are the people who I want to talk to today, because they have some concern that this is not right.
In my preparation for today’s debate, which I have been thinking about for several weeks, I thought about a parallel and I went to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, went to, so I am sorry he is not in his place. I went to the fact that in 1961—a very good year in my opinion—this House debated the decriminalisation of suicide. I went, with the assistance of the Library, to look through the Hansard reports of that debate and the parallels are striking. At the point when it came into Parliament, what was the first criticism? That this had been sprung on us and was too big an issue to be brought in in this way. Yet there had been 10 years of debate prior to that by people who thought this was not the right way to deal with this issue. People in the Church had great debates about it. I suggest noble Lords read those Hansard reports, because the debates both here and in the House of Commons are profound. They are succinct, which is perhaps something we should relearn, because it is quite clear that there is no correlation between length of debate and quality of debate. These were people who were profoundly concerned about a moral issue and about what signal Parliament would be giving out were it to take this very grave step.
I will quote just one speech that took place not in the House of Lords but in the House of Commons. At Third Reading, the Conservative Minister Charles Fletcher-Cooke said:
“Because we have taken the view, as Parliament and the Government have taken, that the treatment of people who attempt to commit suicide should no longer be through the criminal courts, it in no way lessens, nor should it lessen, the respect for the sanctity of human life which we all share. It must not be thought that because we are changing the method of treatment for those unfortunate people we seek to depreciate the gravity of the action of anyone who tries to commit suicide”.
I suggest that there is a very strong and clear parallel with our debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there are two evils here, and we have to decide between them.
Charles Fletcher-Cooke went on:
“One of the consequences of removing from the ambit of the criminal law this hitherto crime of attempted suicide is that it may be feared that some people may not be reached through the Mental Health Act; that there will be some who will not submit themselves to voluntary treatment, and cannot be persuaded by then medical advisers or members of their family to receive treatment. It may be apprehended that some gap in the welfare of the country may follow from that”.
He then said:
“We would all agree that it would be quite wrong either to keep the present criminal structure or to impose a new one purely for what we believe to be a very small minority. But we shall watch the situation and the Government will keep an open mind. We will see whether that small number increases and if a proposal not involving the odour of criminality is put forward to meet the situation, we shall certainly look at it again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/7/61; cols. 822-23.]
Two noble Lords talked about deterrence. Behind our deliberations today has been a fear that, if we cease to treat these women under the criminal justice system, we are somehow saying that what they do is less grave. I do not agree with that. I hope that, if I had taken part in that debate in 1961, I would have understood the point that they were making then, which is the same as the one we are making now: if somebody is so desperate that they would do this, they will not be in the right place if they end up in the criminal justice system. This is a medical issue.
In all the speeches we have heard today from noble Lords trying to chip away at telemedicine, the one thing that they have not dealt with is the point made to us by the people who see these desperate women: if we do anything to stop them being in contact with the medical profession, we put them in danger, and we will never get them out. In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I wondered whether police officers find themselves in other situations where someone has done something illegal that might have had a profound effect on their health. Is the first thing that comes into the police officer’s mind that the person should go to the criminal justice system, rather than making sure that they are medically safe? That is what we are doing throughout this debate: we are treating these women as being exceptional.
We should do what we have been doing for the past 10 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right that Clause 191 could be far more radical than it is. It is not radical; it is a very small adjustment to say that, if women are that desperate, they deserve medical treatment. All the amendments that have been debated today are just barriers in the way of that happening. I hope that people in this House, just as has been done at the other end, will realise that we are back to the same dilemma we had in 1961 and that we should do the right thing by desperate people.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this has been a full, difficult and passionate debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I know that issues of conscience such as this arouse very strong feelings, but I am pleased that we have managed to keep the debate respectful, as we always do in your Lordships’ House.
At the outset, I recognise that there are two aspects to this debate that we must firmly and definitively distinguish. The first is a matter of substance and the second is a matter of procedure. More specifically, the first is about the merits of the substance of Clause 191 and the second is about the process by which it became part of a government Bill.
On the first matter, that is an issue of conscience, and on this the Opposition do not and will not take an official position. I acknowledge that there is a multitude of views across the Committee, and indeed within my own party. That diversity of opinion is to be expected and welcome, but this is and always has been a matter of personal conscience.
However, the second matter is very different. Regardless of one’s views on the rights or wrongs of decriminalisation, the process by which Clause 191 was inserted into the Bill was, on any view, insufficient and, as a matter of procedure, deficient. The amendment was proposed on Report in the other place by Tonia Antoniazzi MP. It was not discussed in the Public Bill Committee or a Select Committee. As others have said this evening, it received 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. Many Members in the other place were limited to less than five minutes of speaking time. On such an issue of profound social change, in no way can that be described as a full and proper debate—compare that to the vigorous debate we have had today.
Because this was an amendment to legislation brought in on Report and not part of the Bill as introduced or as amended in Committee, and because it was not government policy, this proposal has not undergone any of the usual stages of policy formation. As your Lordships will well know, where a major change to the law is proposed, the Government would normally publish a White Paper or Green Paper, commission an expert panel or review, gather evidence, conduct a public consultation, and publish an impact assessment and relevant supporting documents. The policy proposal would then be published as part of the Bill. It would be subject to detailed scrutiny in a Public Bill Committee, where witnesses would be invited to give evidence. None of these steps has been taken. Whatever one’s views on the merits of Clause 191, that is not a recipe for good law.
Let us just pause and reflect on the wide variety of issues that have arisen today—the amendments themselves cover a lot of ground. We have discussed issues of police procedure and investigation, a panoply of medical issues, and issues around potential coercion, telemedicine, prosecution policy and the vulnerability of women. There is a multitude of difficult and intricate issues to cover.
It is interesting that, when Parliament considered the Abortion Bill in 1967, the abolition of the death penalty and, more recently, the legalisation of gay marriage, all were introduced as separate Bills that underwent the full process of parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, your Lordships Committee is currently considering another piece of social legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Despite being a Private Member’s Bill, that Bill has been subject to a rather more robust process and more significant scrutiny than this clause before us today. Of course, that is absolutely right; these are matters that, if we get them wrong, could have severe and perverse consequences. Again, whether or not noble Lords support Clause 191, the Committee is being asked to pass judgment on a provision to alter fundamentally the legal status of abortion, for right or wrong, without the possession of all the necessary evidence.
Indeed, during the debate on the clause in the other place, when discussing wider abortion law reforms, Tonia Antoniazzi, who as we know proposed Clause 191, said:
“More comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed, but the right way to do that is through a future Bill, with considerable collaboration between providers, medical bodies and parliamentarians working together to secure the changes that are needed. That is what a change of this magnitude would require”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/25; col. 305.]
I agree that these are changes of magnitude. A separate and distinct Bill would be a better way forward. Comprehensive reforms of legislation on social matters should have considerable collaboration between all relevant stakeholders. That has not happened with Clause 191. It is fair to say that, whatever one’s views on the moral element of the change, Clause 191 is so far-reaching, consequential and of such magnitude that it is questionable whether it is appropriate for it to be bolted on to the side of a crime and policing Bill.
Finally, I turn to the approach of the Government to Clause 191. Ultimately, this is now a clause in a government Bill. The Government may or may not have wanted it in the Bill, but, regardless of their neutrality, this clause is now in their Bill. If the Bill passes with Clause 191 remaining, it will be the Government’s job to implement it. It will unequivocally be government legislation.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Does the noble Lord believe that the 379 MPs who voted for this were duped into it in some way?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I do not think I suggested that for a moment—I do not accept that at all. I am pointing to the fact that this is a government Bill. It may not be the Government’s place to take a view on issues of conscience such as this, but it is their role and duty to ensure the coherence of the statute book and general good governance, and, of course, to implement the law of the land. I therefore have a couple of questions for the Minister. Are the Government satisfied with the process by which Clause 191 has been included in their Bill, and, if not, do they have any concerns whatever about that process? Further, the Government now face a binary choice: either they want the clause to remain in the Bill or they do not. It is not enough, with the greatest respect, for the Government to sit on the fence. I ask the Minister to answer that question as well.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Official Opposition, we take no view on the substantive issues of conscience here, but we have concerns about the process. This reform should have been subject to the usual consultations. It is a hugely complex, controversial, intricate area of policy-making, which deserves the fullest legislative process possible, and it has not had the usual procedures and rigorous scrutiny from start to finish of the legislative process. That is a matter of very great regret.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that there are strongly held views across your Lordships’ Committee on this very sensitive issue. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, is of course correct that the Government maintain a neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales. We remain of the view that it is for Parliament to decide whether it is in favour of this or not. That is not sitting on the fence—that is actually deferring to the will of Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, allowing your Lordships to vote according to conscience. The Government will not stand in the way of change, if that is what Parliament decides.
The noble Lords, Lord Bailey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked what the Government intend to do in certain situations. I remind your Lordships that this was not a government amendment, and therefore it is a matter for your Lordships. If this is the will of Parliament, the Government will ensure that the law is enacted.
That said, the Government must of course comment on the practical effects, workability and coherence with the statute book of any proposed legislative amendments. On 17 June last year, the Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls set out in the other place observations on what is now Clause 191. As this is already a matter of public record, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for not repeating what she said, save that I have been asked the specific question by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Falkner, about the effect of Clause 191 on the Abortion Act in how it deals with offences. The legal position is that the Abortion Act is unaffected by Clause 191. What Clause 191 does is to disapply the offences created by Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, but only for a woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. The offences still apply to third parties. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that any man behaving in the way she described would still be potentially committing an offence.
In order to avoid repeating myself later in this debate, I reiterate that the Government’s neutral position means that I will not be commenting beyond matters of workability and practical effect. As a shorthand, I am going to refer to conduct that could come within Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act as abortion offences. I do not intend to address all amendments. There are some, such as Amendment 455 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, where we do not consider there to be significant workability concerns, particular operational implications or unintended consequences that your Lordships may wish to consider: it is a simple policy decision to be made. If I do not refer to any particular amendment, your Lordships may safely assume that that is because the Government regard it as a policy decision for your Lordships’ House without any operational or other matters to be considered. Finally, because this is a large group of amendments, I have tried to shorten my remarks to only the parts that I regard as being essential to bring to your Lordships’ attention. If anything is unclear, I encourage any of your Lordships to write to me so that I can provide a fuller explanation.
I begin with Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. It may be helpful for your Lordships to be aware of the usual circumstances in which certain offences require that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, more usually, or that of the Attorney-General, more rarely, is required before criminal proceedings can be instituted. Generally, the concern to the DPP will be appropriate where either it is very likely that a defendant will reasonably contend that a prosecution for the offence would violate their convention rights or where there is a high risk that the right to bring a private prosecution might be abused and, if so, the institution of proceedings would cause the defendant irreparable harm. In general, prohibiting private prosecutions and ensuring that only the Crown Prosecution Service can prosecute is the check and balance used to mitigate these risks. If an offence involves national security or has an international element, the consent of the Attorney-General may be more appropriate. In response to the question asked by the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Bailey, as to the statistics being relied on, it is not clear to me whether the data requested is collected, but I will make inquiries and write to the noble Lord.
I turn to Amendment 459 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are clear that the law is also clear: sex is not itself a lawful ground for termination of pregnancy under the Abortion Act 1967. I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the same point. Accordingly, any third party, including registered medical practitioners, who terminates a pregnancy on the basis of the sex of the foetus alone would also be liable to prosecution under the relevant offences relating to abortion.
Turning to Amendments 459B and 502A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, it is worth noting that, as currently drafted, the deadline for the Secretary of State to lay the draft regulations and the deadline for Parliament to approve those regulations is the same in this amendment. Practically, then, the effect might be that, if the Secretary of State lays the regulations on the final day permitted, Parliament would not then have sufficient time to approve them before the deadline. As a result, Clause 191 would automatically cease to have effect, even though the Minister had complied with the requirement to lay the regulations. It is unclear from the amendment as drafted whether that is the noble Baroness’s intention or whether she intends to give sufficient time for both these processes to take place.
Amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who is no longer in her place, would mean that women would no longer be able to have a consultation over the phone or by other electronic means before being able to self-administer medicine for early medical abortion at home, as is current practice. Instead, women would be required to attend an in-person consultation first before being able to take pills at home. The Committee may wish to note that the overall effect of this new clause would be to limit access to home use of early medical abortion pills because of lack of resources for abortion providers to hold in-person consultations. It could also reduce women’s access to early medical abortion due to travel distances, if they live in remote areas, or if they have difficulties attending a clinic for different reasons—for example, vulnerable women, women from more deprived backgrounds or women subject to coercion. The Government wish your Lordships to be aware that, given that the majority of abortions take place via this method, this new clause is likely to have a significant operational impact on access to abortions. That said, this is, of course, a matter of policy for Parliament.
Amendment 461H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, is similar to Amendment 460 in that it seeks to introduce a requirement for an in-person consultation before medication to terminate a pregnancy may be lawfully prescribed. In addition, Amendment 461H would also require a scan, or what is described as a “clinically equivalent” alternative, to be conducted for all women to determine gestation before being able to take pills at home, whereas the current process is that an ultrasound scan is provided only in certain conditions where there is any uncertainty about gestation or where there is clinical need.
As drafted, it is unclear what is meant by “other clinically equivalent means” when determining the pregnancy’s gestation. Your Lordships may also wish to consider the likelihood that Amendment 461H would also result in additional costs being incurred because of either additional machines having to be bought and staff trained to provide an ultrasound for every woman seeking an early medical abortion, or the alternative, which would be to remove scanning capacity from the provision for other needs. Operationally, the requirement to have a face-to-face appointment and scan may also introduce additional waiting times for abortion care. This would have a particularly negative impact on those awaiting early medical abortion, but it might also have an impact on abortions at a later stage because of loss of system capacity. This could have the effect—unintended, we presume—of more abortions taking place later on. As with Amendment 460, the overall effect of this new clause would be to limit access to home use of early medical abortion pills because of resource issues in relation to the requirement in every case to hold in-person consultations and offer scans.
Amendment 461A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to apply the criminal standard of proof to medical assessments and decision-making. Your Lordships may wish to note that the operational effect of this additional burden of proof is that it is likely that women would no longer have a consultation over the telephone or by other electronic means before being prescribed medicine for early medical abortion at home, as is the current practice. Instead, women would need to attend an in-person consultation and have an ultrasound. So, for similar reasons to those I have already given in relation to Amendments 460 and 461H, Amendment 461A is likely to limit access to home use of early medical abortion pills and thus result in more abortions being undertaken at later gestation.
Amendment 461, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, seeks to create a new offence of intentionally encouraging or assisting a termination that is contrary to the Abortion Act 1967. We understand the noble Baroness’s amendment to be intended to work in the following way: a person would be guilty of committing such an offence whether or not a successful termination occurs and the amendment would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the offence following consultation with appropriate stakeholders.
Clause 191 provides that a pregnant woman cannot commit an abortion offence in relation to her own pregnancy, meaning such terminations would no longer be considered unlawful under the Abortion Act 1967. As a result, Amendment 461 would apply only where a third party encourages or assists someone other than the pregnant woman. Your Lordships should be aware that this is already captured by existing encouraging or assisting offences under the Serious Crime Act 2015. Therefore, Amendment 461 would create an overlapping offence. Additionally, your Lordships may wish to note that, in any event, third parties can also still be prosecuted at the moment under primary offences such as Sections 58 or 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
I turn now to Amendment 461B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. Safeguarding is an essential aspect of abortion care and all abortion providers are already required to have effective arrangements in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults in compliance with the department’s required standard operating procedures for the approval of independent sector places for termination of pregnancy in England. Your Lordships may wish to consider that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has published national safeguarding guidance for under-18s accessing early medical abortion services, which seeks to ensure that all abortion providers have robust safeguarding in place. We expect all providers to have due regard to this safeguarding guidance.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I will be very brief because I am conscious of the time. The other purposes for which this drug is prescribed do not require any face-to-face examination—am I correct in understanding that is what the noble Baroness is saying?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am saying that this amendment as drafted would criminalise those who receive that drug by post if they are using it for some purpose other than abortion. It may also be helpful for your Lordships to be aware that this amendment as drafted would make it an offence for a business such as a pharmacy or an abortion clinic to receive these drugs by post.
On Amendment 461G, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, your Lordships may wish to note that not all the information required under this amendment may be readily available. For example, it may not exist, it might require additional collection, or it may be held across different systems. It is unclear how there could be an accurate estimate of those who have illegally acquired abortifacients or the data that this estimate would be based on. Producing this annual report would therefore require the Ministry of Justice and other public bodies to take on additional responsibilities with associated costs.
On Amendment 461F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the Government remain neutral on changing the criminal law related to abortion, but it is important to note that Clause 191 does not decriminalise other offences such as manslaughter, murder or infanticide. These offences will continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service where the legal test is met. In addition, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are operationally independent of government, and it would therefore not be appropriate for a Secretary of State to issue guidance. Similarly, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are also responsible for guidance on investigations for policing.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 461J, tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornton. It is important to note that a pardon does not quash a conviction or a caution; what it does is remove the legal consequences that would otherwise attach to it. As with any pardon or expungement scheme, consideration would need to be given to how such a scheme would operate in practice; for example, how those individuals would be identified. There is no single centrally held record of all cases that may fall within scope of this amendment, so it has implications for how and when the duty to direct deletion would be triggered.
In addition, given the breadth of the amendment, which extends to any record of an arrest or investigation, the scale of the records potentially in scope is uncertain. Also, because the amendment is not time-limited, it would thus apply to dead women as well. Taken together, these factors may mean that implementing such a duty as drafted would carry substantial operational and resource implications for policing, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service and those responsible for maintaining national databases. The scale of the work required cannot be reliably estimated at this stage but it could be considerable.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I particularly welcome and support the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton, Lady O’Loan and Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, and so many others who spoke so eloquently and passionately.
It has been a very useful debate, which also highlighted how little scrutiny Clause 191 has received and how significant its potential effects could be—legally, socially and morally. At times, the debate revealed that we were speaking at cross-purposes: balancing the rights of women and the rights or non-rights of viable babies; balancing the rights of vulnerable women versus those who abort for personal or blunt, selfish reasons. We have all heard of women who aborted their child because they were afraid that a pregnancy would ruin their figure.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, hit the nail on the head. If I may paraphrase badly, it went something like this: Clause 191 risks decriminalising abortions undertaken for personal reasons while failing to guarantee the protection of women who have been a victim of abuse or coercion. This is an issue of such importance that I feel it merits much further consideration and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, highlighted, ultimately it should not be part of the Bill.
I personally remain concerned that Clause 191 could have tragic unintended consequences both for women and for babies able to survive outside the womb. I do not see this as a right to abort, but rather how we as legislators can better protect the vulnerable—vulnerable women and the unborn child. This is why I continue to support the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in proposing that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) The Secretary of State must, no later than 12 months after the day on which this section comes into force, and at least once every 12 months thereafter, conduct a review of its operation and impact.(3) The review under subsection (2) must, in particular, consider—(a) the incidence of medical complications for women acting in relation to their own pregnancy under the terms of this section, including incidence of maternal death;(b) the impact on the health and safety of women undergoing abortions;(c) the prevalence of self-induced abortions outside a clinical setting beyond 24 weeks’ gestation;(d) any reported cases of coercion or abuse related to abortions;(e) the application of criminal law to third parties involved in abortions;(f) any other topics the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.(4) Following the completion of a review under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must lay a report of the findings before Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal this section if he or she considers that a report under subsection (4) reveals it is having a detrimental effect.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I know the hour is late, and it might be as well to record for posterity that a number of us were prevailed upon to regroup our degrouped amendments to keep the number of groups at three instead of four. The quid pro quo, as far as I understood from the usual channels, was that we would be allowed a decent amount of time to transact the business. The noble Baroness the Government Whip looks at me innocently—with an innocent visage—but the reason that the hour is late is that, obviously, we have had tributes to the former Lord Speaker, dinner break business and a UQ. I am sorry that your Lordships’ Committee is having to sit later than I would otherwise have liked.
I will not labour again the points I made at Second Reading about Clause 191, but I believe it will exacerbate the dangers inherently present in the pills by post regime. Suffice it to say that the new clause will make it easier to get abortion pills, it will make it easier for abusive partners to coerce women into having an abortion and it will lead to more abortions, including more late-term abortions, thereby putting more women at risk of dangerous complications. My Amendment 457 would introduce a statutory review of Clause 191 to provide a mechanism that is, in my opinion, the bare minimum gesture of seriousness this Parliament ought to make when undertaking such a profound change to the criminal law relating to the protection of human life.
Amendment 457 has three core elements. First, within 12 months of the clause coming into force, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of its operation and impact, followed by annual reviews thereafter. Secondly, there is a requirement that the reviews examine maternal complications, including maternal deaths, the health and safety of women having abortions, late self-induced abortion, connected coercion or abuse and the application of the criminal law to third parties involved in abortions. Thirdly, there is a power for the Secretary of State to repeal Clause 191 if the review shows it to be causing harm. The areas specified for review are not arbitrary but the categories where risk concentrates. They are the precise pressure points where this legislation is most likely to go wrong.
Let me outline a couple of these areas. It is vital we look at maternal complications. There is a serious discrepancy in the Department of Health’s reporting on this. The DHSC’s latest figures published just last month claim a complication rate of just 0.3 per 1,000 early medical abortions, equating to 71 abortions out of 236,000 in total. That sounds very good. It allows the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the Minister, to repeatedly claim that abortion pills are safe. That is incredibly misleading. The official DHSC figures do not include complications reported after being discharged from a clinic. In other words, they do not include cases where a woman has taken one or more abortion pills at home, then has to go to hospital with infections, haemorrhaging or what is euphemistically called retained products of conception.
Those kinds of early medical abortions make up 82% of all abortions for residents of England and Wales in 2023. When you take into account hospital episode statistics publicly available for the NHS, you find that an estimated 12,000 women were admitted to hospital in 2023 with complications after taking abortion pills. There is a world of difference between 71 and 12,000, but the Government consistently refuse to report on the real picture. I have asked a number of Written Parliamentary Questions about upgrading the HSA4 form but to no avail. The Minister confirmed to me in writing in November:
“The Department has no plans to publish a separate annual report on abortion complications”.
I fear that, with Clause 191, the disparity between the official statistics and what is happening on the ground will only get worse. Modes of abortion provision have changed rapidly. Home-use pills, telemedical arrangements and so on all raise new questions. If Clause 191 increases the risk that women undertake dangerous procedures without clinical oversight or at later gestations, we must know.
Then there is coercion and abuse. Coercive partners, traffickers and other abusers sometimes pressure women into ending pregnancies. We must know whether decriminalisation for the woman inadvertently empowers abusers. Amendment 457 would require that to be examined.
That brings me to the third feature of this amendment: the power to repeal Clause 191 if the evidence demonstrates harm. Without this mechanism, the review would be merely an academic exercise. The repeal mechanism is a safety valve; it would not mandate repeal but make it possible where the evidence demands it. This is entirely normal, especially in sensitive areas of law. We have sunset clauses, review clauses and renewal clauses, all designed to ensure that legislation remains under scrutiny.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has been around this circuit before, I think on a Private Member’s Bill proposed by one of his noble friends, about collecting the statistics. It shows that he does not actually seem to have checked what statistics are already collected before deciding that these things need to be done. I thought that it might be useful for the Committee to know that the annual abortion statistics already include the ethnicity of the woman and medical complications as part of the treatment. The noble Lord will also be aware that it is incredibly rare that the sex of the foetus is known, because the vast majority of abortions are carried out or happen before 10 or 12 weeks—so that is simply not known or collectable.
Complications from abortion care are extremely rare and are already reported. Abortion care providers are regulated and scrutinised through long-established accountability mechanisms, including published safe- guarding reports and Care Quality Commission inspections. These are on the public record; I am not sure why the noble Lord has decided that these things are not. Doctors are already legally required to provide information about abortions to the Chief Medical Officer, including gestation complications and grounds for an abortion.
The noble Lord is bringing forward amendments that would cause a huge amount of bureaucracy and might risk leaving medical professionals permanently unsure of the status of abortion law. I am sure that we would wish to avoid that happening. I shall be very interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the Government have to say about the implications of all these amendments.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We live in what a lot of us would describe as a post-truth world, in which facts are often passed off as opinions or, worse, that terrible phrase “fake news”. Sometimes opinions are passed off as being completely truthful facts, and sometimes we have misinformation going around the globe that comes not simply from conspiracy theorists on the internet but, sadly, sometimes from world leaders.
Given that context, it is important that when this House resolves on any legislation, looking into the future, that it should be on the basis of evidence, truth and facts. That is particularly true when it comes to abortion. It is an issue, irrespective of your views on it, which is deeply sensitive, and on which raw emotions are often provoked. To some extent we saw that earlier when, at times, the atmosphere of the Committee got a little bit tense. People have genuinely conflicting views on this, so the more we can try to base this on evidence, the better.
That is particularly true for the proposed changes that are being made in Clause 191, for two main reasons. First, although there has been some mention that this has been in the ether for a number of years, the specifics of this legislation came about by way of a Back-Bench amendment to a different piece of legislation, with a limited amount of debate on it. It was not part of a government programme or manifesto commitment. Any Back-Bench Member is perfectly entitled to bring forward an amendment; that is the normal procedure. The downside of that is that there has not been a direct level of consultation on this specific proposal.
Secondly, despite what has been said, there are some concerns about the quality of the data that we have on a range of issues. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and it seemed that she was putting forward two somewhat contradictory positions. You can either make the argument that all this data is already there and already gathered, and therefore these amendments are unnecessary, or, alternatively, you can make the argument that this would involve so much gathering of data that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. You can argue either of those propositions, but the two are somewhat mutually exclusive in that regard. It strikes me that when we take decisions on this, it is important to get the data.
It has been highlighted—I think it was mentioned in a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposed—that there are sometimes concerns over the quality of the data. Perhaps not unsurprisingly—it is not unique to this particular debate—we have heard different people on different sides of this argument quote sometimes contradictory data as to where we are.
It strikes me that there are one or two solutions to these problems, neither of which is mutually exclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in the next group of amendments, proposes, apart from anything else, that we pause things until there is a proper consultation period. These amendments then look towards the idea of producing data and a report, and gathering evidence so that there can be a review of the procedures and how things work out. They highlight the range of issues that formed a number of the concerns in the previous debate. These are issues around the level of coercion, the medical complications that arise as a result of changes, whether it leads to a driver on sex selection, and, as mentioned, the incidence of late abortion, which then leads to a live birth. This range of issues highlights a lot of the concerns that were raised in the last group.
I appreciate that we have had this debate today, and that the proponents of Clause 191 will say that the concerns that have been raised—although I am sure they will accept they are genuine—are, in their view, misplaced or perhaps exaggerated, and that we have nothing to fear from Clause 191. Various incidents of what has happened in other parts of the world have been quoted. It is important, therefore, that we test that out. These amendments would gather that data and allow us to assess that. If we are dealing with false fears then, for the proponents of Clause 191, this will strengthen their argument in a year or two years’ time, whenever these things are reviewed. If the fears are genuine and are realised, however, then it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says, that if we gather evidence, it is not some sort of desktop exercise where we simply look at figures. If we gather evidence then it should be on the basis of having the opportunity, if it shows that there are increased dangers, for instance, to women or concerns over any other categories, to take a level of corrective action. That seems a very sensible course of action. I do not think there is anything that anybody should have to fear in these amendments, so I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and what he said sounds eminently sensible, but the problem is this: the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has set out the level of detail that is already gathered. The noble Lord, among other Members of your Lordships’ House, have gone on all day about telemedicine and coercion, yet when the royal colleges set up the evaluation of telemedicine, when it came in during Covid, they took particular care to examine issues such as that. They came up with data that showed that telemedicine was safe. Actually, it not only discovered women who were being coerced; it discovered women who were being trafficked. Yet Members of your Lordships’ House still trot out the same argument time and again. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and I am afraid I rather think that it does not matter what data we collect: they will make the same arguments over and again.
My noble friend Lady Brinton cannot be here this evening, but she particularly wanted to say this: the detail of these amendments is designed to confuse and delay the safe and effective legal rules of abortion. They would also take abortion out of the clinical sphere, trying to exceptionalise it and create an environment so hostile that it would deter women and, equally important, clinicians and medical staff, as the rules become more and more complex; and it would also be at the whim of the Secretary of State to amend details or to report at various times. It is a worrying idea to use secondary legislation to make everything more complex, because it gives Ministers the powers to change things and causes confusion and distress.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I have listened to what has been said. Initially, I was not quite clear whether it was an intervention or not, but I appreciate that it is actually a speech. I think comparisons with America are somewhat facile, because if we were gathering data, it would be on an NHS-wide basis in that regard. The idea of anybody, as you would have in the United States—where an individual county will take a particular view—imposing different decisions or requiring different things is not something that could happen in this country. By all means, criticise the amendments and try to take them apart, but let us not make false comparisons based upon the very different federal system they have in the United States compared with what happens here.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I do not think that it is a false comparison. What we are saying is that, instead of having a system that is democratically decided openly and in Parliament, we will leave it to regulation and officials. I think that is wrong.
The other thing that my noble friend Lady Brinton wanted to say relates to proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment 457. Imagine a woman who is, in the words of the amendment,
“acting in relation to their own pregnancy”,
having to identify and report medical complications. What does that mean? I do not think that that is intended to make it any easier for a woman in need to access the care she needs. I think it is intended to frustrate and, therefore, I hope that these amendments will not be passed.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I fail to understand the logic of both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, in setting their face against collecting more data. The fact is, we are not certain. We are still not certain as to the veracity and accuracy of any of this data. To give an example, the Royal College of Gynaecologists has issued “Making Abortion Safe” guidelines to providers for the safe use of medical abortion after 20 to 22 weeks. These guidelines recommend the use of feticide to avoid the foetus being born with signs of life, which can cause distress for women and their care providers. In the same guidelines, the RCOG states that there will be a
“need for further intervention to complete the procedure”
in 13% of cases. That is more than twice the highest rate reported by the—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Order. My Lords, I am ever so sorry, but an intervention, according to the Companion, should be short, brief and specific to the point. So, if the noble Lord could actually make his point, I would be grateful.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Standing Order 29 does not apply, and I am entitled to speak more than once in—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Absolutely, but this is an intervention.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I have not finished yet. Standing Order 29 does not apply in respect of the ability for a Member individually—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the hour is late, and I appreciate that this has been a very difficult debate. What I am saying is that the rules on an intervention are clear. The noble Lord is absolutely right that he can speak repeatedly, but he said
“Before the noble Baroness sits down”,
so we believed this to be an intervention.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The Government Chief Whip is very flexible when it comes to that side of the Chamber segueing between speeches and interventions, and she does not intervene. It is only on this side that she intervenes, to throw off this side. The points she has made are not in line with what the Standing Orders and the Companion say, which is that a mover of an amendment and others are entitled to speak more than once.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has just promoted me, and I thank him for that. However, we have a very good Government Chief Whip, who I am privileged to serve under. The noble Lord will appreciate that, through my whipping, I have been trying to manage this in such a way that everybody has been able to be heard. Regardless of position, I do not think anyone here knows my personal views. On the current topic, it is the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that is still on the annunciator, and the noble Lord indicated that he wanted clarification on a point before the noble Baroness sat down. That is what I was saying. We all believed it to be an intervention. If it is not, we can move on and revert back to the noble Lord for his second speech.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I think my case has been made. These are a set of amendments which are designed to be unworkable. They are wrecking amendments, and I hope that we will not pass them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The thing about Amendment 461C, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has said, is that quite a lot of this data is collected. Clearly, it was late this year, and there would be no point in doing a JR on the basis of that.
I understand that not every abortion happens at the point at which the sex of the foetus is known, but that data would be worth collecting, given the concerns that exist about gender or sex-selective abortion. It might be worth the ONS adding the question to the questionnaire or HSA4 form in the future.
Last year, the collection rate on ethnicity was 92%, but it would be useful to understand what further work the ONS might be doing to try to get that up to 100%.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate, and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling these amendments. I have already set out at length the view of the official Opposition on what we see as the procedural issues with Clause 191 in my response to the previous group. I will not repeat myself, but simply refer your Lordships to my previous comments.
My noble friend’s amendments relate to the provision of information and statistics relating to abortions and complications arising from abortions. As has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Moylan in his Private Member’s Bill on this topic, there is an issue with the collection of data for complications from abortions. To conclude, I hope the Minister will be able to set out what action the Government are taking to improve the collection of data for such complications.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to reporting requirements and monitoring abortion services. It is important to say again that the Government are neutral on this. My remarks are limited to workability, operational concerns or possible unintended consequences. I am not going to speak to all the amendments, only those where there are particular issues that should be brought to the attention of the Committee.
Amendment 457, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, as currently drafted means that parts of the information that would be required are broad and the exact meaning is not always clear, raising practical workability issues. Not all the information required may be readily available, and producing an annual report would require the Department of Health and Social Care to take on additional reporting responsibilities, with associated costs.
Amendment 458, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report detailing complications from abortions procured contrary to the Abortion Act. Determining whether specific cases fall within the report’s remit would require investigations to determine whether they could be considered to be contrary to the Abortion Act. This could necessitate involvement from medical professionals or other public bodies to review individual circumstances.
Further, as I have just said in relation to Amendment 457, as currently drafted parts of the information required are broad and the exact meaning is unclear, raising questions about practical workability. Not all the information required may be readily available; for example, it may not exist, it may require additional collection or it may be held across different systems, including the abortion notification system held by DHSC and patient records within the NHS.
Your Lordships may also wish to note that producing this annual report would require additional responsibilities with significant associated costs to the Department of Health and Social Care and other public bodies.
Amendment 461C would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report disclosing data collected as required under Section 2 of the Abortion Act. I can confirm what has been said by my noble friend Lady Thornton: the Department of Health and Social Care’s abortion notification system already collects data on the self-reported ethnicity of the woman, when known, and complications that occur up until the time of discharge for all abortions. This data is published in the annual abortion statistics publication for England and Wales. However, as my noble friend Lady Thornton also commented, the abortion notification system does not currently collect information on the sex of the foetus, as most abortions are performed at an early gestation when the sex of the foetus will not usually be known.
On two further matters, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is correct: there has been a delay in the publication of the abortion statistics, but not for policy reasons. These are operational issues, which include moving to a new data processing system. We will announce dates for the publication of the 2024 data in due course.
Finally, on the question of sex ratios at birth, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the Department of Health and Social Care remains committed to publishing these statistics, and the publication dates for sex ratios at birth in the United Kingdom from 2018-22 and 2019-23 will be announced in due course.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, in particular, my noble friend Lord Cameron and the Government Whip, who is always very strict in the House, perhaps for the right reason.
It has been a good, lively debate. If I may press the Minister, and if she would perhaps be so good as to write to me on this, I have never had a satisfactory answer on the point I made earlier, about the use of the HSA4 form and why complications arising from terminations when a woman has left the clinical setting are not collected. It may not be hundreds of thousands, but it is a significant cost in terms of health outcomes and trauma for that woman, and cost for the NHS and private providers. We still need to know why that is not captured, because it does not provide the whole picture.
Nevertheless, with the proviso that we will return to this issue of data collection and empirical data that informs policy decisions, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the gestational age of the pregnancy exceeds 39 weeks.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the gestational age of a pregnancy is to be calculated from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I promise I did not allocate the amendments in these groups, so I am sorry if noble Lords have had enough of me. In fact, I have had enough of me today—but we are on the home stretch.
It will be obvious that Amendment 459A is a probing amendment, but it raises a very important point. It makes absolutely clear just what Clause 191 is going to permit. I believe it is beyond the bounds of what any responsible legislature should accept. As we all know, at 39 weeks’ gestation, a pregnancy has reached full term. At this stage, one is no longer speaking of premature viability, uncertain outcomes or developmental limitations; one is speaking, as clinicians will confirm, of a baby about to be delivered. Do we really believe that the criminal law should be entirely silent about the responsibility of the mother at that point? Should Parliament not insist upon a basic threshold of protection for the viable child who is quite literally on the threshold of birth?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
The noble Lord is moving his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am taking an intervention. I was more than happy to take an intervention from the newly minted noble Lord, Lord Doyle, but on the basis that wiser and better heads have prevailed, I will continue my words briefly.
The current criminal framework provides an important safeguard for women, particularly those under 16 and those who are vulnerable or at risk of coercion in what is already a highly permissive system. During the debate in the other place, the sponsor of the amendment, the honourable Member for Gower, claimed that legislative changes were needed “to protect the women”, but removing the legal deterrent to late-term abortions will only increase harm to women. It will mean a return to the days of backstreet abortions. A desperate woman will know she can end her pregnancy after 24 weeks without facing any police investigation for it, but she will be unable to obtain the abortion legally and so she will be driven towards illegal and unsafe providers.
A report in advance of the provisions coming into force might highlight all this and give us all a chance to think again, if indeed we are willing to think. There is a fanaticism around support for abortion that makes many people unwilling to consider the evidence. For example, some of the academic literature provides insight into the often-overlooked psychological impact of abortion, which was mentioned earlier. One study of 1.2 million pregnancies in Quebec hospitals followed women over a 17-year period. The results revealed that women who had an abortion were much more likely to be hospitalised for mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, as well as for substance abuse and suicidal ideation. This risk was higher among women who were under 25 at the time of their abortion and among those with a history of mental health difficulties. Another study found that, for many women, having an abortion is associated with lasting negative emotions such as feelings of guilt, regret, shame and self-unforgiveness. These feelings were strongest among women who reported being coerced.
I am constantly amazed at how little many feminists have to say about coerced abortion. The introduction of telemedicine abortion has undoubtedly made it much more difficult for coercion to be detected. A 2022 survey commissioned by BBC Radio 4 found that 15% of women have experienced pressure to have an abortion. This points to a significant cohort of women who are not exercising choice but are being manipulated into terminating the life of their unborn baby. I give way to the noble Baroness.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
If it helps the Committee, I note that an intervention cannot be made when someone is moving an amendment. The noble Lord is moving his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am very grateful for that guidance, and I apologise for starting to accept what I am sure would have been a sparkling intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
There are huge gaps in our understanding, particularly in relation to complications, but I will not repeat the points I made on my previous amendments. Suffice to say, there is a pressing need for a more comprehensive and robust system of data collection. My noble friend Lord Moylan’s Bill, which is currently awaiting Report, seeks to address this deficiency by ensuring that complications are more accurately reported. It would be remiss to proceed with Clause 191 without first seeking to understand the consequences for the recording and monitoring of abortion outside a clinical setting, particularly when we know that the present framework fails to capture the true scale of complications.
Finally, it is deeply regrettable that we are being asked to approve the most far-reaching change to abortion law since 1967 without the public having first been consulted. A change of such moral, legal and societal consequence warrants proper consultation, yet the public have been afforded no such opportunity.
Whichever side of the debate one may be on, we can surely agree that this is a matter that should not be pursued without proper consultation and consideration on its likely impact. I therefore urge noble Lords to support my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 562, particularly his proposed new subsection (13)(e). I did not hear from the Minister earlier about what they are going to do once Clause 191 goes ahead—assuming it does; we will decide on Report whether or not that will happen. I do not think that the Minister will answer that today.
Amendment 562 would require the Government to give some proper consideration to how this is going to work in practice before it is enacted. For that reason, it is a sensible way to get a bit of breathing space to open up what we are walking into and, for those where potential crimes are committed, given that one person in the arrangement has been decriminalised, what is going to happen to the people who have facilitated what could be a crime. That is why I support Amendment 562 at this stage.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, basically, this suite of amendments drives a coach and horses through abortion rights as a whole, as well as, of course, completely opposing the clause that is under discussion. For example, virtually zero abortions occur at 39 weeks’ gestation. Taking abortion pills at that stage of gestation would simply induce labour. To accept the amendment would mean continuing criminal offences for abortion for vulnerable women. The same applies to the other suite. There would be delays and reversals, and vulnerable women would continue to face life-changing and traumatic investigations.
Amendment 563 is a wrecking amendment linked to all the other amendments to delay the implementation of the change in law. So while the noble Lord might say that he is—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Forgive me for interrupting the noble Baroness, it is just that the annunciator has still had my name for the last minute, when indeed it is the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. It has just changed now.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I do not mind. At this stage, they are probably a bit tired too, changing the annunciator.
The noble Lord might say that he is not opposed to abortion but, frankly, these amendments suggest that he probably is.
Lord Doyle (Lab)
My Lords, I should make the point that I jumped to my feet to make earlier—on the comment that the noble Lord made about how long this issue had been debated in the other place for.
The noble Lord was a Member of the other place previously. I have not had that privilege, but we should show colleagues there a little bit more respect, in that the amount of time that they spent debating this issue should not be seen as an indication of whether or not they actually supported it. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting, if they had debated it for 46 hours or 46 days that, somehow, the 379 MPs who voted for the clause would not have done so or that they were not aware of what they were voting for in the first place.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
As the noble Lord has specifically challenged me on that issue, the point that was raised in earlier groups was that for government Bills there is an impact assessment, an equality impact assessment and pre-legislative scrutiny. There is significant public consultation resulting from the Cabinet Office, as the noble Lord knows very well, and there are guidelines as to public consultation. None of that happened on this occasion. Therefore, let us pay due regard to the deliberations, scrutiny and oversight of the Commons if there is a proper due process in the way that a Bill evolves and is debated, tested and challenged.
That has not been the case on this occasion, and it is very similar to the pills by post situation. The original wording of the pills by post amendment in the Commons was disorderly and had to be rewritten by special advisers in the Department of Health before it was introduced in the House of Lords. That was tacked on to a Health and Care Bill in the same way that this has been tacked on to a mainstream Crime and Policing Bill. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that his analysis stands up to scrutiny.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will just very briefly intervene, as I was going to intervene until I was corrected. I have learned something—it is always good to learn new things in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord cited a number of statistics suggesting that abortion was something that did emotional damage to women or that they regretted afterwards.
I will just cite one landmark study, published in Social Science & Medicine in 2020—this is in the context of America, where there is a huge amount of pressure and social discussion around abortion—which said that five years after having had an abortion more than 95% of women said it was exactly the right decision for them. That is a very different figure from those the noble Lord was citing. It is important to put that on the record for anyone who might be reading the debate and thinking about this.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling these amendments. Again, I refer to comments that I made in the earlier group about procedure, during which I noted the absence of an impact assessment and consultation. My noble friend’s amendments attempt to insert those processes later on in the legislative stages, and reflect in some way what I said on that earlier group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships have heard me say now on at least two occasions that the Government are neutral, and therefore my only observations are about workability and operational issues.
I can respond to the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, very briefly. It is unclear whether Amendment 563 is intended as an alternative to Amendment 562. If it is not, they would create two parallel commencement powers for Clause 191, each imposing slightly different and conflicting obligations on the Secretary of State.
In any event, your Lordships may wish to consider that not all the information required to produce the report as described in the amendment may be readily available within the timeframe, and some of the areas to be considered—for example, standards of clinical oversight—are broad. Although the amendment does not specify the consequences of failing to meet the specified deadlines for consultation or reporting, its effect would be that missing these deadlines would prevent Clause 191 coming into force.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, that is a very brief response from the Minister. I do not think the two amendments that I put to the Committee at this late hour are mutually exclusive—they are complementary. One is about a public consultation exercise and one is about a report to be prepared by the Government using secondary legislation. I accept that there would be an element of discretion for the Government. Obviously, this would be primary legislation in the Bill, but it would be largely facilitated—as the Minister knows, being a very eminent lawyer—by secondary legislation.
I finish very briefly with one thought. To a certain extent, the situation with this clause, and how the Government have handled it, is if not quite novel then constitutionally unusual, because the Minister is not in a position to answer detailed questions. She has undertaken to write and we take her at her word.
The clause is a cuckoo in the nest, really. The Government are, in effect, saying that they do not support it and they do not oppose it but it is in the Bill. I do not always praise the leader of my own party, but I will on this occasion. She had the courage of her convictions to whip in the other place against the whole Bill, even though it is largely a very good Bill, because of the inclusion of Clause 191. The Government should resolve this constitutional novelty and the odd situation arising from the fact that they did not have the moral courage to push back against the Member for Gower, which they should have done, and say that Clause 191 is too extreme and does not have a place. The Government should have said that this clause should be put it in a Private Member’s Bill, or that the Member should lobby Government Ministers to bring it forward as government legislation. But they did not do that; they put it in the Bill. They are therefore going to need to give better answers by the time it gets to Report.
For all that, I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to answer some questions and to undertake to write. On that basis, looking forward to further discussions on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Providing assistance under assisted dying legislation in Crown Dependencies: criminal liabilityIn the Suicide Act 1961, after section 2A (acts capable of encouraging or assisting suicide) insert—“2AA Assistance provided in Crown Dependencies(1) In sections 2(1) and 2A(1), a reference to an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide does not include—(a) participating in acts that facilitate the provision of a medically assisted death in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies (the “jurisdictions”) under or in connection with legislation in those jurisdictions (“relevant legislation”),(b) performing any other function under that relevant legislation in accordance with that relevant legislation, or(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that relevant legislation to access that relevant legislation.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 2 to prove that they—(a) reasonably believed they were acting in accordance with relevant legislation in those jurisdictions, and(b) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.””
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am not moving this amendment, but I feel I owe it to the House to explain why I took my name off it when it had been drafted. I was contacted by the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, who felt that it was premature: they had not been consulted, their Bill has not received Royal Assent, and they felt that a considerable number of parliamentary colleagues would be greatly concerned if this was to pass as an amendment without formal consultation. I feel I should simply place that on the record, but I do not wish to move this amendment, so I realise that this is slightly irregular.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 192, page 223, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.