Speaker’s Statement
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown court. In Shropshire, Shrewsbury Crown court is at maximum capacity, as is an additional court base at Telford justice centre. We have added another 15 sitting days at that additional court base.
Helen Morgan
In my constituency of North Shropshire, residents have to travel to Shrewsbury to have their case heard. As of last September, there was a backlog of more than 730 open cases at Shrewsbury Crown court, a 7% increase on 2024. The wider West Mercia area ranks 43rd out of 44 areas for the time that it takes cases to get through the Crown court; they often take more than two years to be heard. Does the Secretary of State agree with Shrewsbury Crown court’s resident judge, Anthony Lowe, who said that this is not a “proper justice system”, and what steps will he take to improve the situation in West Mercia and Shropshire?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member is right, which is why the Minister for Courts and Legal Services visited Telford a few months ago. It is important to say that Sir Brian Leveson has been absolutely clear in his report that we must pull all levers if we are serious about seeing this backlog come down by the next general election. That means investment in more sitting days; the hon. Member will be pleased about the extra days that we have invested in, in her area. It means modernisation, and dealing with the efficiency problems in the system that we inherited. Sir Brian will publish his report tomorrow. We also need reform, and I urge the Liberal Democrats to support our court reforms.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Since the election, the justice system in Telford and Shropshire has seen a massive increase in capacity. First, a magistrates court has been brought back into use, following years of closure because of a broken roof. We have also received news this week that the Nightingale court will become a permanent court, which is great. However, in order to increase capacity, we need to recruit and retain magistrates. To my great surprise, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is not currently recruiting for magistrates in my area. Will the Justice Secretary take a look at that, and work with me, so that we can recruit and retain as many magistrates as possible for our justice system?
Mr Lammy
I am very much looking forward to working with my hon. Friend, and am pleased with his recognition that the Nightingale court will continue, which is very important. The good news is that we are recruiting more magistrates across the system, including in his area. That announcement was made just two weeks ago.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We are accelerating magistrate recruitment to meet future demand. Trailblazing reforms in three regions are streamlining the process, reducing the time from application to appointment, and improving candidate experience. These reforms will shape a 2026 national roll-out. They are supported by work done with the judiciary to speed up onboarding and ensure that new magistrates sit sooner.
Anneliese Dodds
After many years of Oxford magistrates court being in a terrible state, I am relieved that the leaks and other faults are finally being repaired. It is obviously harder to recruit and retain magistrates if they are serving in unacceptable conditions, so I am grateful that this is being sorted out, and grateful for the measures that the Secretary of State has announced about recruitment. Will he let the House know what he is doing around retention, because surely that is very important as well?
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is right; there was historical underfunding, which sadly left our courts with a £1.3 billion maintenance backlog. We increased the capital maintenance budget this year to deal with the problems that we inherited in our courts. She is right: magistrates are key. They are the cornerstone of our lay system, with 90% of criminal cases passing through the magistrates courts. We will be recruiting more, but streamlining the system and supporting magistrates with training is also key to retention, and we will invest in that as well.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Back in 2004, I became a magistrate—a position that I held for 20 years. When I first walked into the magistrates’ retiring room, I thought everybody in there had retired, because I brought the average age down by about 30 years. That shows that the position is a commitment—people serve for years—and how hard it can be to get younger people involved. First, what is the Department doing to properly recognise and reward long-serving magistrates who keep the system going? Secondly, what is being done to bring in more young justices of the peace, so that magistrates better reflect the communities that they serve?
Mr Lammy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his service as a magistrate. He is right: we want people from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all ages to feel able to serve in their local community and be a magistrate. He will be pleased to hear that 41% of newly appointed magistrates last year were under 50, as opposed to getting towards the pension age. There is more we can do. Some of that is around simplifying the procedures, and people understanding how to become magistrates, because the complexity of the system was unbelievable, and actually put people off applying.
Mr Speaker
And if you had local magistrates courts—for example, in Chorley—it would help as well.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I visited my local court just a few days ago. In Horsham, we are lucky enough to have a sufficient number of magistrates, but we still cannot maximise throughput because of a lack of support staff. In July last year, the Justice Committee reported that shortages of support staff were having significant impacts on delays and court capacity. What are the Government doing to attract younger people into the justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with this horrible court backlog?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are investing in more trainee legal advisers—108 in the last announcement. He is right: there are issues, particularly in the south-east, with being able to compete with the sorts of salaries that support staff might get beyond the courts. We are looking at that very closely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Justice Secretary very much for his very positive answers about recruiting magistrates, and about the timescale; that is welcome news. He referred to 90% of cases being dealt with by magistrates in the courts. That means that there are a lot of delays, and those affect victims, who have waited ages—even years—for their case to be heard. Can the Justice Secretary assure us that recruiting more magistrates will mean that the backlog that victims clearly face is addressed? It needs to be addressed; victims need answers.
Mr Lammy
First off, I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning victims. For too long in this place, we have tended to focus either on the prosecution side or on defendants, but it is important that we put victims at the centre. That is why we are coming forward with more magistrates. We need that 90% of cases dealt with more swiftly, of course, but court reform is what gets us the entire package. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support our court reforms over the coming months.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
As I have said, our focus is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. That is why I will bring forward bold change to fix the rotting Courts Service that we inherited, deliver record investment in our courts so that they can sit for more days than ever before, introduce modernisation to deal with the inefficiencies that we inherited, and reform the system so that we can triage which trials get a jury and stop criminals gaming the system.
Sir John Hayes
As you know, Mr Speaker, the age-old jury system connects the public to the exercise of law, and is therefore at the heart of popular consent for criminal justice. In abandoning this link, are the Government careless of the accountability that it brings, or are they driven wholly by thoughtless expediency? Are Ministers careless or thoughtless?
Mr Lammy
We are not abandoning the jury system, but as Sir Brian Leveson said in his Sunday Times article this weekend, the threshold needs to be rebalanced. I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was in Parliament in 1988, but I am sure that he did not object when Margaret Thatcher rebalanced the threshold and moved criminal damage and driving a vehicle without authority to the magistrates courts.
Steve Darling
There is clear evidence up and down the country of Serco failing to serve the Courts Service appropriately, including for my constituents in Torbay. Does the Secretary of State accept that if we can make sure that Serco can get people to the courts more rapidly, it will give them better access to justice and allow them to access jury trials?
Mr Lammy
The Courts Minister and the Prisons Minister are working together on this issue. Sir Brian Leveson will have more to say tomorrow in part 2 of his report, on efficiencies, but one of the things that we are looking at is local authorities opening bus lanes to those drivers, so that they can speed through.
Mr Brash
I recognise the Justice Secretary’s sincere commitment to tackling the court backlog that was disgracefully left by Conservative and Reform politicians. However, one of the most troubling aspects of the proposals on jury trials is the suggestion that the changes will be permanent, regardless of whether the backlog persists. Will he consider explicitly making these measures temporary and subject to review, so that their impact, if any, on reducing the court backlog can be properly assessed?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but may I refer him to Sir Brian’s report, and to his article in The Sunday Times this weekend? He talks about trials being longer, DNA evidence, the fact that we are passing more legislation in this place, and the police arresting more people. For all those reasons, and if we are serious about tackling the backlog and getting to a properly established system in which people do not wait much longer than six months to a year for their trial, the changes that we are making have to be permanent.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue, and he knows that we need to increase the number of district judges. The forthcoming Bill will give us the power to increase the threshold for magistrates. Obviously, it will be essential to look at how that co-ordinates with the new swift bench, once we get Royal Assent towards the end of this year.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Sir Brian Leveson’s review did not contain any specific modelling to support his view that limiting jury trials would reduce by 20% the time taken for trials. If the Government’s own modelling does not support and validate Sir Brian’s assessment, will they U-turn on the policy?
Mr Lammy
Of course we support Sir Brian’s assessments of 20%. He also relied on international comparators. That is one reason why I was recently in Canada, which thought that 20% was an extremely conservative estimate, and that 50% was more likely. We will of course publish our modelling alongside the introduction of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
As the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, there is no sitting in 56 of the 516 Crown courtrooms. That is because he and his Department cap the number of sitting days in those courts. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty to plan to do away with some jury trials when courts are not sitting. The Institute for Government says that Sir Brian’s 20% estimate, which was pulled from thin air, is more like 2%. What on earth are this Government doing? Why do we not get a grip of what is really happening in the system?
Mr Lammy
He still is my hon. Friend. I know that he has a principled objection. It is important to recognise that Sir Brian has emphasised that we need to do all of it to deal with the inefficiencies. We will have more to say tomorrow, when Sir Brian publishes part two of his report, which looks at courtrooms, prisoners and how the justice system works as a whole. We are increasing sitting days and investing more than ever before. I am negotiating with the Lady Chief Justice; there will be more sitting days to come. However, we also need reform to ensure that we continue to support the jury system, which is what we are doing.
Mr Speaker
I call Nick Timothy, and welcome him to his role as shadow Justice Secretary.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have been reading the Labour party manifesto, but without much luck. Can the Justice Secretary tell the House on which page the promise to restrict jury trials appears? Was it on the same page as digital IDs and all the tax rises?
Mr Lammy
I welcome the hon. Member to his place, and congratulate him on his recent promotion. We will judge him on his record. We note that he was responsible for cutting 20,000 police officers across the country, and that he was the author of the hostile environment policy, the Windrush tax and, of course, the wonderful election-winning dementia tax. He will note that our obligation in government is—as his was—to ensure a fair trial. We are bringing forward a threshold change very similar to the change that Margaret Thatcher brought forward in 1988.
Nick Timothy
Not waving but drowning. Forty of the right hon. Member’s colleagues—the number is rising—say that restricting jury trials is “madness”. He says that he will not listen to them, judges, lawyers or the victims of crime, so perhaps he will listen to these esteemed voices.
“Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 517.]
That was the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. “There must be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”—that was the Sentencing Minister.
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are…perceived as unfair.”
That was Justice Secretary himself. If even he knows that this is a bad idea, how long must we wait for the 14th U-turn from this miserable Government?
Mr Lammy
It is a bit rich raising what my colleagues are up to on the Back Benches when the hon. Member’s colleagues are going to other Benches in this House. He knows that article 40 of Magna Carta makes it clear that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is our judgment and the judgment of Sir Brian Leveson that, for example, if someone has shoplifted an iPhone, they should not be entitled to elect for a jury trial. That should be something that can be dealt with by a magistrate or a single judge.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Justice Secretary is right to say that justice delayed is justice denied, but the Institute for Government’s report into jury trials showed that his plans to erode jury trials will make very little difference to the courts backlog, so it is no surprise that there is wide-ranging opposition to the proposals from within the legal profession and across these Benches. If the Deputy Prime Minister does decide to press ahead with these unpopular reforms, he stated that it would not be retrospective, but the Courts Minister said it would be retrospective in the Justice Committee. Who is telling the truth?
Mr Lammy
The IfG estimated a 10% contribution. If this were a 10% contribution to bringing down waiting lists at a hospital in the hon. Lady’s constituency, she would have it. Sir Brian estimated a 20% contribution. I said we would bring forward the modelling. Of course, it is right that there is no substantive criminal liability change in our proposals, so in that sense, it is not retrospective, but in terms of caseload, of course, they will be subject to the new mode of trial once this Bill gets Royal Assent.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressure of delivery and the need for long-term funding for our support services. In total, the Ministry of Justice will be investing over £550 million in victim support services over the next three years—the biggest ever investment in victim support services.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment. Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid does a brilliant job advocating for victims of domestic abuse, but it has seen a worrying increase in the level of psychological abuse, alongside historical challenges with violence. Can the Minister confirm that Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid, along with other organisations doing such good work, will get the support that she has just outlined to enable them to look after the victims for whom they advocate so brilliantly?
Alex Davies-Jones
I commend my hon. Friend as a fantastic constituency MP and Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid for all the brilliant work it does in supporting victims of abuse and violence. He is right to highlight that victims are now coming forward with much more complex needs—not just physical violence, but coercive and controlling behaviour—and it is right that that is properly treated and recognised. That is why we are ensuring that victims have the right to timely support. That is a key part of the Government’s mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. We have committed to ringfencing the funding that the MOJ provides to police and crime commissioners, and we are working with them to ensure that, post their abolition, following their term coming to an end, we can provide certainty to victim support services, so that they know they will be there whenever a victim or survivor needs them.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Supporting victims of heinous crimes such as child abuse is paramount. Aside from support services, clear communication and transparency is key, yet the parents of the 21 babies abused by Roksana Lecka at the Riverside nursery in Twickenham Green were given less than a week’s notice that she would be deported to Poland this Thursday. They have been given no information about whether Lecka will continue to serve the rest of her eight-year sentence or whether she will walk free after just four months in a UK prison. They fear that if left unsupervised, she will harm many more children. Can the Minister tell the House what the release terms are for Lecka? Those parents deserve answers.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important case. I think the thoughts and sympathies of the whole House will be with all the victims of these most heinous crimes. Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, and it is right that we have the correct support services available for child victims. The Sentencing Minister is meeting colleagues in the Home Office today to discuss this case, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full update as requested on the specifics.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?
Alex Davies-Jones
As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a statement, he must have a short memory, because we were brought to this House to discuss this matter. The Hillsborough law will be a landmark moment for this Government. It will be a Bill for the victims, written by the victims who have been through those heinous experiences. We will ensure that national security is upheld, and we will bring this Bill forward when it has the full backing by everyone and when it is ready.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Prison education builds skills for life, including reading and numeracy, alongside work-focused training. We are expanding prison apprenticeships and prison industries, providing work-ready skills to support rehabilitation.
Lauren Edwards
I thank the Minister for the work he is doing in prisons to improve literacy, but last week the Government confirmed to the Justice Committee that core prison education provision has been cut by a quarter nationally under retendered contracts. The independent monitoring board recently raised concerns about the impact that that will have in prisons, including Rochester prison in my constituency, on prisoner rehabilitation. We know that stable work is one of the top factors in preventing male prisoners from reoffending, so education and training are therefore key to reducing our prison population in the long term. How will the Minister ensure that this will remain a priority?
Jake Richards
It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency with her just last week to visit a facility in the youth custody service, and I look forward to visiting Rochester prison with her in the future. She is right to raise this issue. There are real fiscal pressures when the two twin strategic objectives for this Department are dealing with a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government and pressures in our courts, but that does not mean that we are going to overlook the importance of educational work in the prison system. We are looking at working with the third sector and the private sector to ensure that we can provide adequate provision while maintaining our two strategic aims of stabilising the prison system and solving the backlog.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Next year, the Government will spend more money on education in prisons, yet they will actually commission 25% less education by way of quantity of service. Why are they doing such a poor job of commissioning education on behalf of the taxpayer?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who asked this question last week as well. We are raising the quality of the provision of education, but he is right to identify some issues with the contracts that the last Conservative Government entered into, which we are having to look at and deal with. As I said to him last week, it is important that we look at alternatives to those contracts. As I have just said, that includes working with the third sector and looking at how we can get more private sector provision. It also includes, as he said last week, working with governors individually to ensure that they have more autonomy and power to bring in educational facilities from local colleges and universities where it is possible and safe. I am getting to work to do that this week.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, with record and rising backlogs now touching 80,000, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of criminal courts and why we are making investment in sitting days and our workforce. That is also why we are grasping the nettle of modernisation and why we must have fundamental reform of our criminal courts.
Andy McDonald
The Minister was previously asked but did not clarify whether the Ministry of Justice conducted modelling on how much reducing jury trials would actually reduce the backlog. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence that limiting jury trials will meaningfully reduce court delays. Can the Minister publish the evidence on which these reforms are based and explain why no pilot schemes were undertaken?
Sarah Sackman
As I have told the House repeatedly, we will publish the modelling and evidence base in the usual way, alongside the Bill’s introduction. However, it is simply incorrect to say there is no evidence that adjusting the threshold will reduce court delays; we have the evidence base of the independent review, as well as international comparators to show that decisive action will reduce the court delays.
Danny Beales
I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was the victim of an abusive and violent relationship for many years. There were continual delays in the case coming to court, and then again at the sentencing stage, including a five-month delay in sentencing due to mental health assessments being delayed, as well as barrister annual leave and other issues with staff availability. That led to the repeated cancellation of sentencing dates, which meant that the victim constantly had to relive deeply traumatic events over and over again. What steps is the Minister taking to address those preventable issues, which are causing delays and misery for victims such as my constituent?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case; it is a graphic illustration of the crisis that we are grappling with and the impact it is having. Those delays cause trauma, making it impossible for victims to move on with their lives.
What are we doing about it? The fact that over 1,000 trials were cancelled last year because of a lack of barrister availability illustrates one of the problems highlighted by the Institute for Government. That is why we are investing in our workforce, with an increase in legal aid for solicitors and barristers and match funding for pupillages. Let us think about this: it will take time to rebuild the workforce, which is why we must be pulling every lever, investment and structural reform—only that will do.
Matt Bishop
My constituent, a victim of domestic abuse, has seen her case listed and relisted multiple times since 2023, with delays repeatedly granted due to medical claims by the defendant. Does the Minister accept that repeated adjournments risk denying justice to victims? Will she meet me to discuss how cases like that can be progressed without further re-traumatisation?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I would of course be happy to meet him. Again, it is a graphic illustration of the ways in which the delays in the process are re-traumatising victims, which is why we must do everything in our power to bring down the delays—whether that is investment, modernisation or structural reform. Those who are against these plans are happy for my hon. Friend’s constituent and others to wait longer. Well, I am not prepared to do that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the areas causing the delays is the lack of defence barristers. It will clearly take time to train new barristers, but what incentives can the Minister offer to those qualifying in law to become defence barristers, rather than seeking other avenues in the law?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The workforce has been depleted by repeated cuts to legal aid and people choosing more lucrative and attractive areas of work. What are we doing? We have said that we will invest an additional £34 million in legal aid for criminal advocates, and we are also providing match funding for criminal law pupillages to incentivise training and create opportunities for people from all backgrounds to enter criminal law. As he said, that will take time, and in the meantime victims cannot wait. That is why the reforms are necessary alongside the investment.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
One major reason for the court backlogs is the repeated outsourcing of private contracts for prisoner transportation to companies such as Serco, which has caused a loss of a whole court day every single week. Given that there is a lack of penalty clauses for late prisoner transportation, and that Serco continues to be awarded procurement contracts, can the Minister commit to reviewing that matter and the associated costs, instead of removing our juries and our civil liberties?
Sarah Sackman
Of course, that is one of the contributory factors to the issues in our courts, although not the only one—again, we must look at all these things. We await part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, but in the meantime I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Prisons Minister and I are looking at these contracts so that we can manage their performance and pull every lever. As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago, we are asking local authorities to open up bus lanes so that we can increase the efficiency of prisoner transportation. Let us be absolutely clear: addressing that issue alone will not begin to touch the sides of the problem, which is why we need both investment and reform.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
We recognise that parole hearings can be traumatic for victims, and victim liaison officers can support them throughout the process. We are launching a victims’ code consultation, which will also give victims the opportunity to provide input as to what more can be done.
Anneliese Midgley
Members of James Bulger’s family are my constituents, and they are yet again facing the agony of another parole hearing for Jon Venables, an ordeal that continues to retraumatise them more than 30 years after James’s horrific murder. While Parole Board decisions are rightly independent, the system must command public confidence, so will the Minister give the Parole Board an overarching assessment of Venables’ current risk and tell the House what reviews of the automatic two-year parole hearing cycle are being considered?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is a fine champion for her constituency, and has raised this case with both me and other Ministers on numerous occasions. Baroness Levitt, who is responsible for Parole Board hearings, will meet Ralph Bulger and his legal advisers this afternoon to discuss this very issue, and I am sure she will be able to offer some more substantive answers to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s question. I put on record my thanks to Ralph for his campaign, and am very happy to meet him or anyone else on this issue in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?
Jake Richards
As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I am unable to talk about the specifics of that case, but if she writes to me, I will make sure I get back to her with any details I am able to share.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
As I have stated, the Ministry of Justice is investing over £550 million in victim support services, the biggest investment in that service to date. In December, we published our violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy sets out how we will achieve our mission to halve these terrible crimes, including domestic abuse, by rolling out domestic abuse protection orders—which are lifesaving—and looking at how we can maximise specialist domestic abuse courts.
Dr Sullivan
A number of constituents have shared with me the terror of waiting in line to get to court, and then waiting in the waiting room before court, with their accused abuser or perpetrator. On some occasions, special arrangements have been put in place, but this has been very hit and miss. Will the Minister look at how the arrangements for protecting survivors and supporting them to get to court while not seeing their abuser can be made standard, to get them from the street to the courtroom safely?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Ensuring that witnesses and victims can give their best evidence in court is vital if we are to achieve prosecution of these awful crimes. We are introducing legislation to improve access to special measures for witnesses and victims, including permitting victims to be accompanied while giving evidence, separate entrances and exits, and the provision of pre-recorded cross-examination. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend with more information as the legislation progresses.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I recently brought together domestic abuse charities in Bath, such as Developing Health and Independence, Voices, and the Nelson Trust, which provide services including how to navigate the complicated justice system. They all agree it is critical that they all work together and that there are joined-up local services, but what can be done nationally to bring organisations and charities together, rather than pitting them against each other in an environment of often limited resources?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is totally right to raise that point. We talk a lot about multi-agency working, but it is difficult to put into practice. As she will be aware, just before Christmas we published the “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy on how we can tackle violence against women and girls, with multi-agency working on a national level and practices and applications at the heart of that strategy. I will meet our victims’ sector advisory board later this afternoon, and I will make sure to raise this point with them as well, so that we bring them in. They are the people on the ground delivering this work, so we should learn from them directly.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the action that the Government are taking to reduce the court backlogs, especially for cases involving violence against women and girls. What consultation has taken place with victims organisations and charities regarding the plans to restrict jury trials? We must ensure that these victims are kept at the heart of any reforms to the courts system, so that they can be satisfied that timely justice will be delivered.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is right that victims are put back at the heart of our criminal justice system. For far too long, their views and their voices were ignored, but not by this Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) and I have met many victims of horrific crimes to hear about how court delays have impacted on them. The Victims’ Commissioner is supportive of our reforms as outlined in Sir Brian Leveson’s report, and we look forward to part 2 being published imminently so that we can discuss how better we can support victims of these crimes going forward, ensuring that they get their day in court and see justice being done.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire police, led by the exceptional Chief Constable Mark Roberts, on its well-executed Operation Crossbow, which I witnessed yesterday? More than 40 perpetrators of domestic violence wanted by the police and the courts were arrested and detained by a police force committed to the safety of women. Does he agree that such operations in Cheshire will be put at risk by the Government’s desire to merge 43 forces into 12, which will increase the risk to victims of domestic violence?
Alex Davies-Jones
I commend the work of brilliant police forces up and down the country doing work to tackle domestic abuse. The hon. Member will know that it was a Labour party manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls, and that is exactly what she is talking about with what is happening in practice in Cheshire. This Labour Government are delivering for Cheshire and her constituency. She will know that the Home Office is consulting on proposals to ensure that we maximise police efficiency and boots on the ground, ensuring that everyone is kept safe and that we have safer streets. The Home Office will update on those plans shortly.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Assaults on our staff are unacceptable. We are enhancing security measures and easing crowding to curb violence and improve safety. We are investing some £15 million in protective equipment—I announced that shortly after taking office—to help keep frontline staff working in prisons safe.
Mr Snowden
We know that drugs on the prison estate is a perennial problem when it comes to the safety of officers and other prisoners. Governments of all colours have been trying to tackle that for some time. The situation is particularly acute in the open prison estate, due to the different resourcing and the different layout of those prisons. In some places, we have more than 40% of prisoners failing drug tests on arrival in the open estate. Will the Secretary of State consider a policy that says, “If you fail a drug test on arrival, you will be sent straight back to the closed prison you came from”?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a prison capacity crisis with violence up and drugs up in our prisons. Because of that, we have invested particularly in X-ray machines and extra prison officers to try to bear down on the problem. We are looking right across the estate at what more we can do to reduce drug use. I spoke to prison officers about it when I visited Frankland prison last week. I am looking closely at how the lowest categories of prisons deal with drugs.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The reason I use this powerful Chamber to speak about crimes like rape is that I am desperate to encourage women across the country watching us to use their voice to speak out and report. I am so determined to support the Government in their changes because I am desperate, when these brave women come forward, for them to have a system where they are supported every step of the way to get the swift justice they deserve. I am determined to do everything I can to play my part. When we make these changes and make it easier for victims to get justice, how will the Government ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to take these criminals?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was not relevant to the main question, but I am sure that the Justice Secretary would like to respond to it.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: we must have capacity in our prisons to deal with the crisis that we inherited, which is why we introduced the Victims and Courts Bill and the Bill which, I am glad to say, has become law and is now the Sentencing Act 2026. That legislation will also enable us to bear down on the waiting list that is ticking upwards for victims of crime—especially women, who are often at the end of crime that makes them most vulnerable—by the next general election.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The use of drones to bring contraband into prisons has become a significant issue. Last year there was an intra-year increase of 43% in the use of drones for illegal activity on the prison estate, and, as an MP with a prison in my constituency, HMP Littlehey, I find this surge in their use alarming.
Last month the Justice Secretary announced that he had
“tasked British prisons with learning from Ukraine’s drone expertise”
with a £6.5 million funding stream, but no tenders are currently out to develop that capability. The only specific competition from the Ministry of Justice has been November’s £60,000 counter-drone challenge. Can the Justice Secretary tell us what is the current counter-drone strategy for HM Prison and Probation Service, given the current delays in the installation of physical unmanned aircraft systems countermeasures, what specific projects are actually in flight to develop the counter-UAS capability across our prison estate, and by when that capability will be available?
Mr Lammy
This is a very serious issue, which is why I announced the partnership with our Ukrainian colleagues. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed it, but I also announced £6 million of funding for that research innovation as part of the package. I know that, because of his own background, he will recognise the substantial expertise that lies in Ukraine; he will recognise, too, that much of what we do to counter the drones that are flying across our prisons is classified, but I can assure him that this is a priority for the Government.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Decisions on remand and sentence length are made by judges independently of Government, and it would be wholly wrong for a Government to intervene in a judicial matter.
Siân Berry
I am disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged the real harm and suffering that is going on, which is an obvious consequence of the escalation by Ministers of the number of crimes with which people taking protest action are being charged. Does he not agree that incarcerating people for long months and years without trial for offences that are in essence political has no in-principle place in a democracy such as ours?
Jake Richards
I do accept that there are issues with remand, which are caused by the huge backlog in the court system which this Government are trying to fix. I look forward to seeing the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Green party support our proposals when they are introduced next month by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman).
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Members on both sides of the House share my deep concern about the Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has already been dealt with in Committee and which would restrict the right to protest on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. Does the Minister not agree that, given the significance of that proposal and its serious implications for our fundamental right to protest, it is essential that the House has sufficient time in which to scrutinise, debate and vote on it? Can he give me that assurance?
Jake Richards
That piece of legislation is going through the House, as it should. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the important right to protest and the protection enabling communities and groups to lead their lives with no trepidation or stifling, and I believe that the amendment strikes that balance.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Since the last session of Justice questions, the Government have delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026 to implement punishment that works to cut crime and make our streets safer. It will ensure that we have enough prison cells for the most serious criminals, incentivise good behaviour in prisons and introduce tough, credible community punishments to drive down reoffending. Our second annual statement on prison capacity shows the impact of our reform. For the first time in years, we no longer forecast a chronic shortage of prison places. That sits alongside the most ambitious prison building programme since the Victorians: we aim to build 14,000 new places by 2030, backed by £7 billion of investment.
Martin Vickers
Could I return the Secretary of State to the issue of jury trials? I have received an email from a constituent who is a practising barrister, who points to the issues, which have already been mentioned, of poor prisoner transport, the cap on sitting days and the condition of many courtrooms. Could the Secretary of State focus on delivering improvements in those areas, and abandon the proposals to limit jury trials?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman really should read Sir Brian Leveson’s report. We have to do all of it. Sir Brian will be publishing the second part of the report, which deals with the issues the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if we did only that, we would not see the backlog fall in his constituency. We have to invest in more sitting days, as we are and will continue to do, but we also need reform, which is why we are bringing forward those reforms on the thresholds.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend, who has spoken on a number of occasions about his horrific experience, and I think I speak for all in this House when I say that that takes a lot of courage. What he says about the impacts on people of delays in our courts and how knowledge of that is putting off people reporting or continuing with their cases—and we know witnesses and victims pull out of their own cases—means not only that that is a torment for them, but that justice is not even being served and people are walking away. That is why we must pull every lever, and why we are bringing forward these reforms.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In a world where so many people walk on by or look the other way, I believe it is vital to the rule of law that our whole society gets behind people who are willing to stand up and be counted. We are joined in the Gallery today by one such person—Mark Hehir, a bus driver. Mark leapt to the aid of a passenger who was robbed, and the police said everything he did was entirely lawful, but his employer, Metroline, sacked him. More than 120,000 people have signed my petition giving their full support to Mark. Does the Justice Secretary agree that Mark is a hero who deserves our support?
Dr Mullan
I welcome those remarks, and I am sure the public will want us to work across the parties on these issues, but this is not an isolated case. I have heard from employers themselves, shop workers and bus drivers that they want to do the right thing, but the law inhibits them from doing so. The Conservatives will be bringing forward proposals to introduce good samaritan protections in civil law for both employers and employees. Will the Secretary of State work with us to get that on to the statute book?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue, and I also pay tribute to the work of JENGbA. I have met the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which has referred, I think, three cases to the Court of Appeal—to look closely at the issue. I am of course taking an interest in this issue, and I look forward to meeting campaigners in the coming months to discuss what more we may be able to do.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is clear, as more evidence comes to light, that Peter Mandelson abused his position while in government, and the Liberal Democrats are calling for a public inquiry. The Hillsborough law cannot come soon enough to ensure that public inquiries hear all the relevant evidence. When the Public Office (Accountability) Bill finally comes back to the House, will the Government seriously consider my amendment, which would ensure that the duty of candour applies to all those leaving public office, including those who retire, resign or are removed?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue on the Floor of the House. All my thoughts are with the victims and survivors of this horrific situation in Scotland at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The Bill’s duty of candour will create a powerful new obligation on all public bodies and officials to help investigations and inquiries find the truth that is needed, placing them under a legal obligation to provide information and evidence with candour. The duty will apply UK-wide, including in Scotland.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises. County court rules require that possession claims be listed for hearing within eight weeks of receipt and, in the main, we are hitting that target. Readiness for the coming into force of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will be important, as will the modernising introduction of the end-to-end digital possession claims service, which will improve the situation for constituents like hers.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
For too long, victims in Altrincham and Sale West and across the country have been treated as secondary thoughts in the criminal justice system—left in limbo, not knowing their rights and feeling voiceless when decisions are made on bail and sentencing. What reassurances can the Minister give that victims will be at the heart of the justice system following the Government’s reforms?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that vital question about putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is exactly what this Government are doing by providing free court transcripts for criminal cases, introducing new restriction zones in the Sentencing Act 2026, and consulting on a brand-new victims code to enshrine victims’ rights and ensure they have the ability to request information on parole and offender management. I would be happy to write to him with more information on how this Government are delivering for victims.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise reoffending. It is why the Government are making a record £700 million investment in our Probation Service—a 45% increase—to try to fix a service that the last Conservative Government broke completely. That is the best and only way we will deal with the prison capacity crisis and clamp down on reoffending.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Prison officers face appalling levels of violence at work every day, but their hands are tied because of the Tory ban on any kind of industrial action—they cannot resist. Does the Minister agree that prison officers should have the legal right to withdraw their labour and to take industrial action to protect themselves and others while at work in what is an extremely dangerous workplace?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the seriousness of the issue my hon. Friend raises. I met prison officer unions just two weeks ago to discuss these very issues. My judgment is that, with the prison capacity crisis as it is and the pay increases we have been able to make to prison officers, this would not be the right time to explore changes in the practices he underlines.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Jake Richards
This is utter nonsense, Mr Speaker—the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands how our legal system works. The Government understand that lawyers have to represent all sorts of people all the time, and we will stand by that. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Attorney General, while serving on the Tory Front Bench, is currently representing Roman Abramovich, a sanctioned Russian oligarch. There is no word from the Opposition Benches on that issue at all.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the fact that Llanelli, along with the rest of Wales, will be in the pilot expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme. However, as the Minister will know, it is often very difficult for children who have suffered neglect and abuse, or adults who suffered it as children, to report such incidents. Will the Minister agree to meet me to look again at extending the six-month time limit for summary offences, which leaves survivors with no redress and allows abuse and neglect to go unpunished?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome this question from my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme throughout Wales so that Welsh victims have the right to review their cases. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more we can do for Welsh victims across the criminal justice system.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman will know that justice is a devolved matter. I am content for him to write to me, and I will look into this specific case. However, justice is, of course, a devolved matter.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Violence against prison staff is at intolerable levels, with more than double the number of assaults today than a decade ago, all while prison officers are expected to work until they are 68 years of age. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair and unrealistic, and if so, what are the Government going to do about it?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right that we are expecting a lot of our prison officers. I was staggered at the state of what we inherited from the Conservatives. I met the prison officer unions a couple of weeks ago to discuss these issues and we are in a good dialogue about pay, work and conditions. Of course, they also raised the issue of the retirement age.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials who are putting together construction plans for a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon to actually listen to local voices, rather than insisting from a distance on traffic management plans that will put thousands of heavy goods vehicles down totally inappropriate rural roads?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; when we are building new prisons, we have to think about the local area and ensure that we listen to local people’s views. I would gently say that the Conservative Government promised 20,000 new prison places, but managed just 2% of that—I think we are starting to see why.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government were making great strides on imprisonment for public protection sentences, yet after my constituent, who was held for nearly two decades, had a minor infringement—he missed an appointment—he ended up back inside. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that people get proper support outside. Will the Government review what happens to IPP prisoners post release?
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Given that the MOJ is responsible for granting exhumation licences, does the Secretary of State agree that significant historical pauper burial sites, such Horton cemetery in my constituency, require stronger safeguards, and will he meet me to discuss how licensing decisions can better protect them?
Alex Davies-Jones
I would be honoured to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the case she mentions.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Scottish Parliament is this week considering a Bill by the fantastic Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon that would enable the prosecution of climate criminals who cause widespread, long-term or irreversible damage to our environment. What consideration have Ministers given to consulting on making ecocide a criminal offence across the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have had positive conversations with colleagues across Government, including in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about how we can progress on that. I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what more work we can do.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the sale of Government land around HMP Wealstun. Were neighbouring residents given advance notice of the auction details so that they could express an interest?
Jake Richards
If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will get back to him on those details.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that weaknesses in risk assessment, information sharing and planning in domestic abuse cases are leaving victims at greater risk of harm and without consistent safeguarding across Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that the changes identified in the report are implemented and that victims of domestic abuse receive effective support through the criminal justice system?
Jake Richards
I will look at that report and personally make sure that we consider what the recommendations are and how they can be implemented. This Government have put record investment into our probation services. We are also harnessing technology to ensure that probation officers can do what they are trained and want to do, which is to work with offenders to rehabilitate them, rather than be bogged down in paperwork. I will look at that specific case and come back to the hon. Lady.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) asked about the two-year parole cycle when she raised the appalling case of James Bulger. James’s dad, Ralph, is now a constituent of mine, which is why I am following up. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the rules around the two-year system, given the family’s re-traumatisation when reliving what happened to James every two years?
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
In their manifesto at the last election, the Government promised to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Will the Minister update the House on how many have been set up to date?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the brilliant Labour party manifesto, which we are delivering in government. He is right to highlight the need for specialist rape courts. We are working with the Courts Minister on that and looking to see how we can push this forward to ensure that rape victims who have been languishing, waiting for justice, are not waiting too long. That is why we are implementing Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations to ensure that there is swifter justice for victims.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The new judicial finding of domestic abuse in the Sentencing Act 2026 will help us better identify domestic abusers in the criminal justice system. Will the Minister explain when that element of the Act will commence? What additional training will be given to judges and magistrates to make sure that they can implement it effectively?
Sarah Sackman
We will update the House when that is ready for implementation. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of training when it comes to domestic abuse cases. Judicial training is an independent function run by the Judicial College. Domestic abuse training, and particularly a trauma-informed approach to evidence, is a mandatory part of that training, as it must be.
Iran
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Iran’s horrific attacks on protesters have shocked the world. In recent days, the scale of the violence and brutality has become clearer. Reports suggest that many thousands of people across Iran have been killed, and many more arrested, in what has been a brutal and bloody repression against those exercising their right to public protest. There has been a range of estimates for casualties and detentions. However, the internet blackout imposed by the authorities, which we have also condemned and which has only recently started to relax, makes it impossible at the moment to reach a reliable figure. As one young Iranian woman chillingly told the BBC:
“We all know someone who was killed”.
What is clear from the reports is the scale of the killing, the brutality of the crackdown and the bravery of the protesters. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Iranian people have shown extreme courage in the face of brutality and repression.
We condemn these horrific attacks on those exercising the right to peaceful protest in the strongest possible terms. This Government committed to the House that we would hold the Iranian authorities accountable, and that is exactly what we are doing. Yesterday, we announced a sweeping package of sanctions against the Iranian authorities for a number of serious human rights violations; this includes the designations of the Minister of the Interior, police chiefs and prolific Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members for their role in the recent brutality against protesters. We continue to work with our international partners to tackle the threat posed by Iran and to hold the Iranian regime to account by a range of means. Most recently, we led the call for a special session of the Human Rights Council on 23 January. We are pleased that the council has voted to extend the independent fact-finding mission to collect the evidence of the authorities’ human rights violations, and we will continue to support those efforts.
We continue to monitor developments closely and will not cease in our demands to Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications. We are also continuing to take robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats. Those threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to improve regional stability and prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The UK will continue to challenge the actions of the Iranian regime and we stand proudly on the side of freedom and human rights.
Priti Patel
The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies? Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks?
The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions? Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise?
This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions; I will respond to them in turn. We have taken a series of steps to ensure that anyone in this country wishing to support the Iranian Government must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have introduced 550 sanctions, including some introduced by the last Government and some that we have built on. I will come to the sanctions we announced yesterday in due course.
Let me turn to the foreign influence registration scheme. We have now put Iran at the very top tier, which means additional reporting requirements for those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK. This House has heard from me, and the right hon. Lady knows from her time as Home Secretary, about the extent of the threat that Iran poses to the UK. I reassure the House that we continue to treat that threat with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps we have taken on FIRS, the increase in sanctions and implementation of the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.
The right hon. Lady asks about discussions in recent days. We have been in regular discussion with all our regional partners. I am sure she will be aware of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I do not wish from the Dispatch Box to get ahead of the direct participants but, as she would expect, we are in regular discussion with all those with an interest. As I said in my initial response to her urgent question, we want Iran to have no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by the United States and our other partners to assure that.
The right hon. Lady asks about our plans regarding assets and what scenarios may entail. She will appreciate why I will not be drawn into speculation in any great detail. These are clearly very delicate moments for Iran; as she rightly says, there has been very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will also take this opportunity to say that I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously an experience felt widely across the country. The British-Iranian community make an important contribution to this country, and I understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to turn to the threat that Iran poses to people here in Britain. The Intelligence and Security Committee has said,
“since 2022 the risk appetite of the Iranian regime to attempt assassinations of dissidents and…journalists in the UK has increased significantly”.
We need effective collaboration between the police and the intelligence services to protect ourselves—particularly those of Iranian heritage—against the Iranian regime’s use of wide-ranging and persistent threats, including physical threats, harassment and intimidation. What is being done to prevent attacks on media freedom in the UK by the Iranian regime, such as the stabbing of Pouria Zeraati in March 2024?
Mr Falconer
I will repeat to the House the message I gave the Iranian ambassador on one of our first interactions: any violence on the streets of the UK that is linked back to Iran, whatever Iran might think about the origin of those individuals or the press coverage they might supply, will be treated in the most serious terms by the British Government. I have left the Iranian ambassador—and, indeed, all our Iranian contacts—in no doubt about the strength of our feeling on these questions.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We have been watching developments in Iran with anger and disgust. By some accounts, as many as 30,000 Iranians may now have been killed during the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protest, leaving relatives to sift through piles of body bags. There can be no doubt that Iran’s leaders have perpetrated crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale—it is utterly intolerable.
The UK has a responsibility to hold Iran’s leaders to account. The Government must take concrete steps to ensure that those responsible will one day face justice. Those steps must include sanctioning the senior leadership, on which the Government have already taken welcome steps in the right direction; using British satellites to collect evidence; pursuing action through the United Nations; opening a case at the International Criminal Court; and proscribing the IRGC. Will the Minister tell me how the Government will hold Iran’s leaders to account, and will he commit today to those concrete measures? What is being done, working multilaterally with our partners, to apply sustained pressure to make Iran drop its nuclear ambitions and ensure that it never acquires a nuclear weapon?
Mr Falconer
I set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary some of the steps we are taking. I am grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for the sanctions package that we announced yesterday. I can confirm that we continue to be in very urgent talks with a whole range of our partners about developments in Iran. We must see the fundamental rights of Iranians respected.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for coming to the House, and for his excellent work and that of his officials in bringing forward further sanctions yesterday and last week. I also welcome the current position in the very, very sensitive discussions and talks, and commend our European partners, Canadians and all others involved. Could the Minister speak with Home Office officials or his ministerial counterparts about the sophistication required for certain asylum applications that might come forward in the coming months, so that we can ensure that we send the loud message that there will be no asylum for those who have been part of the recent crackdown?
Mr Falconer
As the House would expect, my hon. Friend asks an important question. I will take it up with my ministerial colleagues.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Within hours of the Hamas massacres, protesters and marchers were organising against Israel. Yet here we are, weeks later, when the Iranian regime is murdering and torturing its citizens by the tens of thousands—still no marches, still no protests. What does the Minister think that says about the prejudices of such activists?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman—a former Deputy Prime Minister—pays great attention to developments in the region. As such, he will know that there have been protests outside the Iranian embassy and very disturbing counter-protests in support of the regime’s crackdown. I find it absolutely staggering that anyone is expressing that view on the streets of Britain in the face of the horrors we are seeing.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
This is an evil regime that is murdering and torturing tens of thousands of its own people. I am pleased that the Chamber is giving this matter regular attention. President Trump promised that help was on the way to the protesters. I want to add my voice to those asking that the British Government hear the calls of the protesters and think very carefully about how we can give genuine support to these remarkable, brave people.
Mr Falconer
As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protesters are incredibly courageous. One can hardly bear to hear the accounts from within Iran from those who have been able to circumvent the internet ban. Our thoughts are with the people there, and the actions we are taking, including those we announced yesterday, are a demonstration of Britain’s continued commitment to them.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsibility of ISIS-style terrorists. Will the Minister continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists, and all those who are seeking to uncover the evidence to demonstrate who in the Iranian regime is truly responsible for this and potentially to refer them to the International Criminal Court for prosecution?
Mr Falconer
It was so important for us to ensure that the independent fact-finding mission was voted through by the United Nations. That means it can continue its work, and then we will see who really was responsible for the deaths.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on this matter and for his statement. I want to raise the testimony of a constituent, a British-Iranian woman who fled Iran after being arrested three times for campaigning for the rights of women and children. She was raped and tortured in detention. Following the latest events, she received only brief calls from family before all communications were cut. Her relatives report people being shot in the streets, women and children being killed, bodies being withheld unless families pay large sums—sums based on the amount of bullets that are being used to kill—and almost no access to food, water, medicine, power or cash for those living in fear. What are the Government doing to document and preserve that evidence and testimony; is the status of the Iranian embassy and regime-linked assets in the UK under active review; and how are we supporting British-Iranian families who fear the worst for those they love back home?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the testimony of his constituent, and I know that there are others across the country with similar experiences. We are aware of a range of reports along the lines that he describes. I have set out some of the steps that we will be taking in relation to the evidence collection that he described. We view the role of the independent fact-finding mission as vital in providing a United Nations-backed method by which the evidence can be preserved and accountability can be seen.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In response to the unilateral US action in Venezuela, the Government merely said that they were waiting to establish all the facts. Meanwhile President Trump said that he does not need international law, and that he is constrained only by his own morality or conscience. In advance of any US unilateral action against Iran, will the Minister reassure the House that this time the Government will speak up for the use of force when it is in compliance with international law?
Mr Falconer
As the House knows, the Government are a strong supporter of international law. Everything we do is consistent with that principle, but for the reasons that I set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I will not be commenting on hypothetical scenarios.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions that have been announced, including those on prolific IRGC members. At the weekend, residents in Huddersfield took part in demonstrations to highlight the brutal repression in the region, particularly that of the Kurdish community in Iran and Syria. As my constituents have said to me, many of the UK-Iranian community are concerned for their safety and the safety of their families in Iran. What assurances can the Minister provide for my residents, and what else can he say about making sure that we proscribe the IRGC?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents in Huddersfield. She referred to her Kurdish community in Huddersfield, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among the Kurdish communities across the region. As we have discussed events in north-east Syria recently in this House, I hope Mr Speaker will forgive me if I pass just brief comment on that. I am glad that, since that discussion, there has been a ceasefire in relation to north-east Syria, which is a source of considerable reassurance to those living there. On my hon. Friend’s important question about the proscription of the IRGC, we are committed to the findings of the Hall review, which set out the need to have a state-analogous process for proscription, and we are committed to bringing forward legislation to achieve that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.
Mr Falconer
I want the House to be in absolutely no doubt that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety in the UK. The sanctions that we announced on Monday included one on the Interior Minister. There is no pulling of punches by the British Government in response to the sanctions. I say gently to the right hon. Member and to those on the Conservative Benches that we are moving with considerably more alacrity on these questions than they did during their period in government.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right when he says that our constituents who have relatives in Iran—relatives who are also British-Iranians themselves—are looking to us for clear action. I must press him on this point about proscription. He is aware, as has already been said, that the European Union has added the IRGC to its terrorist list, as has Australia, Canada and America. When I raised this with the Foreign Secretary three weeks ago, she talked about the importance of our taking action in concert with our allies. Given that our allies have already proscribed the IRGC, can he at least give us some comfort that that legislation will come forward forthwith and that this is an urgent priority for the Government?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I want to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. It is Home Office legislation, and it will need to go through the House in the usual way, but we are treating it as a matter of urgency. As the House has heard, the reason that the Jonathan Hall review is important is that it addresses itself precisely to the question of the difference between a state actor and a terrorist. I was the head of the terrorism response team in the Foreign Office and I know the difference in threat profile between an actor that is state-based and one that is not. That it is why it is important that we get this legislation right.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is a very real human cost to the violence used by the Iranian authorities. As many as 6,000 protesters—people like me and you, Mr Speaker—have been killed and murdered and more than 10,000 have been arrested. There is a real risk of extrajudicial execution. Political prisoners, including children, are being tortured in prison. Will the Government reassure us that they are having conversations with the US authorities ahead of the US-Iran talks, and making it clear to them that the lives and safety of those protesters, particularly the ones who are currently in prison, is of immense importance in the negotiations as they go forward?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that we are in regular contact with our US counterparts and others on all of those questions.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by a number of Members, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). I continue to advocate for ways in which the west can degrade the ability of the IRGC to kill protesters, such as targeted strikes on arms depots. I wish though to turn my remarks to the matter of proscription.
I am grateful for the Government moving forward with ways to look at proscribing the IRGC, but there is also the Islamic Human Rights Commission, which is linked to the Iranian regime, according to The Times and others. Just this weekend, it was seen on the streets of London with placards and chants in support of the Ayatollah. Even more depressing than that, I have heard reports that Iranian freedom protesters, including women, have been beaten up when they have attempted to hold these people to account outside their own centre. When Ministers are considering this question of proscription, I ask them to look at other groups such as the HRC, which operates under the guise of standing up for human rights when they are doing anything but that.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on Iran and for his question. We are aware of the reports of pro-regime protests in the UK. I cannot comment, as he would expect, on the process of sanction or proscription review, but I have taken his remarks to heart.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I join others in expressing horror at the stories coming out of Iran and the enormous death toll. I hope the Minister will take advantage of those international institutions, in which he has previously expressed confidence at the Dispatch Box, to bring a case to the International Criminal Court, particularly against the leaders in Iran. My secondary question is that, if the Iranian people, through their courage, are able to throw off their oppressors, are we able to say that there is a plan to support whatever may emerge after that event?
Mr Falconer
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I do not want to be drawn into speculating about regime change in Iran. The question at the moment is the rights of the Iranian protesters, which we want to see protected. We are horrified to see those rights violated in the way reports suggest, and that is where I want to focus my remarks today.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
In the past few weeks I have had heartbreaking conversations with Iranian and British-Iranian constituents, and letters from many more. They have fragments of information about what is coming out of Iran, and those fragments include many first-hand examples of horrific violence, killing and relatives unaccounted for. I am glad to hear about the step-up in sanctions and the commitment regarding the IRGC.
I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister could give on what we are doing with our allies to break the internet blackout so that we can get information out of Iran about what is really happening, not only for evidence purposes in future but to help the families who I represent find out what has happened to their loved ones.
Mr Falconer
I know that there is a large British-Iranian community in Kensington, and I join my hon. Friend in sharing in its anguish. The most important step needed is for the Iranian authorities to take the decision to lift the internet blockade to allow the Iranian people access to information, which is their right. I will not comment any further on some of the operational elements that my hon. Friend touches on, but that access is vital. I will repeat today, from the Dispatch Box, the call that I made when last we discussed this: the Iranians must allow their people access to the internet.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In answer to questions from Members on both sides of the House in relation to the proscription of the IRGC, the Minister has rightly said that he wants to see that legislation come forward, but we still do not have a fixed timetable. Given that the EU, the United States, Canada and Australia have proscribed the IRGC, does he not think that it shows Iran incredible weakness from the United Kingdom for us not to be following suit? Furthermore, given that Hezbollah were part of the Government of Lebanon when the previous UK Government proscribed them, does he not think that there is plenty of precedent to just get on and do it?
Mr Falconer
I do not think that the Iranian Government’s interpretation of the actions of the British Government in recent weeks is one of weakness. The sanctions package announced on Monday was far-ranging and follows a whole range of actions, some of which I described in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary.
The fair point that the hon. Gentleman makes is that, given the urgency of the situation, are we taking all of the steps that we need to take? We think that the Hall review is a substantial contribution to the question about the risks of the IRGC; we want to follow it carefully and make sure that we do this properly. That does not mean that we cannot act swiftly through our sanctions regime in the way that we announced yesterday.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in recent weeks. However, it is also important that those who do Iran’s bidding on the streets of the UK—particularly in targeting peaceful protesters—are held to account. I welcomed, last year, the UK’s decision to put Iran on the foreign influence registration scheme. Will the Minister update us on the impact that that is having on the crackdown that Iran is trying to carry out on our own streets?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for the question. Hostile states have sought to take advantage of the freedoms in this country by failing to register agents on our soil who are seeking to act on their behalf in whatever way. The foreign influence registration scheme means that it is now an offence for someone not to declare that they are acting as an agent for another country. It may well be that those seeking to act for Iran do not register under FIRS. If they do not, they are committing an offence, and I have every confidence in our services and police force that such people will be found.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I share the huge concern and outrage expressed across the House at the brave Iranian citizens who have been so brutally repressed by the regime. It is essential that the UK does everything possible, within the framework of international law, to support their struggle for freedom. I welcome the new sanctions that the Minister has announced on the Iranian leadership. On those principles of international law, will the Minister confirm that the UK will not support or enable in any way, including through intelligence sharing, any violation of international law by the United States or any other power in Iran?
Mr Falconer
I have set out our commitments to international law, and I will not provide hypotheticals.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcements about new sanctions on individuals responsible for the brutal treatment of protesters and the vile murder of 30,000 people, but human rights abuses on this scale are never the responsibility of a handful of individuals. They are systemic; they are state-wide actions. That is why I would like to press the Minister again about the decision to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I know that the legislation would need to be drawn up carefully, but this House rapidly passed emergency legislation to save British Steel and, more recently, to update medical training regulations. Can the Minister confirm that we are moving at pace to introduce emergency legislation that fully proscribes the IRGC? Can he also update us about the UK’s efforts to bring this matter to the UN Security Council?
Mr Falconer
As I set out in my statement, we brought this matter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we will continue to raise it with the United Nations, in the way that Members would expect. I want to reassure the House that I understand the points that hon. Members from across the House are making, but we have already sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC. The sanctions that we have announced are far-reaching, as indeed are the foreign influence registration scheme steps. We will bring forward legislation, but I would not wish to get ahead of the Leader of the House when it comes to setting out the timetable.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The IRGC and the so-called morality police have murdered 30,000 people on the streets of Iran. They pursued the wounded to their home, or to hospital, and murdered them. Given the length of time we have had to consider the proscription of the IRGC in its entirety, and given that we now have clear evidence of our own allies proscribing the IRGC in its entirety, why are the Government are not bringing forward such a proscription? Just before the weekend, I contributed to a cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, in which Members offered to support the fast-tracking of legislation through both Houses. The will is there on both sides of the House. Obviously the Minister cannot answer this at the Dispatch Box now, but will he go back to the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, and ensure that this gets done?
Mr Falconer
I hear the passion in the hon. Gentleman’s voice. We are taking this issue incredibly seriously. This is a far-reaching sanctions package, and we will come back to the House once the Leader of the House is in a position to set out the timetable for the legislation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the brutal, violent and illegal repression of Iranian civilians by this regime shows just how difficult it is for civilian populations to rise up against their oppressors, as is so often demanded by people around the world? Would he pay tribute to the young women who have been protesting on the streets with great courage at this incredibly difficult time for their country?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure many Members of the House have seen the pictures of female protesters on the streets of Iran, not just in Tehran but across the country. It is impossible not to be moved by their bravery, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to reflect on that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Thankfully, Iranian influence is in decline in the south Caucasus and central Asia, but one country in which it seems to be in the ascendancy is Georgia. Does the Minister share my concern about allegations that there are up to 13,000 Iranian companies registered in Georgia, with 700 registered to one small building in one small village? There is potential sanctions-busting and sanctions-evasion activity going on there. That money feeds into the Iranian regime and funds its malign and malevolent activity across the world. Will the Minister take that up with the Foreign Secretary, and investigate whether Iran is funding its regime by using Georgia as a back door to the Black sea?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable expertise. He will know that I will not comment on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but I will say that Iran’s influence in its near abroad and beyond has usually proven to be malign. We can see the long scars of Iran’s influence in Lebanon, in Gaza and in a whole range of contexts, so I warn all our allies to be very careful about their relationships with Iran.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister will be aware of my trip to Jordan last year, as part of a parliamentary delegation of colleagues from across this House. It was clear from speaking to members of the Jordanian legislature that Iran’s malign impact on the region’s security and stability is of great concern to Jordan. Can he provide me with reassurance that the Government are working with regional partners, such as Jordan, to ensure that Iran’s malign and malevolent influence on the region is withstood and held back?
Mr Falconer
I was interested to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit to Oman. The Kingdom of Jordan is one of our closest allies in the region. We discuss these issues regularly with the Jordanians, and other regional powers that are affected, and I was conducting that business this morning.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The IRGC navy is busy practising the rapid deployment of sea mines, presumably with a view to closing the strait of Hormuz, as it did between 1980 and 1988. What assessment have the Government made of the threat that that poses to our critical national interests? Has he considered the prepositioning of our autonomous mine-hunting capability, which entered service at the beginning of last year?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who was my predecessor, for his questions, but for reasons that he will understand, I will not give the precise low-down on our defence assets. I think he refers to the regular exercises that Iran has conducted in the strait. We are a maritime nation, as are many of the Gulf nations, and we take questions about the free passage of trade with the seriousness that they require.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
As well as funding and fuelling violence across the world, the Iranian regime is once again showing its brutality on the streets. Like many hon. Members, I have had constituents in my surgery in tears; they are living in constant distress and fear about what might have happened to their families. Will the Minister outline how this Government are truly doing all that they can to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian regime, including with regards to embassy arrangements? Does he agree that a united and co-ordinated message must go out from us and our allies, saying that the regime will pay a price for this horrendous violence?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend reflects the feelings of the whole House about the issues that we are describing. He asks me to comment on embassy arrangements. I can confirm to the House that while we did withdraw staff from our embassy in Tehran temporarily, they have now returned, and our embassy is functioning. Our embassy operates under the same restrictions that the rest of Iran currently operates under. As we have heard from many hon. Members, it is a source of real anguish to British-Iranians that we cannot provide consular assistance in Iran in the way that we can in other nations, particularly at a moment of such acute restrictions. However, our ambassador is back in Tehran, alongside his team, and we will do everything that we can.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
China has no regard for human rights whatsoever, and it is known to be trading with Iran, which is enabling Iran to slaughter its own citizens. What assessment is the Foreign Office making of the details of that trade, and what action is it taking?
Mr Falconer
I will not speculate on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we have kept a close eye on Iran’s interactions with other states, including both China and Russia. This Government imposed sanctions on Iran for supplying weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine. Given that Iran is conducting such a brutal crackdown on its own people, all members of the Security Council will wish to consider the nature of their relationships with it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his tone in speaking about this incredibly grave situation. Some 6,500 people have been killed by headshots—they have been blinded and murdered—and thousands have been injured. It is estimated that some 60,000 people have been imprisoned. While it is positive news that there may be talks between our closest ally, the USA, and the despotic regime in Iran, we can never be complacent about the situation. Will the Minister press to secure the release of political prisoners and detained protesters? Will he further ensure that access is granted to the prisons, so that they can be assessed, and to the victims of the protest response?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern about these issues. As he would expect, when it comes to the Iranian authorities, we have been focused on ensuring consular access for our nationals who have been detained, but he raises important questions about basic rights, including the right to a fair trial, access to a lawyer and access for families. We call on the Iranians to show those basic courtesies to their own people.
Separation Centres Review
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres and the Government’s response to it.
On 12 April 2025, convicted terrorist Hashem Abedi brutally attacked three prison officers in the separation centre at His Majesty’s Prison Frankland. I have seen the CCTV footage of what happened, and it is truly horrifying. I pay tribute to the officers, who I know will continue to be deeply affected by the appalling attack that they suffered, simply for doing their jobs and keeping all of us safe.
As the House will know, separation centres are specialist, high-secure units in prisons, containing the most pernicious extremist and terrorist offenders, determined to spread hate and inspire violence. Extremism in the prison estate takes many forms, but to date, these units have only been used to contain Islamic extremists. They protect other prisoners, staff and the public.
Before responding to Jonathan Hall’s review, I visited HMP Frankland’s separation centre. I met the brave officers who serve there. They are dedicated professionals, doing an incredible and essential job—a public service carried out far from the public view. As the Abedi attack made devastatingly clear, extremism and violence in our prisons are real, present threats, and they must be dealt with decisively for the safety of the British public. The Government appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review of separation centres so that we can learn lessons, strengthen our defences and reduce the risk of such an attack happening again.
Following this incident, the Government acted immediately to strengthen protections for frontline staff. One of my first acts as Deputy Prime Minister was to invest £15 million in prison security, increasing the number of stab-proof vests available for frontline officers from 750 to 10,000, with 5,000 specifically for officers working in long-term and high-security prisons, and providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of tasers. I believe that Conservative Members welcomed these moves, but could not explain why they had never made such provision themselves when in government. Staff also have access to a range of protective equipment, including helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons and shields, as well as body-worn cameras and PAVA—pelargonic acid vanillylamide, or pepper—spray, to help keep them safe.
The Government are grateful to Mr Hall for his forensic and thorough work. His findings are clear: the core principle behind separation centres remains sound. Small, specialist units are crucial for managing the most dangerous and influential offenders, not just because of the violent nature of the offending, but because of the risk of radicalisation they pose to other prisoners. They must be kept away from the general prison population, but the system must improve. The report makes 13 recommendations for strengthening safety, sharpening accountability and modernising how separation centres operate. The Government accept all 13 in full, and in some areas will go further. Full details are in today’s Government response, but I will now set out the key themes.
The first focuses on managing risk. When it comes to staff safety, Mr Hall finds that the most dangerous offenders actively seek out weaknesses to exploit, and the underlying risk posed by certain terrorist prisoners can never be entirely removed. The Government are clear that prison staff must be properly equipped to spot those risks and tackle them. Alongside our immediate protective measures, we will continue to invest in the tools, training and support that staff need to manage terrorist risk safely and confidently, including a comprehensive, expert-led review of training for separation centre staff, to ensure that it is tailored to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.
The second theme addresses how separation centres work in practice, and how they are led. Mr Hall identifies a clear need to transform the way in which separation centres are governed and operated. That is why we will explore all available options to overhaul the system, including, at the next spending review, the creation of new, tougher super-max-style units for the most violent and disruptive prisoners. This will be a tiered system, with movement between tiers permitted only following rigorous new risk assessments. We will begin designing that system immediately. We will also improve the quality of referrals into separation centres through a single, specialist team with the expertise to produce high-quality, defensible referrals.
The third theme focuses on reform of current policy and law. Mr Hall finds that outdated procedures and legal complexity constrain operational flexibility, undermine prison officers’ professional judgment and expose the system to unnecessary litigation. Conservative Members should pause to consider that they did nothing to fix this mess in order to support frontline staff in doing their job with certainty. This Government are clear that process and policy must support effective risk management, not obstruct it. We have already improved the defensibility of our separation centre policy framework, and we will go further to ensure that it is robust and grounded in operational reality.
The Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights, but commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges that article 8 can pose for separation centre decision making, which Mr Hall highlighted, and the impact that litigation has on the ability to manage terrorists and other dangerous offenders. Again, unlike the Conservative party, we think that that is wholly unacceptable, which is why we are strengthening internal processes so that they are clear and resilient to challenge, and allow staff to focus on managing risk and protecting the public. We will also consider whether new legislation is needed to protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from litigation on article 8 grounds. We are exploring the full range of options to deliver that, while being clear that we will remain compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.
The fourth theme focuses on intelligence. Mr Hall finds that current intelligence practices are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focused. The Government have already improved how intelligence is used across the prison estate. The new counter-terrorism training package, which was launched last year, supports staff to identify and act on terrorist-risk behaviour. That is another example of how this Government support frontline workers in a way in which they were not supported previously. We will go further by improving collection practices so that higher-quality and more relevant intelligence is gathered. That will be supported by further training for specialist staff, through work with the security service, to ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools, and that high-quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions.
The attack at HMP Frankland was a stark reminder of the dangers that prison staff face every day. Our response will be decisive and determined. We will strengthen security, better protect staff, and reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure. We cannot accept the situation that we inherited, in which frontline staff who dealt with the most dangerous offenders had to second-guess their actions. This Government will always stand behind those who stand between the public and danger. We will not shy away from reform in this area, and we will never lose sight of our first duty: to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesperson and other Members, I note that the Hashem Abedi case, to which passing reference was made, is sub judice. Members should avoid reference to the specifics of such cases.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the publication of this important review. The Government commissioned Jonathan Hall to produce his report following the very violent attack on three prison officers last April by Hashem Abedi—the man behind the Manchester arena atrocity. I pay tribute to the vital work done by the brave men and women of the Prison Service.
We should be frank about why separation centres are necessary. They house the most dangerous and radicalised terrorist offenders in the country. Charlie Taylor wrote in 2022 following an inspection:
“The centres were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far, they have only been used for Muslim men”.
That should not be a surprise, because Islamist extremism is by far the gravest threat that we face, and attempts to pretend otherwise are not only cowardly but enormously counterproductive. MI5 says that 75% of its counter-terrorism work is focused on Islamists, and 61% of terrorist prisoners are Islamists, yet the figures show that only 10% of Prevent referrals are Islamists. The Justice Secretary was clear about the Islamist threat, but even then he felt the need to caveat his comments by saying that extremism in the prison estate takes many forms. Of course it does, but time after time, we hear people in positions of authority refer to acts of terrorism, antisemitic violence, and the poison of intolerance and hatred, without the bravery or honesty to name the ideology behind it all. Its name is Islamism, and it has no place in our country, but if we are afraid to be honest about it, we will never defeat it.
Mr Hall has said that in prisons,
“The impact of Islamist groups has been underappreciated for too long by the authorities.”
He has reported that Islamist gangs in prisons are too often viewed
“purely through the lens of good order and discipline”,
and governors believe that they
“can sometimes provide a degree of calm and stability”.
He has revealed that
“prison officers sometimes appeal to the wing ‘emir’ for their assistance in maintaining good order.”
When will prison inspectors be directed to investigate Islamist extremism? Will the Justice Secretary ensure that known problems, such as gang-enforced sharia courts in prisons, are investigated and reported on? Will he publish information on the number of religiously and ideologically motivated incidents in prisons?
The problems for prisons caused by our human rights laws are well documented. The Justice Secretary said that he would consider whether new laws are needed to limit litigation based on article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Making full use of the Sir Humphrey lexicon, he said that he was exploring the full range of options, but promised nothing concrete, and—as is obligatory in this Government of human rights lawyers—he pledged fealty to the European convention.
Let us consider the recent case of Sahayb Abu, an ISIS terrorist who planned to “shoot up a crowd” of civilians and is serving a life sentence. He was held in a separation centre and made subject to greater restrictions following the Abedi attack. He used article 3 of the convention—which the Justice Secretary did not mention—to argue successfully that his prison, HMP Woodhill, did not take into account his mental health. Will the Justice Secretary tell us how many prisoners are in the process of suing the Government, under the prison rules and European convention on human rights, to escape separation centres and close-supervision centres? What is he doing to prevent them from being awarded compensation? When will he decide whether he needs to legislate to limit the application of article 8? What will he do about article 3 claims like the one made by Sahayb Abu?
Should not the Justice Secretary be open about the reality of his commitment to the ECHR, which he repeated today? It means rights for criminals and terrorists like Sahayb Abu and Hashem Abedi, but danger for prison officers and the wider public. The Justice Secretary can say what he likes about legislating—perhaps, after careful consideration, and in the fullness of time—to avoid litigation based on article 8, but the simple truth is that, as long as we remain in the ECHR, he cannot guarantee a thing. And that is why we must leave.
Mr Lammy
I agree with the shadow Justice Secretary on the dangerous radicalised offenders we are talking about. I sense some cross-party agreement on that and on the importance of the work being done here. He rightly talks about Islamic extremism in our prisons being the main context, and I agree. Some 254 prisoners are in custody for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences in England and Wales, according to the latest figures, and 60% of them have an Islamic ideology, 30% have an extreme right-wing ideology and 10% were categorised as holding other ideologies. He is right that in these separation centres, as I conveyed, we are dealing with Islamic extremism, and it is pernicious and challenging.
The shadow Justice Secretary talked about gangs. Most prisons show no evidence of extremism based on gang activity. Where it does exist, we have a zero-tolerance approach and encourage staff to clamp down swiftly on any threatening behaviour. Jonathan Hall talks about the important training that is necessary in this area. That is why we will be investing in training counter-terrorism specialists and intelligence officers to identify and disrupt gang activity in particular.
The shadow Justice Secretary also talked about previous work in this area. Our internal assessment is that 208 out of 230 recommendations have been completed from all the other reviews that have looked at counter-terrorism work in prison, some of which he will have commissioned during his time in the Home Office. Only seven of those recommendations were rejected, and 15 remain open. All the open recommendations are from more recent reviews and are being actively worked on. Some of them require legislative changes.
We recognise the use of article 8 and article 3 by this group of prisoners, but we are absolutely clear that leaving the European convention on human rights—a convention that was championed by Winston Churchill—would leave children, the elderly and many vulnerable victims, like those of John Worboys, the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster and British troops who died in Iraq, in the most vulnerable position. We cannot and must not do that, so first, we are looking closely at the guidance, as I indicated, and secondly, we will explore legislative obligations. That is the sensitive and detailed work that we must do, because we do it within our existing obligations to the ECHR.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved ones will continue to feel the effects of that day for years to come. They deserve not only our thanks, but the assurance that everything possible is being done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
That attack exposed serious weaknesses in how separation centres are run and made clear the need for urgent change. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the independent review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC and the work he has done to examine how these centres operate and what steps are needed to strengthen safety and security, so that something like this never happens again. Getting separation centres right is crucial for the integrity of our prison system and for the staff, who should never have to put their health or lives at risk simply to do their job. These facilities must be fit for purpose and capable of securely managing the most dangerous extremists and terrorists.
The Ministry of Justice has been left firefighting crisis after crisis. If we are serious about restoring confidence in the justice system, we cannot afford complacency, especially when dealing with the most dangerous offenders. It is right that the Government are taking action, and I ask the Secretary of State today to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of those 13 recommendations and when the House will receive an update on the progress. Will he commit to a follow-up report, to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness?
A recent report on separation centres by His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate. At one site, almost half of officers said that insufficient attention had been paid to their mental health, and at both centres, more than a third said they needed additional training to feel confident in their role. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report? If not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?
Mr Lammy
We will continue to place individuals in separation centres, and Mr Hall’s review confirmed that they remain a vital part of our strategy to manage the most significant terrorist risks in our prisons. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for that.
The hon. Lady asked whether I would update the House on progress as we move to implement Jonathan Hall’s recommendations. I will seek to find ways to update the House as we do that, but I have indicated that some of those recommendations will have some bearing on the next spending review and on legislative timeframes, so I suspect they will go beyond this Parliament.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the mental health of the officers involved. To be attacked in that way involves tremendous trauma for those officers, who are putting their lives at risk on a day-to-day basis, as well as for their families and the other officers in the building who remain to deal with the aftermath of those attacks. The training is vital, and she is right that it cannot be inconsistent. That is why the Government’s response today is underpinned by the need to ensure that the intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism are working hand in hand with our experts in prisons to get this right, and that we approach these offenders with a degree of cynicism and scepticism as to their ability to refrain from the ideological conviction that clearly persists.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Justice Secretary says about making these places safer, but I have been reading the report from the prisons inspectorate, which said that although separation centres were generally safe, there was not enough skilled focus on deradicalisation. This is a highly complex area. Although I do not want to sound like a weak and washy liberal, we believe that prisons are about not just punishment but redemption. The Secretary of State may not be able to reply now, but could he write to me about what skilled psychological pressures we are using on these people to try to change their behaviour. There are many good Muslims who totally abhor violence whom we could perhaps involve in the process. Maybe I am being naive, but I think it is a question that needs to be asked.
Mr Lammy
I recognise in the question the power of the right hon. Gentleman’s Catholicism and belief in redemptive capacity. It is important that we have the best psychiatrists and those with the necessary psychosocial skills working with this group of offenders, but I am convinced that we must remain cynical and cautious in relation to that group, recognising that someone can present for years as a passive, compliant prisoner and yet down the line suddenly attack prison officers in the way that we saw.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely agree with what the Justice Secretary says about the dangers of deception. It is also concerning to note that people are now trying to use a mental health argument to get out of separation centres, given that anyone who holds a fanatical Islamist, Nazi or revolutionary view from some other doctrine has, by definition, a mental health question mark over their personality. I appreciate that he may have to write to me afterwards, but can he indicate what proportion of people imprisoned for terrorist offences related to Islamism are in separation centres, and what proportion are in the rest of the prison estate? What is known about the number of other people who have been radicalised by Islamist extremist prisoners in those parts of the prison estate that are not separated out like the units with which he is primarily concerned today?
Mr Lammy
I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the detail, because it is a very good question. There are 254 prisoners in custody for terrorism or terrorism-related offences, 60% of whom have an Islamic ideology, and all the prisoners in our separation centres come from that cohort. He will recognise that that is a tiny proportion of the rising population in prison who say they are of the Muslim faith. It is important to emphasise that. However, radicalisation is a bigger thematic area than just the work of those extremists in separation centres—he is absolutely right—and we have to continue bearing down on it. I have discussed this in Committee stages of Bills under the previous Government. It remains a long-standing issue and will continue to be, I suspect, for decades to come.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree that our most dangerous prisoners should be dealt with appropriately, but I will touch on an adjacent point around prison capacity. We are aware that the Government are in the process of rolling out more prison places—around 14,000—but we are also aware that none of those prison places are currently designated as category A. Looking at the most recent statistics for the beginning of the year, we see that of the available capacity in the prison system, only 12% is category A. Is the Justice Secretary confident that there is enough remaining capacity in the prison system at category A level, given that the remaining prison places planned are categories B to D? What is the number of available prison places remaining that will trigger a need for us to build out that capacity?
Mr Lammy
I was very pleased to say in oral questions that we are turning the tide on the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. In the context of my statement, I talked about a tiered approach—yes, a supermax approach, but on more than one site. As we enter a spending review and I make that case, as well as the case that Jonathan Hall makes, by definition and necessity the places will have to be category A—at the highest tier—for this group of prisoners. It is important, as we saw after the incident at Frankland, that we are able to move prisoners to other high-security sites; we have Belmarsh prison here in London, which I visited early in my post. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we will need to have those places, and I am happy to write to him with more detail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his careful words. In Northern Ireland, we operated segregation in our prisons during the troubles, and we found that it was essential to keep those who were able to turn moderates around into fanatics away from the general populace. However, for most of that time, we did not have to wrestle with the ECHR. In matters of national security, we have the right to restrict privileges, such as privacy and the right of assembly. Will the Secretary of State exercise those powers to keep in isolation those whose very presence is dangerous?
Mr Lammy
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of staring in the face, and at the consequences of, terrorist and extremist behaviour. It is important that we remain in the ECHR framework and that we bear down on excessive litigation. It is also important that the guidance is clear for the staff who have to work within this framework and that, where we can, we look at capping compensation payments, for example, and other areas. We will continue to review how, staying within the law, we do not create an excessive and unbearable environment for those who have to work there and protect us all.
Point of Order
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A number of news outlets are reporting, alongside comment from Downing Street, that the Cabinet Office has sent unredacted correspondence to the police regarding Peter Mandelson’s leaks of market-sensitive information to the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Have you or the Speaker’s Office received any notification from the Prime Minister that he intends to give a statement to update the House on this matter? If you have, will you ensure that time is made for the Prime Minister to give that statement today?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice that any Minister intends to make a statement on this matter. However, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s point of order and will no doubt pass it on.
British-made Bricks (Proposals)
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for measures to increase the use of British-made bricks in construction projects in the United Kingdom, including specific measures relating to the building of new homes; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is a big deal for my community back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Our people are smart and skilled; for generations, they powered our nation, they made, they designed and they thrived. My Bill is about ensuring that communities in our industrial heartlands are not forgotten or left behind and are given the opportunity once again to show what they are made of.
We all know that there is a housing crisis in our country, so I welcome the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That means that we build in the right places, with respect for our green spaces and our natural world, and do it with our people, not to them. As we do that, we must remain resolutely focused on building good-quality homes and building communities. That is how we end overcrowding, stop the struggle facing families across the United Kingdom in finding affordable, long-term and secure housing, and—importantly—give young people and first-time buyers a place to call their own.
I have only ever owned one home, and it is in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I want all families to have the security that their own home can and will provide, but this is not just about homes; it is about new schools and the community centres that bring people together. It is about the new hospitals. It is about the restoration of this place. It is about buying British, building with British, and backing British workers.
The manufacturing base for bricks here in the United Kingdom is ready to meet the demand for our building needs of all types. With that readiness, we would and should expect to see a thriving building material industry in our country, but we do not. Instead, we see manufacturers up and down the country on the brink, thanks to a lack of domestic demand.
Our United Kingdom can produce around 2 billion bricks a year, yet most manufacturers are currently operating at around 70% utilisation. That is because in recent years, this country has started to rely on second-rate imports, often of a lower quality than the bricks made to the highest of British standards. We must start giving the British brick industry the backing it deserves, and we will do that with this Bill.
The British brick industry started to decline when brick kilns were shut across the country following the economic crash of the late noughties, and brick imports to the United Kingdom began to make up for that decrease in domestic production. Around 20% of the brick market is now made up of imported bricks. That impacts our workers and hits British manufacturing, and it needs to change.
Imported bricks are being shipped over longer distances, including from far across the seas, with each brick used resulting in a greater carbon release. British-made bricks, from Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country, will typically travel shorter distances to building sites, helping to lower transport-related emissions and keeping their value in our local communities.
It is bonkers that we are relying on second-rate imports when British-made bricks are of the highest quality and build resilient, long-lasting homes and buildings. That is important in the context of the building safety reforms required after the disgraceful Grenfell disaster, the costs of energy, and how we preserve our planet and protect our environment. A typical clay-brick building has a lifespan of around 150 years; at the end of that life, the bricks can be refurbished, recycled and reused. They are strong, weather-resistant and fire-resistant. They provide longevity, durability and adaptability, and they sit a cut above the rest.
The lack of domestic demand for British-made bricks hits our economy and damages local businesses. Newcastle-under-Lyme—as I have said before, the centre of our collective universe—is home to one of 15 Ibstock factories. Ibstock is a leading British brickmaker, with a proud history of supplying bricks to British businesses, builders and the wider construction industry for more than 200 years. At its factory in Chesterton in Newcastle-under-Lyme, it employs local people, boosts our local economy and rightly makes the case that we must do whatever we can to reduce the risks of undermining the competitiveness of British-made bricks, and I agree.
North Staffordshire is the ceramics centre of not just our country, but our world, and the industry is hurting. My constituency neighbours over the A500—I see a couple of them here today—and colleagues on the Government Benches will continue standing up for the ceramics industry and keep pushing the Government to go further and to do more in standing up for and protecting the industry in our communities and this country. This Bill is part of doing just that.
Despite being best known for producing tableware, the ceramics industry plays a crucial role in our ability to build anything in Britain. We cannot manufacture steel, glass or—as my Bill draws attention to—bricks without it. The sector and its supply chain are concentrated in our part of the world, but over the last few years, the industry has suffered huge losses due to rising energy costs, trade disruptions and the ongoing impact of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Let us get real about it: the ceramics industry is hard to decarbonise, but let us not forget that our businesses are willing to engage and to make their contribution to that effort. Progress can be and is being made. Recent initiatives, such as pilot hydrogen-fired kilns, demonstrate that the industry is committed to modernising itself with low-carbon manufacturing. Hydrogen production is vital to manufacturers having the confidence to move away from natural gas kilns to modern electric and hydrogen-fired manufacturing processes that will future-proof the industry.
The ceramics industry cannot deliver this transition without sustained support, and my Bill is one part of the jigsaw. Another key part is skills, and I am so proud that Newcastle college, based on Knutton Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, offers a full-time level 1 diploma in brickwork. We are upskilling our people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, but we cannot do so without sustaining our British brick industry in future to ensure that those young people have something to do with their smarts, skills and qualifications. The potential cost to the livelihoods of people in my community, and to the strength of our local economy and businesses, is too great for us not to get this right. My Bill sets out a local-first approach that will help support our ceramics industry, and I look forward to working with His Majesty’s Government to do more in the weeks and months ahead.
As I present my Bill today, I think of the many men and women over generations who have worked in the ceramics industry in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire. I think of the potential untapped, the opportunities yet to be taken and the future that we can build together. I am grateful to colleagues from all four nations of our United Kingdom, and from both sides of the House, for putting their names to my Bill.
The Government must invest in further support so that we can safeguard jobs in communities like mine in our industrial heartlands, support our local economies and ensure that the British brick industry is fighting fit. My Bill is simple and common-sense, and its time is now. Our workers deserve it and our economy needs it. My Bill will help shape and build the future of our United Kingdom, so let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Adam Jogee, Henry Tufnell, Elaine Stewart, Dr Allison Gardner, Gareth Snell, Jacob Collier, Leigh Ingham, Samantha Niblett, Amanda Hack, Martin Vickers, Rachel Gilmour and Robin Swann present the Bill.
Adam Jogee accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 378).
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 458 / Noes: 104 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Core to our belief is the idea that no one, no matter their background, should be trapped by their circumstances. People should have the chance to make the best life they possibly can. Poverty is a barrier to that ambition, and it makes it much harder for people to achieve their full potential.
This legislation has its roots in the change made during the Conservative years to introduce the two-child limit on support for families on universal credit. Let us be clear at the start about what this was always about. It was never really about welfare reform, nor was it even about saving money. No, this was always, first and foremost, a political exercise—an attempt to set a trap for opponents, with children used as the pawns. This was all about the politics of dividing lines: between the so-called shirkers and strivers, or the old distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Politics first and policy second, every time.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me into responding. I served in the previous Conservative Government, and I was involved in all those decisions. There was a clear principle behind them: will people take responsibility for their own actions? There are thousands—millions—of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, rather than the state doing so. With this change, the Government are saying to those people, “Not only will the state take responsibility, but you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes.” That is the principle at stake here, and the Government are reversing a clear principled position taken by the last Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that there are many colleagues in the Chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let us try to keep the noise down when colleagues are contributing.
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman has set out the previous Government’s justification. I am about to explain why that did not stack up at the time, and why it certainly does not stack up after the experience of the policy.
We should begin by considering why no other neighbouring country has this two-child limit. Given that the policy was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children to have, but that did not happen. The family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit.
Pat McFadden
Not at the moment. This is not a static group; people’s circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die and jobs can be lost. In fact, around half of the families who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. This is not a static group of people, which drives directly at the heart of the argument that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) tried to make.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?
Pat McFadden
I will come on to the timing of our decision, and exactly why it is right.
Pat McFadden
Not at the moment.
As I said, around half the families who will benefit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. These are people who found themselves in need of help long after any decisions about family size had been taken.
No account was taken of the costs of the policy further down the line, such as lower educational attainment, worse mental health and lower earnings, perhaps for the whole of people’s working lives.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State regret saying that whether the two-child cap on benefits causes harm is “open to debate”?
Pat McFadden
No, I do not regret anything I have ever said on this issue. All along in this debate, there has been an attempt to divide workers from non-workers—
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Pat McFadden
I shall if the right hon. Lady shows a little patience.
Around 60% of the families affected by the current policy are in work, and of those who are not working, a significant number are affected by serious health conditions or caring responsibilities—circumstances in which any of us could find ourselves. As I have said, this was never really about work, decisions about family size or saving money; it was political through and through. It was children who paid the price, with 300,000 more of them going into poverty as a result.
Sir Desmond Swayne
It appears that those 300,000 were in poverty a year ago, but the Secretary of State has allowed that to persist till now. What has changed? It is not the fiscal situation, and it is not any room in the benefits budget. This is the Labour equivalent of Project Save Big Dog, is it not?
Pat McFadden
Timing matters, and if the right hon. Gentleman shows a little patience, I will tell him exactly why we have done this in the timeframe that we have.
All the policy did was force more children into poverty, alongside the Conservatives’ other key welfare measure of trapping the sick out of work. Even some voices on the right recognise the damage that this policy did. Former Tory Welfare Minister Lord Freud described it as “vicious” and said it had been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions by the Treasury at the time, and the former Conservative Home Secretary and new recruit for Reform, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), has said,
“Let’s abolish the two-child limit, eradicate child poverty for good”.
I do not know whether that is still her position—we will find out at tonight’s vote—but it seems that the party she has now joined wants to restore the two-child limit. Reform is importing not just failed Tory politicians, but failed Tory policies.
Between 2010, when the Conservatives came into office, and the summer of 2024 when they left it, the number of children in poverty had risen by some 900,000. That is something to ponder as Members on the Opposition Benches have their debate about whether or not Britain is broken. If it is, who was responsible? Who designed the welfare system that they tell us on a daily basis is broken? They did. Who broke the prisons system that we have had to rescue? They did. Who shook international confidence in our economy and its key institutions? They did. This is the inescapable problem with the Conservatives’ current position: an attack line that says, “We trashed the country and left you with a terrible inheritance,” might just not be the winning argument they think it is. Let them have their debate about whether Britain is broken while we get on with the task of fixing what they left behind.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend has described, this is a crucial policy, but it is a downpayment on tackling other failures of the former Government, including the poor-quality and overcrowded housing that puts too many children in poverty of situation. Is he proud, as I am, that we now have a Labour Government who are tackling these issues and getting our children where they should be?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right, and the point she makes is that we also tackle these issues piece by piece and over time.
I turn now to the question that people have asked: “Why not do this right away?” Here is the difference between government and opposition. The truth is that in opposition, it is easy to tally up everything that is wrong with the country and promise to reverse it, but a winning manifesto has to be more than a list of what is wrong.
Pat McFadden
Not at the moment. We spent plenty of time in opposition writing those lists—we had many years to do it—only to see them turn to dust on the morning of an election defeat. Good intentions were written off by the voters because the hard yards of winning their trust on the essentials of exercising power had not been done. Change comes only by earning the trust that is essential to victory, and it is because we did that that we are able to sit on the Government Benches and change anything at all, whether for children, low-paid workers or anyone else.
Our first job when we came into office was to stabilise the economy after the irresponsibility and chaos of the Tory years, and even after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had done that, change still has to be paid for. That is why she was right to spell out at the Budget that this policy can only be introduced now, and can only be funded through a combination of savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme, and reform of online gambling taxation.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have tried my best to be patient, as he indicated I should be, but surely he agrees that there is only one way for him to pay for these increases, which is taxes?
Pat McFadden
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spelled out at the Budget how this was going to be paid for. If the right hon. Lady did not hear me the first time, I am happy to repeat myself: savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme—which the Conservatives did not make when they were in power—and reform of online gambling taxation.
It was also right that we took the time to do the work on the child poverty strategy, which was so ably co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. That work meant that the strategy included wider policies on childcare, school holidays help and a number of other measures, as well as those that are in today’s Bill.
The Bill is about ensuring that children have the chance of a better life. It will mean 450,000 fewer children in poverty in the last year of this Parliament and, taken together with the other measures in the child poverty strategy, will lift an estimated 550,000 children out of poverty. This Labour Government will reduce child poverty, just as the last Labour Government did.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I am glad that the UK Government are finally taking action on child poverty and removing the two-child cap on universal credit—a policy, of course, that Plaid has opposed from the start. However, more than one in five households affected by the two-child limit will not benefit because of the cap on benefits. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should now lift the benefit cap, so that every eligible household and every eligible child receives the full support this Bill sets out to provide?
Pat McFadden
I remind the hon. Lady that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without undermining incentives to work.
The Bill removes the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause, which is a feature that we inherited from the Conservative regime. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child. For the families who will benefit, this measure will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. My understanding is that it is the current position of the Conservative party to bring back the limit, and therefore to bring back that provision. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps Reform Members can clarify their position when they contribute to the debate.
The policy change made by this Bill is not just about the redistribution of money—it is not just about placing children on the right side of an income line in a spreadsheet. It is about changing the story of children’s lives. That is an investment worth making for the whole country. It is about giving children a genuine shot at life, so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to their country and community as an adult. That is harder when children grow up poor, as they are less likely to do well at school, with less than a quarter of children in the lowest-income households getting five good GCSEs.
By the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and for the benefits bill that we are seeing in today’s system. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training—those numbers grew rapidly in the final years of the Conservatives’ time in power, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are reforming the system by changing the incentives of universal credit, ending a situation in which the sick have been signed off and written off, and increasing support to get disabled people into work. As Sir Charlie Mayfield estimated in his recent “Keep Britain Working” report,
“Someone leaving the workforce in their 20s can lose out on over £1 million in lifetime earnings—with the state incurring a similar cost”
to support them. These are the kinds of consequences that were not thought through when the Conservatives’ policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it.
Investing in children’s potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health and a better chance of a decent job. The most radical thing that a Government can do is enable people to change their own story. Our ambitions should go well beyond providing financially for people; they should be about providing the platform for that change, so there is a direct link between this Bill and the other things we are doing. We are providing more help with childcare for working parents in order to make work pay and to ease the choice between looking after children and taking up a job. That is in their interests and in the national interest—why should we lose the talents of those who have children?
The youth guarantee will help the young unemployed with training, work experience and ultimately a subsidised job, so that they know the pride and purpose that comes with having work. That is in their interests and in the national interest. We have more apprenticeships for young people, stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade. That is in their interests and in the national interest. Better life chances are part of the battle against the human and social cost of more and more young people being signed off sick and declared unfit for work. All these things will become more urgent as the population ages and we need more young workers to support the country. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest.
This debate is part of a wider one in politics. In this debate and in others, we have seen a politics of division in this country that wants to set person against person and group against group, and I believe we are only in the foothills of it. We will see more of this division, both home-grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. That is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but much more widely—and I want to make it clear today that we set ourselves against that politics, and make a clear and explicit choice to reject it.
Anger and division are not the fuel upon which this country’s future must be built. They will produce nothing. They will solve nothing. Indeed, they will only perpetuate the chaos in the country that people are so tired of. Instead, we embrace the mantle of hope to offer a chance and not a grievance—a society where we help each other up, rather than try to tear each other down, and where we say to those born into poor circumstances, “We will help you be the best you can be, not through altruism, but because we need you, we believe in you and we want your contribution.” That is in our interests and in the national interest. This is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics; that is what the change in this Bill is all about, and it is why I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Every week, millions of people up and down the country sit at their kitchen table and do the sums to work out what is coming in, what is going out, and what simply is not affordable. Sometimes the conversation may take a more serious turn to one of life’s biggest decisions: “Shall we start a family?” or “Can we afford another child?” Though romantics might love that to be a decision about whether people want the joy of bringing new life into this world, the reality is that many ask themselves, “Can we afford it?” They are not looking to someone else to help them make ends meet or pick up the bill; they are just doing the maths. That is a difficult conversation, but Members have to ask themselves a simple question before we vote: why should people on benefits get to avoid the hard choices faced by everyone else?
Let us be clear about what the two-child cap is and what it is not. The two-child cap restricts the additional universal credit a household can get to the amount for two children, with carefully considered exceptions, such as twins or non-consensual conception. It does not apply to child benefit. It says that there is a limit, and a point at which it is simply not fair to make taxpayers fund choices that they themselves cannot afford to make.
Dame Meg Hillier
What does the shadow Secretary of State have to say to my constituent, who found herself single with three children in temporary accommodation and then moved into a one-bedroom flat? In those overcrowded conditions, her youngest got ill, and she had to give up her good job to look after that child. This Bill is a lifeline for her. She wants to go back to work, but it is difficult. She did not choose to be in that situation—it was not a choice. And, for the record, most of my constituents do not have space for a kitchen table.
Helen Whately
I am sure that all of us in this House care about poverty and children’s prospects, but the answer is not to spend more, to hand out more money and to trap people in worklessness; the answer is to support people to work, and that is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Lady’s Government are doing.
We all know that bringing up children is expensive and important, but when working couples are having to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family at all, they should not be asked to pay higher taxes to fund someone else to have a third, fourth or fifth child. Someone who is in work does not get a pay rise because they have another child. If we are serious about avoiding a benefits trap, whereby it pays more to be on welfare than in work, we should be honest about what happens if we lift the two-child cap. Benefits for individual households will rise by thousands. Nearly half a million households will receive around £5,000 more on average. A single parent on universal credit with five children could get an extra £10,000 without doing any work, taking their household income to more than £45,000, untaxed—people have to earn about £60,000 to get that income from work! Around 75,000 households will get between £10,000 and £21,000 extra as a result of this Bill. For some households, the extra money will be more than a full-time income, after tax, for someone on the minimum wage.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an issue of fairness for the taxpayer if people are working hard in a job but being rewarded less than someone else getting benefits? That is why we need to keep the two-child benefit cap.
Helen Whately
It is exactly as my hon. Friend says. The extra money that some families will be receiving—without even working—would require such a high income to achieve through work. This simply exacerbates the poverty trap.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I will give way to Members on the Government Benches in a moment. I just ask them to think about the implications of the extra money that people will be receiving. Some people will—frankly and factually—calculate that they can boost their income far more by having children than by working. The best way out of poverty will not be work—[Interruption.] Government Members do not like to hear this, but I am afraid it is just rational. The best way out of poverty will not be work; it will be having babies.
I want to address the argument that lifting the cap is necessary because women are not having enough babies. We know that a declining birth rate is a cause for concern, but falling birth rates are driven by many factors, including changes in people’s aspirations, the poor jobs market, the cost of housing and childcare, the penalties that motherhood imposes on careers and the changing nature of 21st-century relationships. Children are important and we need to have more, but the answer to that complex problem is not, “Here’s some cash for having a kid.”
John Grady
We in the Treasury Committee looked at this issue extensively, and I am unaware of any particular evidence that supports the behavioural arguments the hon. Lady is setting out. In any event, why should 95,000 bright and talented children in Scotland be punished by an utterly cruel policy? Is it not fatuous to suggest that people are having children for money, as well as insulting to people in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom?
Helen Whately
The fact is that people do the sums. That is the reality of the world we live in. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he is a member of the Treasury Committee, so he must be interested—even though he is looking at his phone—in these unavoidable questions. Where will the £3 billion to fund this Bill come from? Where will the £14 billion over a five-year period come from? We all know where it will come from: taxpayers—either today’s or tomorrow’s—and the men and women who get up every morning, go to work, pay their bills and do the right thing. In the last Budget, as she knows, the Chancellor made a deliberate political choice: to raise taxes on people who work and save, so that millions who do not work will receive more in benefits. Working families already make hard choices. Many already strive and struggle to live within their means. This Bill asks them to shoulder even more.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State must know that the vast majority of families in poverty include at least one adult in work. She asks how this Bill is being paid for. Well, it is being paid for by increased taxes on gambling giants. Would it not be more truthful to say that the hon. Lady is on the side of gambling giants rather than children in poverty?
Helen Whately
Unfortunately, the hon. Lady does not seem to understand that hypothecated taxes are not a thing. What she has said simply does not make sense. The fact is that this Bill will cost the Government money, so it will cost taxpayers money, either now or in the future. That is simply the way it works.
Sir Desmond Swayne
We now hear shouts of “cruelty” and “the rape clause”, but I see only one of the seven who were suspended sitting on the Labour Benches. The rest of them kept their heads down and voted to perpetuate what they now call cruelty and the rape clause. How do they sleep at night?
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend has indeed made a significant point about the strange position in which so many Labour Members find themselves. Having previously voted against lifting the cap, here they are now, delighted about lifting it.
Labour Members say that the Bill will end child poverty. They have read that increasing handouts will decrease the metric called relative poverty. However, relative poverty is a deeply misleading measure. It is not an accurate measure of living standards. It tells us nothing about whether people have enough to live on, or whether children will have better life chances. It can get worse when the country gets richer, even when living standards for the very poorest are rising, and it can look better when people are getting poorer. That is not progress; it is levelling down. Throwing money at one flawed metric is not a strategy. In fact, it risks doing the opposite of what Ministers claim to want, trapping families in long-term dependency rather than lifting them out of it.
There is a proven way in which to improve children’s life chances, and that is work. Work allows parents to provide for their families, to pay the rent or mortgage, to put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs, to set an example to their children, and to create structure and routine in their households. The Centre for Social Justice has found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived, but under this Government the number of children growing up in workless households has risen at the fastest rate on record, and has now reached 1.5 million. Contrast that with our record, Madam Deputy Speaker. From 2014 onwards, the number of children in workless households fell year on year. We lifted a million people out of absolute poverty, including 100,000 children, and we drove unemployment down to historic lows.
Under this Labour Government, unemployment is rising month after month, so, sadly, the number of children in workless households will continue to increase. Inflation is up as well, to almost double the level that the Government inherited. Higher inflation means that the money in your pocket is worth less: in other words, you are poorer. Fewer jobs, more unemployment, a higher cost of living—that is what the Government are doing to people. I say this to them: you do not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am enjoying listening to Members who say they have met constituents who have suffered hard times. I grew up in hard times, on welfare, through the death of a parent, watching my mum go without food to feed us. There is no possible way, given that the cuts to benefits have been pulled, that the country can afford this. We will have no defence of the realm. South Shropshire residents will start going without. There is no feasible way to fund this measure, whichever way Labour Members look at it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend has made the important point that no other party in the Chamber seems to realise what a serious financial position the country is in. We have to ask ourselves hard questions about what the country can afford.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches at least understand the historical consistency:186 years ago the Tories made economic arguments against stopping children being sent up chimneys, and 186 years later they are making the same arguments, about stopping children being put into poverty. Same old Tories, nearly 200 years later!
Helen Whately
If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am about to say about the back and forth on this policy on his side of the House, he will see that he should think a bit harder before talking about “consistency”.
So what is this Bill really about? If Labour truly believes that lifting the two-child limit is essential to tackling poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it? Years ago he called the cap “punitive” and promised to scrap it, but then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party, he changed that tune. He said that Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. His Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, said that it was unaffordable. Just six months ago, the Government even suspended the whip from MPs who voted to lift the cap, but now that the Prime Minister’s leadership is under threat, it is the end for the cap. How long will it be before he goes the same way? That is the real reason we are debating the Bill today: we have a weak Prime Minister, running scared from his left-wing Back Benchers.
Talking of the left wing, I expect that Labour will be joined in the Division Lobby later by some of the Opposition Members sitting to the left of me. No doubt the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will also be competing to see who can be the most generous with other people’s money. Reform UK has jumped on the welfare spending bandwagon too. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have not tabled a reasoned amendment today, not because we think that the Bill is perfect—I hope that is clear—but because any amendment would still leave us with a watered-down version of the cap. Other parties have got in a right muddle on this—one in particular—but to us it is clear and simple: the cap should stay. Anything else is a worse policy. Amending the Bill is not the right answer; the House should just vote it down.
First and foremost, I have argued against the Bill on the grounds of fairness, but there is another reason to vote against it. More than 50% of households now receive more from the state than they pay in. The benefits bill is ballooning. Health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade—more than we spend on defence, education or policing. The benefits bill is a ticking time bomb. We have to start living within our means. Other parties are simply in denial about the situation that we face in our country. The Conservatives are the only party that recognises how serious this is. We would not be spending more on benefits; in fact, we have explained how we would be saving £23 billion. We would stop giving benefits to foreign nationals, stop giving benefits for lower-level mental health problems and milder neurodiversity, stop the abuse of Motability, and bring back face-to-face assessments. We would get the benefits bill under control, and back people to work.
Labour claims to be compassionate, but there is nothing compassionate about making welfare the rational choice, nothing compassionate about rewarding dependency over work, and nothing compassionate about saddling working families with higher taxes to fund political U-turns. Outside this place, people can see what is happening. They know when a system is unfair. They know when a Government have lost their way. They know when a Prime Minister’s time is up. Members should not be enticed by his final throws. They should step back and do what is right for the country. They should back people who do the right thing, back jobs and work and lower taxes, and back living within our means and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than backing a policy that will add billions to the benefits bill and trap parents in a downward spiral of dependency. This Bill does not end poverty. It entrenches it, so we oppose it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Of the measures brought forward in this Government’s Budget last year, the abolition of the two-child limit is the one that most fills me with hope and more than a little pride, so I thank the Government for listening to so many of us who raised this issue as a concern.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reminded us, child poverty is not just about children going hungry once in a while, or not being able to buy the designer trainers they want. For every 1% increase in child poverty, more babies die before their first birthday. In fact, this causal link has been quantified, and it amounts to 5.8 additional deaths per 100,000 live births. A baby born into a poor family is five times more likely to die than a baby born into a wealthy one. I ask Opposition Members to consider that when they make their interventions and speeches.
If such children are lucky enough to survive their first year, they will be more likely to suffer poor physical and mental ill health and more likely to end up as an emergency hospital admission. The impacts on their neurological development as they grow are profound. How the brain makes its neural connections changes because of the stress and adversity that children go through. In turn, that affects behaviour, cognitive development and achievements in school. These disadvantages continue into adolescence and adulthood, so every aspect of children’s lives is affected.
We are rightly concerned about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are NEETs. We must look at the evidence for why that is, not just jump to conclusions for political expediency. There is strong evidence from the UK millennium cohort study that persistent exposure to poverty and childhood adversity, including poor parental mental health, means that such people are five times more likely to be NEET. It is estimated that more than half—nearly 53%—of current NEET cases are attributable to persistent exposure to poverty and childhood adversity. It is not because young people fancy a duvet day, and I really think it is disgraceful that such phrases are repeated in the media. This pattern goes on right through adolescence and young adulthood, and it affects people’s earning capacity, as we have heard.
When in government, the Conservatives were warned repeatedly. I was a shadow Work and Pensions Minister, and I represented the Labour party during the passage of the original legislation, so I know they had repeated warnings. I chaired an all-party parliamentary group that raised the issue, and we engaged with the Faculty of Public Health, which did an impact analysis to identify the harms that would take place. We also did a retrospective analysis to show the damage the policy was having. That legislation introduced not only the two-child limit and the benefit cap, but the benefit freeze—we must not forget the benefit freeze—and the harms those policies have caused to the lives of children, who are now our young adults, are absolutely shameful.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
This issue is one of the things we have looked at in the Work and Pensions Committee, and the evidence is quite clear that we must remove the two-child benefit cap and enable long-term investment in our young people. Those young people in poverty suffer extraordinarily, and we need to give them better life chances.
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely; my hon. Friend is a wonderful member of the Select Committee, and I thank her for that. In particular, she is very active on our joint inquiry with the Education Committee.
In the space of the 15 years between 2010 and when we were elected in 2024, child poverty escalated from 3.9 million children, or 29%, to 4.3 million, or 31%. To go back to the calculation at the beginning of my speech, the impact on families that have been bereaved as a consequence of the unfortunate position they found themselves in financially should not be underestimated. Like many of us, I have constituents who have grown up under the clouds and chains of austerity, while clinging on to the hope that things could get better. That hope is why we are here on these Labour Benches, and we know how important what we are now doing is in rebuilding trust with the people who invested their vote in us and trusted us to deliver for them.
I cannot thank the Government enough for doing this, but as has been said, it is a down payment and there needs to be more. We can overturn the horrors of the last 15 years. We have done so in the past, and we can again. We have prepared the ground for a better Britain, and this year we will start to see children and their families flourish, but I recognise that this is only the first step. We are lifting 450,000 to 500,000 children out of poverty, which is fantastic, but that is only about 10% of all the children living in poverty, and we need to have our eyes on the remaining 90%. This is an important first step, but we must say that it is only the first step.
The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I are looking forward to exploring just how we can do more. As I have previously said, we need to be thinking beyond individual departmental budgets. Tackling child poverty needs a whole-system Government approach, which includes how we budget and how the Office for Budget Responsibility scores Budgets. We need to use evidence much better in our policy planning. Our impact analyses are very narrow, and do not reflect how people experience poverty and the impacts that that has not just on the DWP, but on other Departments. That needs to change.
Finally, when unequivocal evidence is presented to us—some of the evidence is only just emerging; the UK millennium cohort study that I mentioned came on stream only in the last six or seven months—it is right that we respond to it. That is a strength, not a weakness, and it demonstrates humility and integrity. Poverty and inequality are not inevitable; they are political choices driven by values, and when the evidence changes, so should our decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit, which will start at five and a half minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a society that is free, open and fair, and a society in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. That is why it is in our DNA to be against the two-child limit. There are 4.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. As somebody with a passion for the future of our children—looked-after children, adopted children and so forth—I know they are the responsibility of us all, and we should have a passion for supporting our youngsters, because children are 20% of our population, but 100% of our future.
We must reflect on the fact that this Dickensian policy of judging families was brought in by the Conservatives. It is judging because, as we have heard, a parent may find themselves in a position beyond their control—when a family member or the other parent is suddenly taken ill or, even worse, dies—and they are left alone to provide for their youngsters in really difficult circumstances. Equally, why should we decide as a society that, because they are the third or fourth child, we value them less? Such a belief seems morally bankrupt. It is so important that we value our children because they are our future. It is also very sad that seven Labour Members had the Whip suspended for doing the right thing and backing the end of the two-child limit.
I want to reflect a little more on what this means in Torbay. I represent one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England. When I visited a school in Paignton, the headteacher told me how children turn up cold, tired and hungry. It has to provide warm clothes for the youngsters, because parents cannot afford them. It has to provide food for the youngsters. The headteacher was taking on the incredible altruism of being a foster carer, so that if a child did need support, she would have the qualifications to step in and support the family in need.
Jennie and I love going to schools, Jennie in particular—the kids enjoy Jennie more than me, I am sure. Having a chat with youngsters about what they like and do not like about living in their town is a special thing to do, whether as a councillor or a Member of Parliament. Usually, one hears about litter, the environment, graffiti, older kids swearing and so on. In Torquay, in Barton Hill academy, what I found really disturbing was how the nine and 10-year-olds were talking about the cost of living crisis. They were worried about mum, who could not quite afford to put enough petrol in the car, and utility bills were worrying their parents. They told me they were not doing so many of the nice things they used to do a couple of years ago, because mum and dad said they could not afford it any more.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was, of course, his party, in coalition, that delivered austerity and delivered this policy. Does he have anything to say to the British public about that period of his party’s history?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Member for her non-partisan intervention. The Liberal Democrats opposed the two-child limit. We are on the record as doing that and I am delighted we did so. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last week highlights how tackling poverty has flatlined since 2005, so the Liberal Democrats welcome this step forward in ending the two-child limit.
This measure is not just about children; it is about the future of our country and investing in people and believing in them. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that youngsters have worse education outcomes, higher levels of mental health challenges later in life, and are unable to contribute to society as strongly as they could. The taxman takes less from them later in life, because their jobs are not so profitable.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that less is taken off them. Student loans, which could have received this £3 billion that this change will cost, are effectively taxing young people at 70% or 71%. Does he not think that that tax rate is high enough?
Steve Darling
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on that. I remind my colleague that shortly after the coalition Government, the Conservatives stripped away an awful lot of the safeguards around student loans, and that continues. It is not a happy situation for many students up and down the country that the Tories robbed them of those safeguards.
On a visit to Torbay hospital, I spoke to one of its senior directors. She sees her role as extremely important, because it is not just about treating people but tackling deprivation in Torbay. She comes across some patients who believe that a lifespan of up to around 60-something is adequate. That reflects the levels of deprivation in my community, which this measure will help to tackle. It will lift 2,000 children out of poverty in Torbay. We should have high ambitions for our country. As Liberal Democrats, we believe the best days of our country are ahead of us. By lifting the two-child limit, we include more people in a brighter future.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). I appreciate the Liberal Democrats’ support for lifting the two-child limit.
I cannot express enough how delighted I am to speak in this debate, as these changes will make a real tangible difference to the lives of children and families across our country. The cost of living, standards of living and striving to live above the poverty line are a concern, and such a struggle for so many people and families. I campaigned to lift the two-child limit prior to being a Member, and I have done so since becoming a Member. I hear of families with a roof over their head, but no carpet under their feet; a window to look out of, but no thick curtains to keep out the draft. It is miserable when you are cold, poor and uncomfortable, and anything and everything the Government do to make life easier for communities is the right thing to do.
I recently spoke to a headteacher at a local school in my constituency that serves one of the most deprived areas. I found out that teachers are using their own money to buy children essential items, such as sanitary products, underwear and tights. Of course, they need to do that because the children need them. We on the Labour Benches are right: we are compassionate about children, compared with Members opposite. I love and applaud the teachers and the school for their kindness and for the discreet way in which they help children. I applaud all schools that do this for children, but children should not be in that situation in the first place. In Lewisham, we have a shop called the Bank of Things, where secondary school children can receive free essential items such as toiletry products, pens, paper and even school uniform.
At the heart of this issue, I know parents wish to provide for children, but some just do not have the means to do so. In fact, in my constituency, 65% of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work, so this is absolutely not about parents who do not want to work. It is why the broader child poverty strategy is so vital. Increases to the national living wage, strengthening workers’ rights through the Employment Rights Act 2025, expanded free childcare for working parents, reducing the cost of school uniforms, and building more council homes—these measures and more work together to ensure that work pays, and that parents and carers can provide for their families with dignity.
Teachers and school staff are also purchasing lunch for children whose parents cannot afford it, not because they want to but because the free school meals system put in place by this Government, including to all those on universal credit, still leaves some families behind.
This Government’s fair repayment rate policy also supports households with debts, by reducing the maximum amount that can be deducted from universal credit from 25% to 15%. The previous Conservative Government were despicable in their actions and what they launched at children. The two-child limit cap and universal credit payment deductions at 25% were wrong. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that, as well removing the two-child limit cap, a protected minimum floor to universal credit is also needed. That will reverse declining living standards for families with children and get children out of poverty.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend rightly highlights that this is partly about the wider structure, and it is also about the number of parents who are in work. Does she not agree that part of our strategy on child poverty is also about supporting parents into better-paid work, so they can continue to support their families and their children?
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; it is about supporting parents into better-paid work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. May I put on record my thanks to her for her words, the Secretary of State for his commitment and the Labour Government for bringing this change forward? Some 50,000 children in Northern Ireland, out of 13,000 households, will benefit—out of child poverty and into a better standard of living. That has to be good news. If anybody is against that, there is something wrong with them.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend—I call him that even though he sits on the other side of the House—for stating that so eloquently and accurately.
This means that the previous Conservative Government got it wrong. I would also add that with rents rising and mortgages increasing, they got it wrong. Who suffers? It is babies, toddlers, primary and secondary school children, and that is wrong. Unlike the previous Government, this Government accept the overwhelming scale of this challenge. I am sure that Ministers will agree that more still needs to be done.
To bring further reality to the situation, my own son has paid for a schoolfriend’s lunch on more than one occasion when they have not had enough money on their lanyard. I am sure that many other children also share food with their friends because they have compassion and do not want their friends to go hungry.
I welcome the Government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap, which will provide crucial support to an estimated 3,530 children across my constituency. It is a significant step and I commend the Government for taking it.
Breakfast clubs are absolutely fantastic, but they are limited to primary schools, meaning that secondary school children miss out. There could be three children from the same household where two children receive breakfast at primary school but the other goes hungry at secondary school. That is not right. Parents should not have to worry about their ability to feed their children and teachers should not have to subsidise parents or the state by feeding their pupils.
As I come to an end, I must mention the remarkable football player Marcus Rashford, who knew what it was like to go hungry as a child and is now dedicated to ensuring that it does not happen to other children. I respect his efforts to reduce child poverty. I ask this Government to make the necessary effort to keep children out of poverty and to support them to ensure they have a full stomach and reach their full potential in life.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
At its heart, this debate is about choices, and the choice before us today is whether we believe that compassion is best expressed through limitless expenditure or through a system that is fair, responsible and worthy of the people who fund it. We in this House all share the same objective: we want every child—[Interruption.] Well, I hope we do, because we want every child in every corner of this country to have hope and opportunity in their future. If we are truly honest, a good society is measured not by how much it spends, but by how wisely it spends, and that is where the Bill does not meet the test before it.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will make some progress.
I will start with a real-life experience from my own constituency. Some months ago, I met a couple at a community event, both of whom were in work and clearly raising their children with a great deal of pride and care. They spoke to me with a quiet determination about the sacrifices they were forced to make: no foreign holidays, no luxuries, often working long hours and, of course, careful budgeting of the household income. Their message was that they did not expect the state to intervene on their behalf; they were not asking for anything special. Instead, they were merely asking for fairness, and fairness is what is at stake today.
The two-child limit rests on the simple principle that the welfare system should reflect the real choices faced by working families up and down the country. Across the United Kingdom, parents weigh responsibility against aspiration every day, asking themselves whether they can provide, whether they can sustain and whether they can provide their children with security.
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Gentleman just spoke of whether or not the expenditure was wise. He also spoke about choices. I do not know whether he heard my speech, but children who are born into poor families are five times—five times—more likely to die just because they are poor than children in families with a little more income. Is it fair to a child if they die just because they were born into a poor family? I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman’s logic.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but this is about choices. We come to this place to make choices about how we spend taxpayers’ money to ensure that it is fair across the board. We can all bring moving individual stories, but there is the reality of how we support Government expenditure across the board so that it is fair and equitable and ensures that families up and down the country are having to make similar choices every single day.
What this Bill tells the country is that choices no longer matter. It tells the taxpayer that restraint is optional. It tells Government that limits are now outdated. The Government say that the Bill will reduce child poverty—I understand that, and I respect that intention—but poverty is not conquered by cheque books alone. It is conquered by work, education, stability and ambition. It is conquered when families are supported to stand tall instead of being encouraged to lean forever.
For far too long, politics has fallen into the trap of believing that every social problem has a fiscal solution—if only we spend more money, subsidise a little more or borrow more—but history teaches us a much harder lesson. A society that confuses help with dependency does not liberate the poor, but simply imprisons them.
The Bill will cost approximately £3 billion a year, which will be paid not by abstractions, but by people—by the nurse working a night shift, the self-employed plumber, the shop worker who is saving for a deposit or the small business owner who is keeping three other people in employment. Those people are entitled to ask whether this is fair. Is it fair that they have to calculate every single pound while the state abandons calculation altogether? I simply do not believe it is.
Dame Meg Hillier
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear in his speech the number of people who make these choices and decisions and then, later on, find themselves on universal credit through changes in circumstances. This is a safety net. It is not the position of Labour or the Government that people with children should not work and should not be supported into work; that is very much part of the equation. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that and think about what happens when people’s circumstances change? This is a safety net—a leg up—not a handout.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It would be a safety net if it provided a short-term boost. What it does instead is provide an endless cheque book without any checks and balances in place. If there was a sunset clause, that would be different, but there is not.
The two-child limit was about more than blame; it was about balance. It recognised that a welfare system without boundaries eventually loses legitimacy altogether, and when legitimacy is lost, discourse soon follows. That is the great unspoken risk of this Bill: it does not merely expand spending, but weakens trust; it widens the gap between those who give and those who receive and, in doing so, puts the whole settlement at risk.
What is fundamentally missing from this Bill is any serious strategy for mobility. Where are the plans for skills, for progression, for family stability and for moving people from welfare into work? Instead, the Bill simply offers the politics of reassurance without reform, comfort without challenge, spending without strategy and debt without direction.
The Conservatives recognise the importance of lifting people up, of not holding them down and of providing opportunity and not permanent subsidy. The true measure of social justice is not how many people we support, but, crucially, how many people we no longer need to support. The question before us, therefore, is whether we will tackle poverty at its root or merely manage it year after year; whether we will build a system that strengthens families or one that substitutes for them; and whether we will choose the easy road or the responsible one. This Bill chooses the easy road—it chooses sentiment over structure, expansion over reform and today over tomorrow. I simply cannot support that choice.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I really believe the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and other Opposition Members live in an alternate universe, because they are totally detached from the reality of my constituents in Liverpool Riverside.
It is with great pride that I rise today in support of our Bill to lift the two-child cap—a campaign that has long been close to my heart. Lifting half a million children immediately out of poverty has to be a great thing for this country. As the MP for Liverpool Riverside, I have had child poverty at the top of my agenda since coming into Parliament over six years ago.
Kim Johnson
No, thank you.
It saddens and appals me that, in the sixth richest economy in the world, one in every two children in my constituency lives in poverty. That is a statistic that should shame everybody.
It is a shame that it has taken so long to reverse the draconian cap that was driving hundreds of families into poverty every single month. Children’s charities and organisations, the Children’s Commissioner and politicians of every background were united in calling for that as their No. 1 priority for reversing trends in child poverty, which exploded, as we all know, under the Tory austerity measures. The facts are clear and indisputable.
I pay tribute in particular to the End Child Poverty coalition, co-ordinated by Rachel Walters, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Education Union, which I have worked with closely throughout my time in Parliament to champion support for children living in poverty and, in particular, to campaign against the two-child cap. Without their incredible work to make it impossible for this Government to ignore the necessity of lifting the two-child cap, I fear it may never have happened. I also pay tribute to the schools in my Liverpool Riverside constituency, which go over and above every single day to support children and families who are living in poverty.
I take this opportunity to highlight research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which estimates that 1.5 million children in families with migrant parents live in poverty. That makes up over a third of the total number of children living in poverty. In large part, that is driven by the no recourse to public funds policy, with half of the children living in families that fall under that policy living in poverty. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research also shows that those children face a far higher risk of very deep poverty.
As the Government have laid out in today’s debate, no child should have their life opportunity limited by the conditions they were born into. It therefore follows that we must go further to alleviate child poverty and row back on the policies, such as no recourse to public funds, that still play a major role in systematically driving large numbers of families into poverty.
Before I came into this place, I worked for the Department for Education supporting the development of Sure Start programmes across the north-west. I know at first hand the difference that supporting a young family can make to those children’s life chances and the benefits of early intervention and integrated provision. It is a record that Labour is rightly proud of, but one that should spur us to recreate and go even further now that we are in government again.
Lifting the two-child cap in full is a brilliant win for our campaigners and will be life-changing for millions of children who need the extra support to achieve their full potential. It will be a major boost for local economies, putting money immediately and directly in the pockets of families who will go out and spend it productively. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have taken such a bold and vital step, but now we need to go further in redistributing the vast wealth that this country has to ensure that our communities can flourish and no child is left behind. Fourteen years of the Tory austerity tax on living standards and the systematic dismantling of our public services needs to be met with a bold Labour programme of taxing wealth, renationalising our public services and providing them with proper funding.
We still have children who are growing up with diseases that we thought had been consigned to the Victorian era, including rickets and scarlet fever, made possible by a crisis in child poverty and malnutrition. Lifting the two-child cap is a good start, but Labour cannot be complacent about the monumental challenges that we face in government to boost living standards, tackle inequalities and start putting power and wealth back in the hands of working people. Poverty is a political choice; it is about choosing the interests of the many over the influence of the few. I am proud that we made the right choice.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Fairness matters, not only to those receiving the support but to those making the difficult choices without it. During the short time I have, I will talk about the principles and then the context.
I come to this subject thinking about the publican in my constituency who has two children and who wakes up in the morning, leaves their house in Barwell and goes to their business. They have seen their national insurance contributions rise, their valuation has changed and the tax has gone up on that, the rate relief has been withdrawn from them and they have seen the minimum wage go up. Those are all costs that they are having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street, who gets up and goes to work in Hinckley, having to face the fact that national insurance contribution costs are going up?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the local pharmacist. The local pharmacist in my constituency is my twin sister. She put herself through a degree in pharmacy while on universal credit as a single parent of three children. That was not her choice; it was a position that was thrust upon her. What would the hon. Member say to people like her?
Dr Evans
I would credit her. She is a credit to the hon. Gentleman’s family for what she has managed to achieve.
The key point I am trying to get to is that, when those people leave their doorstep, is it fair that the choice they have made to have only two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £3,650 is now being given to the parent of the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work? That is not fair, and that is the heart of the principle.
At the end of the day, the welfare state works best when it is a bridge to work and not a substitute for it. We have often heard about the working poor.
Clive Lewis
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members always seem to portray this as an individual moral failing. That is how they see welfare, when actually it is about a collective insurance against economic risk. That is how we see it. You see it as a moral issue; we see it as an economic one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It is not me who is being referred to; it is the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Evans
That is far from the truth. I am simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. I worry that we are pulling at the fabric here.
It is interesting that the debate in the House is slanted towards the Labour view, because they have the numbers. If we look at the public polling, however, we know that, consistently, 60% of the public support the cap and only 30% want it to be taken away. Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand that there has to be give and take. The worry here is that someone will suddenly get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better themselves.
The money could be better spent. To take an example from the last Government, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% to 55% to encourage work. That cost about £2.5 billion; we are talking about £3 billion today. We have heard from the Government how this will be paid for. It is not hypothecated. The pharmacist I was talking about and the sister of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) will pay for this, as will the publican who goes out to work. They will see their taxes rise. That is the contract that I am worried about.
Joy Morrissey
It is an issue of fairness. The people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages have seen their taxes go up and they are seeing those taxes being given to people who are not working. It is unfair.
Dr Evans
That is exactly right. The public will stand for a generous safety net, but they will not stand for people not trying to take things forward. I worry that, despite this Government’s talk of employment rights, the chances for employment and the working poor, more people are out of work under this very Government due to the choices they are making. That is fundamental to today’s debate, and trying to leverage morality into it misses the reality of responsibility. Every family in this country make fiscal choices and expect to behave responsibly, and so should the Government who lead them. That is the crux of the matter.
In the time I have left, I will move on to the context. If this were a moral crusade, as we have heard the Prime Minister say, he would have done it in his very first Budget; he would have made that choice. However, as we have heard from other Members, when this policy was put forward after the new Government came in, 40-odd MPs did not vote and seven Labour Members had the Whip removed.
If we are talking about poverty, one thing that has not been raised in the debate so far is the winter fuel payments policy. The Government’s own analysis said that it would put 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty and 100,000 into relative poverty. So there is a dichotomy here, and it is about choices. Government Members seem to say that if we are going to solve poverty, we need to focus on one area, yet they all voted to take the fuel payments away—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the other side about means-testing, but that did not happen until later when there was a climbdown.
The key thing is that these are difficult choices that have to be made. I worry that the public see straight through what is going on. They need fairness in the system. They do not need a vote to be held to try to placate the Back Benchers of a failing Prime Minister. If this truly was the mission of the Prime Minister at the start, he would have done it straightaway.
Dame Meg Hillier
Let us be clear: this Government came in with a plan to tackle child poverty, but quite rightly set up a taskforce to deal with it under two excellent Secretaries of State, and now with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability at the helm as well. That is why this policy has happened now and did not happen immediately. It would have been a bad mistake to have dealt with this in a piecemeal fashion. Instead, we now have a whole strategy, of which this is a part, as is helping parents into work.
Dr Evans
Why, in that case, was the Whip removed from Labour Members? Why is there no contingency in the Bill to ensure that someone is progressing through the system? We have heard time and again from Members on both sides of the House that it is not only a safety net but a springboard. I come back to my point that if the Government want to make a difference, they could change the rating on universal credit to encourage more people into work, but that is not happening. That would help to support people who are in work but who are impoverished. The last Government brought in the household support fund to ensure that there was immediate support. I am pleased that the Government are bringing forward some form of contingency, but we still have not seen what that looks like. That will be a concern for people.
I shall end where I began. This system has to be fair to those who are getting the support, but also to those who are paying for it. At the end of the day, a family lives within its constraints and so should a country. This Bill does nothing but the opposite, and that is my concern.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am very proud to support the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill. It will tackle child poverty and restore basic fairness to our social security system. I, like many other Labour Members, have been campaigning on this issue since I became an MP. I thank the Child Poverty Action Group and the Trussell Trust, as well as the food bank volunteers who have been in to lobby me about this issue for a very long time. This win is for the families in my constituency who I see in my surgeries and in their homes. I think of one family who literally move a light bulb around from room to room because they are so scared of the cost of using additional electricity. That is just one example of the real impact that poverty has on a family.
I am glad that we are dismantling this cruel and unfair policy today, and that we are continuing the job of fixing a broken system, set up by the Conservatives, that has led to children not having the basics or the opportunities that everyone in our country should have. Six months after this policy was brought in nine years ago, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, visited the UK and produced a report on the poverty levels that he found here. He said that we had a
“punitive, mean spirited, and often callous”
benefit system and that the high levels of child poverty were not inevitable but a “political choice”. That was back in 2018.
Every single day since the Conservatives forced this two-child benefit cap through, 109 children have been pushed into poverty, not because of anything they or their parents have done but because an arbitrary policy denied them the support they need. It was always indefensible. Because of the failings of the Conservative Government, child poverty in the UK has risen faster than in 37 other high-income countries over the past decade. That is a national disgrace.
Removing this limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2029. That is what real, measurable change looks like. I was on the child poverty taskforce for over a year, and we really drilled down into what could make the most difference. Scrapping the two-child benefit cap was always at the top of the measures. I am proud that our strategy also brings in many other ways in which we can support families.
We know who is being hit the hardest by this policy, with 68% of the families affected having a child under five. The early years shape everything that follows: health, education and life chances. Inequality in childhood becomes inequality for life. This Bill gives us the chance to break that cycle. The latest universal credit data shows the scale of the damage. In April 2025, 700 households in Putney were denied a child element for at least one child because of this policy. That meant that 900 children received no support and 2,490 children in total were living in households hit by the two-child limit. Across Wandsworth, the picture was even starker, with 1,820 households affected, 2,330 children denied support and a total of 6,540 children living in households impacted by this cruel rule.
It is a rule based on the fiction that families in poverty plan before they have children—that they plan ahead to be in poverty for the long term and decide on the number of children they will have in their loving family on the basis of that—rather than a policy that is there for families whenever they are in real need. We have got those parents’ backs and we have got those children’s backs, no matter what number they come in their family. Scrapping the two-child limit will be transformative for those families and for their communities. It will change whole disadvantaged communities in my constituency, across London and across the United Kingdom, who all currently pay the price for the high numbers of children in poverty, whether those children are in their own family or not.
The Bill is part of this Government’s wider mission to build a fairer country; to support, not penalise, families; to support parents into secure and better paid work; to deliver more affordable homes; to cut the cost of living; and to give every child the best possible start in life.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member on her speech. Evidence shows that the two-child limit has not changed fertility or employment but that it has coincided, sadly, with a disproportionate rise in abortions among mothers with two or more children. Does she agree that removing the two-child limit will better support mums and help to ensure that no woman feels pushed towards an abortion because she cannot afford another child?
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member highlights one of the many painful decisions that people have to make on the back of this policy, such as decisions about heating or eating and about what to do in their families. She also highlights the fact that the whole of Northern Ireland will benefit from this Bill as well. We need to bring every child across the whole of the United Kingdom up, and lifting this policy will do that. It is fair across every part of the United Kingdom for all the families who are affected. I thank her for raising a different aspect that this policy has introduced.
I am proud to support the Bill, and I urge Members across the House to do the same.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I will touch briefly on the Conservatives’ position and then turn to the Bill itself.
The Conservatives have at least been consistent on this policy—consistently cruel. I would point out the level of detachment with the reality faced by so many families in my constituency. The reality for such a high percentage of families is they do not choose whether to have children. They do not sit down and work out whether the money adds up. The reason that the rape clause is in place is because so many people are not able to make those choices. People do not set out with an intention to have a certain number of children; it is about what happens in the circumstances that are created.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not.
The reality is that the Conservatives’ position is a very entitled, privileged one, and it does not reflect the majority of our constituents.
Kirsty Blackman
I said I would not give way.
Let me turn to where we are today. The Labour party is being a bit smug about the position we are in. The SNP has been absolutely consistent in calling for the removal of the two-child cap. Alison Thewliss stood in this Chamber and highlighted the rape clause at every possible opportunity; I think people got fed up with her talking about it so much, but she was one of the people leading the charge. On that note, I thank those Labour Members who did back removing the two-child cap at the earliest opportunity. I understand how difficult it is to do that, and I appreciate that they were willing to put their principles first.
Today is a good day because the two-child cap is being cancelled. I am sad, though, that the Secretary of State said that he does not regret anything he has said before on this. That means he does not regret saying that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap causes harm, despite the fact that he is now saying absolutely the opposite.
I am glad that the Government are finally scrapping this policy. Children should not be at the sharp end of Government decisions, just as older people whose winter fuel payment was scrapped should not be at the sharp end. None of them is able to take these decisions on their finances. None of them can work a few more hours: a six-year-old cannot do that; a pensioner cannot just work a few more hours, because they may be significantly over the pension age and unable to work.
We need to recognise what has been said by a significant number of Members today, which is that so many of these families are in work. People are working hard; it is just that work does not pay—it does not pay enough. If we look at the stats, we see that people feel that the social security system should provide enough support for people to be able to live. We know that people living on universal credit—particularly large families—cannot afford the essentials, even if they are working. That is what this debate is about: giving people the best chance in life.
The Government, however, are not going far enough yet. The strategy that came out of their child poverty taskforce was simply a reiteration of many things that had already been announced. It was a summary: “Here we are. Here are all the things we have announced already as a Government.” It does not have the ambition we need in order to see child poverty tackled. If we look at the stats, we see that the rate of children in poverty by the end of this Parliament will be exactly the same as it is now. This measure will not reduce child poverty over the piece; the same percentage of children will be in poverty as are in poverty now, because the Government are failing to have ambition.
The UK Government should look at the Scottish child payment, as I asked them to do the other day. They should look at the amount of additional money being provided, particularly as of next year, to families with children under one, in recognition of the difficulty and importance of those first 1,000 days. They should look at those uplifts to ensure that people are taken out of poverty, at the baby box, at the Best Start grants being provided to families, and at the tackling child poverty delivery plan that the Scottish Government will bring out in March. Unlike the UK Government’s paper, which simply lays out a number of great things that the Government say they are doing, we have targets in our plan; We are looking at the actual difference that each of our policies make. I urge the UK Government to look at what is being done in Scotland and at the fact that child poverty is lower in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, and to consider what can be done to ensure that children have the best possible start in life, whether they live in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill and do so proudly on behalf of the families I represent in West Dunbartonshire. The two-child benefit cap makes poor children poorer. It punishes children for their circumstances and it has no place in our United Kingdom. Tackling child poverty is a proud Labour tradition and one that this Government have been proactive in pursuing from the very outset. This will deliver the much-needed change that we promised to my constituents.
West Dunbartonshire is a constituency with pockets of significant deprivation, but it is also one that is built on a proud legacy of hard work, fairness and a strong sense of community. For too long in my constituency, too many families have been held back by the two-child benefit cap—a policy that does not reflect my values. It is where I live, and it is where I want our children and young people to succeed. By scrapping the two-child limit, we will directly benefit 2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire. Last year, over 4,500 children in my constituency were living in poverty, and despite the claims of those who oppose the Bill, more than 60% of those households with children in poverty are working families. I see parents turning to food banks not because they have failed, but because the system has failed them.
In some parts of West Dunbartonshire, over 65% of people are living in relative poverty. In 2024, this meant that eight children in every classroom of 30 in my constituency were growing up in poverty, while more than 12,000 households struggled with fuel poverty. Those figures underlie why the Bill will make such a difference. There are many families in my constituency that struggle every single day to make ends meet, and I see children starting life on the back foot through no fault of their own. My wife works in education, and for many years she worked in a primary school in my constituency where it was common for children to arrive hungry, having had nothing to eat at home.
I remind the House that these are not just statistics. These are children skipping meals and living in cold, damp homes because their families cannot afford to buy sufficient food, never mind pay the heating bill. These children are the next generation in West Dunbartonshire, and they should not be denied the same opportunities as others. Every single child matters.
At the heart of Labour values is an inherent belief that background should not be a barrier to success, and the removal of the two-child limit is a clear and welcome expression of that commitment. This is the change that we promised and it will make a real, tangible difference to so many families in my constituency. The removal of this limit is only part of this Labour Government’s plan for change, and for tackling poverty in a sustained way. The Chancellor’s decision to reduce the level of debt repayments taken from universal credit means that 1.2 million of the poorest households keep more of their award each month. This is a straightforward change, but one that will have a real impact on family finances in West Dunbartonshire.
The Budget delivered record additional funding for Scotland, which will create opportunities to improve outcomes for families and children in places like West Dunbartonshire. However, it is disappointing that the SNP has too often failed to match increased resources with effective delivery when it comes to tackling child poverty in Scotland. Education is the quickest route out of poverty, but in my constituency and across Scotland, the educational attainment gap continues to widen. Meanwhile, further education colleges are being starved of funding, further undermining the life chances of young people in West Dunbartonshire. Removing the two-child limit is the right thing to do. It will give children a better start in life, regardless of how many siblings they have. This will increase their life chances. Not only that, but the decision will also ease the strain on our schools, our local charities and the NHS, and will therefore benefit all in society.
The solution to fixing the welfare system cannot be found in punishing those most vulnerable in society. Social security should provide stability and dignity for everyone, especially children. The Bill is essential to helping alleviate some of the burdens and daily struggles that families in West Dunbartonshire face, and it will lift 450,000 children nationally out of poverty by 2030. I was elected on a manifesto commitment to improve the life chances of every child, and supporting the Bill is consistent with that commitment. Labour has always stood for communities like West Dunbartonshire. Children are not a burden and poverty is not inevitable. I am proud to support the Bill and what it represents—hope, opportunity and fairness—and I commend it to the House.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I have heard so many well motivated and moving stories about human misery, and the truth is those are the stories of our country. Those are the stories of a country that has tried for over 100 years to introduce a social welfare service to look after the poorest in our community and to do the best for them, and, in various different ways, all of us—and I do mean all of us—seek to do that. We may have different expressions and different understandings of quite how that works, but we do all try to look after those who are most vulnerable in our society.
But I think the division here comes in a very fundamental way, and it comes in the questions that one has to ask oneself when one looks at the way in which this economy, this society and this community grow. When I say economy, I mean not just the bald rows of figures that accountants and bankers add up, but the way in which the Greeks meant it: the way a home works together, the way people interact to bring about a community and to bring about a whole. How does that work? How do we get growth? How do we get investment and reward at the right point so that we actually see the progress that society can bring?
We have seen societies, time and time again, doing the well-meaning thing, and ending up costing everyone. We can read the constitutions and the promises of Governments and nations over the last century and see the human misery they led to—not because they were evil, but because those intentions were not aligned with the reality of a human economy. We have seen it time and time again.
Sadly, although we are now having a debate about the two-child benefit cap and about £3 billion, we are really having a debate about what it means to grow an economy. Although the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), made a joke out of it, the reality is that we are seeing young people paying something like 70% tax—and some are therefore making the choice to go to Dubai, to Portugal, to the United States or to Australia. That connection between young and old people is being broken, with families left in need of not only the economic connection but of the human connection between them.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Tom Tugendhat
I will not.
This debate is not just about cash; it is fundamentally about people. There has been an attempt again to pretend that the only interaction between people is that which is metricked, divined and organised by the state, and that simply is not true. It simply is not true to say that, unless the state provides it, it does not count. Yet, again and again, we hear the same thing.
Yes, I know that the Conservative Government left taxes high, but many people seem to have forgotten that covid seemed to increase the debt enormously, and that when some of us tried to vote against various lockdowns, we were accused of murdering various groups, depending on whoever the then Leader of the Opposition seemed to be siding with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat
I have said I will not give way. It is true that what we are seeing in the UK today is a legacy: of poor decisions on covid that some of us condemned at the time; of promises made in the last year or two; and of debts to those who challenged leadership in the last six to 12 months. We are now seeing, falling on those who are working, a level of burden that is growing and growing, and people are voting with their feet, either by not working or by leaving.
I am afraid that what we are seeing here is a false choice. We are seeing a Government making promises that will never be able to be cashed. We are seeing a Government adding to a debt, not of £2 trillion—the one that they state—but of £12 trillion or £13 trillion, depending on how we count pension liabilities, private finance initiatives and many of the state’s other debts.
The reality is that this country is broke, and to a degree that nobody in this House seems to appreciate—certainly nobody on the Government Benches. We simply do not have the understanding here, among the noble and well-meaning socialists, that the reality is that they are racking up debts for their children that will mean that this state will be impoverished, we will be left weaker and the whole country will be poorer.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Child poverty is a scourge on any society. It is a tragedy for individual children and families, and the untapped potential, worse health and lower attainment resulting from it hold the whole of society back. In the fifth richest economy in the world, it is also inexcusable. Under 14 years of Conservative-led Governments, the number of children living in poverty grew and poverty deepened, compounded by a housing crisis unprecedented since the second world war, the growth of insecure, low-paid work, and the imposition of the two-child cap.
Action for Children estimates that 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK. That is three in 10 children—on average, nine in every classroom. Seven out of 10 children who are living in poverty have at least one parent in work. Behind those statistics are children without a bed to sleep in; children without enough nutritious food to eat; children without warm clothes in winter, living in cold, damp, mouldy homes; children who lack the basics to nurture their growth and development, who are disadvantaged before they even set foot in a classroom.
This situation is not an inevitability. It has come about through the deliberate political choice to prioritise the rhetoric about the benefits system and the stereotypes about the families who rely on it, rather than looking at the evidence and the reality of people’s lives. The Child Poverty Action Group’s analysis of DWP data finds that 1.6 million children have been directly impacted by the decision to impose a cap, above the first two children in a family, on the social security measure that specifically supports families to care for children. Some 59% of those children have parents in work.
The two-child cap has directly pulled 350,000 children into poverty. It is a measure that effectively punishes children for the number of siblings they have. One of the reasons I joined the Labour party many years ago is that we believe that every child deserves to have the opportunity to succeed. We do not judge children on the circumstances of their birth or the decisions of their parents. I am therefore delighted that the Government are taking action to remove the pernicious two-child cap and to lift 400,000 children out of poverty.
Jeremy Corbyn
I absolutely welcome this Bill. It is an enormous step forward and will bring great relief to a lot of families. Does the hon. Lady recognise that the continuation of the overall benefit cap will mean that about 150,000 children will not benefit from this Bill and will remain in relative poverty? Would she welcome further legislation to remove the overall benefit cap in order to try to eliminate all poverty among children?
Helen Hayes
I will go on to talk a little about some of the further measures that I believe the Government need to take on this journey of tackling child poverty.
Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that, in the medium term, investment to bring down child poverty reduces the demand on public services that is caused by poor physical and mental health, and by poor education outcomes, which are caused by poverty. Removing the cap is projected to increase the health and education standards of 2 million children who would otherwise have been affected by the cap. By removing the two-child cap, this Labour Government are projected to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. I am proud of the other measures that our Government have already announced to help families, which will also help to reduce child poverty: the expansion of free school meals to all children whose families are on universal credit, the delivery of universal free breakfast clubs and the reduction in school uniform costs. The Government’s commitment to children can be in no doubt.
The Education Committee is working jointly with the Work and Pensions Committee to undertake formal scrutiny of the Government’s child poverty strategy. We want the strategy to be as effective as possible, and over the coming weeks we will be listening to evidence from experts on the impacts that the measures announced will have and on whether more should be done. I want the Government to be truly ambitious in tackling child poverty. We should not simply lift the poorest children just above a threshold—important as that is—but ensure that children can truly thrive right across our country. That will require action on some of the other causes of poverty, including housing costs—a shocking number of children are living in temporary accommodation—and food and energy costs. We must provide access to support for families in communities, and an education and skills system that really works for everyone.
Those are the questions that our Committees will turn to in the coming weeks, but this step today is fundamental. The Bill sets the context for an ambitious strategy and will be transformative for families. I am proud to vote for it today.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Like so many Members from across the House, I welcome the Government’s decision finally to scrap the two-child limit on benefits—I just wish they had done so much earlier. The two-child limit is a cruel and unfair penalty on those in the most urgent need of welfare and support. The cap does not tackle the exploitation of the benefits system in order to avoid work and to continue having children; instead, it has been an enormous burden on thousands of household budgets and has pushed more children into poverty. Even if one believes, like the Conservatives, that people have children irresponsibly, I still cannot see how those children should be punished. Every child deserves a good start in life.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
There are many reasons people end up on universal credit and in family situations with more than two children. It is because of those blended families that Cotswold district council chose not to apply the two-child limit in its welfare support scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that such councils—which have, in these cash-strapped times, supported blended families with more than two children —should not end up out of pocket and should be compensated by the Government for that support?
Charlotte Cane
I commend Cotswold district council for that work. Unfortunately, when I tried to get East Cambridgeshire district council to condemn the two-child cap, the Conservatives refused.
This policy was poorly conceived from the outset and has amounted to little more than attacks—not on parents, but on vulnerable children growing up in a cost of living crisis. My Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency, which is relatively wealthy and has relatively high-paid work, is thankfully below the national average for child poverty. However, child poverty has continued to rise there despite the fact that 70% of affected households have at least one parent in work. Clearly, this is not a case of families scrounging off the system, but of family budgets stretched to breaking point.
Nationally, the picture looks similarly grim. Child poverty has increased over the past 15 years, pushing 850,000 more children into poverty. In rural areas such as my constituency, poverty can be all the more challenging: parents must travel miles to reach a supermarket or a food bank for affordable food, transport costs for school and work are far higher, fuel costs are higher and children are often socially isolated.
We should never have got to this point. The previous Conservative Government should have recognised that the two-child limit was both a failed experiment and salt in the wound for families dealing with spiralling costs in food, energy and basic necessities. I welcome the Government’s decision to make this correction, but it must be seen as the first step in improving the quality of life for children and building a better future. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that child poverty may cost in excess of £39 billion a year, accounting for additional public spending in areas such as health and education, as well as future tax receipt losses from resulting unemployment.
Behind that economic loss are children, who will, having missed out on sports clubs and healthy food, face a higher risk of disabilities and long-term health conditions—and, as we heard earlier, they even face an increased chance of early death. They are not afforded the opportunities to develop and pursue their own interests. Many may miss out on higher education, apprenticeships and even early employment.
The Bill is about the future of all children living in this country. We must ensure they are equipped with the resources to thrive and the ability to contribute to a society that supports them from the very start. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to annual reviews of the entire universal credit system to ensure that it keeps pace with the cost of living and becomes an effective tool to tackle child poverty?
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
First, I want to take us back, because this debate is being pitched as if those who are not in work are getting something that is being paid for by those in work—that ain’t the case, and it is wrong to suggest it.
I will tell the House what the problem is: the scar of in-work poverty that was left on our economy. I came into politics to reduce child poverty. Children do not choose their circumstances. They are not to blame for low wages. They are not to blame for insecure work. They are not to blame for their parents’ pay packets, yet they are the ones who feel the consequences the most. A child’s chances should not depend on their parents’ wages. A child’s future should not depend on whether mum or dad has a bad boss or a bad year. That is why I was proud when the Government announced this policy, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. That includes over 3,000 children in Corby and East Northamptonshire. That is not just a statistic. It is 3,000 children; it is 3,000 lives; it is 3,000 futures and 3,000 chances.
Members should not let anyone tell them that this is not about values, because it is. When we announced that we would put a tax on mansions, the Tories on the Opposition Benches were growling at us and telling us we could not do that, and now they are sitting there today telling us we should not be lifting 450,000 children out of poverty. This is all about values and where we stand. This issue tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Opposition parties: they will fight for their cheaper mansions but not for children who go to bed hungry.
And then there is Reform. Reform Members try to present themselves as the voice of working people, but when it comes to it, they vote against working families, they vote against employment rights, and they are voting against this Bill. Their amendment to the Bill says that they disagree with removing the two-child limit because it “fails to incentivise work” for low-paid families, but that is not people cheating the system or people taking advantage. That is working people kept in low pay by a system that the Conservatives built—a system that Reform now defends.
Work should be the route out of poverty, not into a lifetime trapped in it for children or their families. That is why this Government have chosen to back working families. That is why this Government have chosen to back children. That is why this Government are choosing fairness, and that is why Parliament should back this Bill.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said, no one in this House doubts the importance of supporting children. Labour Back Benchers are feeling good about the fact that they have organised themselves to deliver what they see as a simple moral good, but as they know and we know, things are much more complicated than that. I know they think they have delivered a simple moral good because not a single one of them has mentioned the rate. None of them has questioned why the additional rate is set at £17.25, rising to £17.90. They have not asked whether that is enough to address poverty. They have not sought to get under the skin of whether this is a more complicated and nuanced argument than it might at first appear. Just the simple act is enough, without contemplating the unintended consequences.
I am concerned that the Government are stumbling into a “Careful what you wish for” measure. First, a number of Opposition Members—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—mentioned the demographic time bomb that we face. There has been no discussion of this measure in the context of the overall fiscal problem that our children will face. At the moment, we have about 3.6 workers per pensioner in this country. By 2050, that will have fallen to two. How will we pay for all of this in the future? How will we fund it all without enormous debt? We have only to look across the channel at France to see what a fiscal eruption can look like, with civic disruption and unrest on the streets, when the necessary correction is made to a welfare state that is running out of control. I am afraid that that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
No one is pretending that decisions about welfare are easy—they are not easy. Having worked briefly as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I know that these are difficult decisions, yet no one is questioning the micro-decisions that are made. It is simply enough to say to people, “We’re pumping money out there. Let’s hope for the best.” Why is the standard rate for the mobility section of the personal independence payment set at £30.30? I do not know. Does anybody else know? Is there an argument for it? These are the decisions that Ministers have to make on a daily basis, not just about whether we pay welfare but how much we pay. One of my concerns about this measure is that none of that is part of a wider conversation about the massive demographic steam train that is coming down the tunnel towards us.
The second issue I have is that this legislation treats children as a burden to be somehow mitigated, necessarily because it includes them in the welfare bill, rather than as a bonus to be encouraged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we on the Conservative Benches would much rather there were work incentives that came alongside children. When I was briefly the Secretary of State for Education, I was inundated with correspondence and approaches from lots of highly productive and ambitious women who wanted assistance in work. They wanted some kind of bonus, relief or package to encourage them to have children, rather than a safety net that rescued women if they had children. For a country that needs more children, we need a tilt in our mentality and approach to move from mitigation towards encouragement; that is my concern about embedding the notion that people should have more children in the welfare system.
The final issue I will raise is the legitimacy of the system, which has been raised by a number of Members. We often pretend that we do things for the first time in this country, whereas we can in fact look overseas for lessons, and we do not have to look very far. In France, where successive Governments increased family-related welfare with weak links towards work or contribution, it has created a wider resentment in society. Any successful welfare system must have an eye to legitimacy and consent from the wider population for it to exist.
Dr Arthur
We do not have to look to France. This is fundamentally an issue that many families face around balancing their budgets; many of them are having to get second jobs. Perhaps we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, because he has been forced out to get a second job to make ends meet. Perhaps he can give some droplets of experience to those people who are struggling to make ends meet.
Kit Malthouse
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but, as he will know, I have not been forced out to get a job. I founded my business 30 years ago; I am one of the few people in this House who has created jobs by the sweat of my own hands, rather than just talking about it. Frankly, I pay the Sainsbury’s bill, the mortgages and all the rest of it for all my employees every single month, and I am proud to do so. Maybe he could learn some lessons, by spending time with some businesspeople, about what it is to make true fiscal and economic decisions.
Let me return to my third point, which is about legitimacy. One thing that was found in France was a rise in resentment, which resulted in President Macron taking specific steps to means-test the access to family welfare. French political scientists will point to the rise of the National Rally in France directly stemming from a mishandling of the welfare system and a growth in resentment in those who did not participate in it.
I am afraid that today we see that writ large in the Order Paper in the Reform party’s reasoned amendment, which was not selected. It calls for open discrimination in our welfare system against those who do not have parents born entirely in this country. I must declare an interest as I am afraid that includes two of my children, who were not born to a British citizen. It also includes the children of Members of Parliament who sit for the Reform party. There is something grotesque about seeking legislation that would downgrade the citizenship of one’s own children.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is true to say that the Conservative party has been right about one thing today: this is about choices, and I am incredibly proud to be making the one that we are making.
The Conservative party did untold damage to our country, whether it was in hollowing out the criminal justice system, crumbling school buildings and hospitals, record NHS waiting lists or Liz Truss, but the most egregious part of its record was the harm it inflicted on our nation’s children. An entire generation was plunged into poverty.
Poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, but the Conservatives’ scorched-earth programme of austerity reversed that trend. Over their 14 years in power, the number of those in child poverty rose by 900,000, and 4.5 million children now live in poverty. In my constituency, thousands of children are growing up in poverty, which is around one in three. Those are not simply abstract statistics; they are the children and families I meet every week.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that families have difficult conversations around the kitchen table, and she is absolutely right. Parents are worried about whether they will be turning the heating on or skipping a meal; kids already feel the weight of the world on their shoulders before their 10th birthday; and—as was mentioned just a moment ago—parents working two jobs are still unable to make ends meet. It is cold bedrooms, missed meals and two small, patched-together school uniforms—these are scars that last a lifetime.
Much of that hardship and suffering can be directly attributed to the two-child benefit limit. It is a failed, cruel policy experiment and—leaving aside the fact-free nonsense that we have heard previously from the Conservative party—it makes no difference to family sizes, and it does not drive up employment. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, almost 60% of affected families are in work. The two-child limit does not achieve the so-called goals that Tory ideologues pretend to lay out. Instead, it punishes children; all it does is make children poorer, and it is the single biggest driver of child poverty. Perhaps that is why there are so few Opposition Members prepared to sit and defend this morally, socially and economically bankrupt policy.
Dr Evans
There are not many on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman’s party won the last election—but we know that the public support keeping this cap in place. Any poll conducted in the last few years has suggested that, on average, 60% of people think that the cap should remain. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the British public back the cap staying in place?
Jack Abbott
I was actually referring to the number of Opposition Members defending this policy here today. I do not think there is a single person in the country who will defend keeping hundreds of thousands more children in poverty. That is what we are getting rid of today, and that is what the hon. Gentleman’s party is defending. It is difficult to think of another policy in modern Britain that is so stark in its design and so devastating in its impact. This policy, for nearly a decade, has quietly and cruelly shaped and limited the life chances of children across this country. Poverty impacts children before they are even born, and its effects continue to be felt in myriad ways at every stage of life after that.
Children growing up in poverty are more likely to experience mental and physical health issues and to do worse in school. They are more likely to be unemployed, earn less or be in low-skilled work than their peers, and they are more likely to experience homelessness and poor health. The shadow Secretary of State said that it is a trap for worklessness. No, this policy is a trap for worklessness, which is exactly what it has achieved over the previous few years. The consequences of poverty are severe and long-lasting, with children born into poverty ultimately having lower life expectancies. Life is shorter because of poverty, and poverty exists in its extreme because of this policy.
For children growing up in a low-income household in my county of Suffolk, education disadvantage starts before they even begin school, and it compounds at every stage of their education. The latest figures from the Education Policy Institute’s 2025 disadvantage report shows that, before kids even enter primary school, they are almost half a year behind their peers. By the time they finish key stage 3, as they choose their options, they are a staggering 21.7 months behind—that is nearly two full school years before they even begin studying for their GCSEs. The translation of this deprivation gap over every stage of a child’s education to their examination results is tangible and stark: disadvantaged students in Suffolk are 4.4 grades behind at the age of 16.
I remember being a councillor during the pandemic, and I saw the enormous impact that this had on so many families, as many Members will remember. Never mind huddling around a kitchen or dining room table trying to work, many families did not have a kitchen or dining room table. Indeed, many disadvantaged students in places like Ipswich were left without electronic devices, such as laptops, for many months. I had hoped that that would be a watershed moment in how we view the link between education and poverty. Instead, what I saw in opposition, as a county councillor in Suffolk, was more cuts to children’s centres and more than a halving of health visitors, yet we wonder why we have such problems now when young children enter education for the first time. It is an absolute disgrace that even now—even after the impact we have seen and all the evidence we have seen—the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to support measures that reduce child poverty.
I am proud to support this Bill, because scrapping the two-child limit will have one of the greatest impacts on driving down child poverty. That one action will lift 450,000 children across our country out of poverty, including more than 3,000 in my town of Ipswich. Through this action, alongside an enormous package of other actions that our Government are taking, we will take over half a million children out of poverty—the largest reduction in a single Parliament since records began.
The two-child limit is quite simply wrong. The number of brothers and sisters that a child has should never determine whether they go hungry or how well they do in school, and no child should be punished simply for existing. Tackling child poverty is in our Labour party’s DNA, and today I could not be prouder to be a Labour MP, because today this Labour Government are following in the footsteps of every Labour Government who came before them by lifting children out of poverty and transforming children’s lives.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Although the reasoned amendment tabled by my Reform UK colleagues and myself has not been selected, I would still like to speak to the contents of that important amendment.
Scrapping the two-child benefit limit does nothing to help hard-working parents who set their alarm clocks every morning, and does everything to encourage families who are already on benefits to have more children in the full knowledge that the state will pay for them. Removing the two-child benefit cap without imposing any other restrictions, such as limiting it to working families with British-born parents, fails to incentivise work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Pochin
Let me make some progress. It increases the support to non-working families beyond that given to working parents earning above the benefit level, so those who work are being punished while those who play the system are rewarded. The cost to the taxpayer of scrapping the cap is estimated at £15 billion over the next five years, with families affected by the cap estimated to gain an average of £25,000 per family over that period, and the more children they have, the more they get. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair—it is another step towards crippling our economy instead of introducing policies to grow it. We cannot advocate for a society in which work does not pay.
Furthermore, due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Pochin
Just a minute—I do not know who is first.
Due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals, a significant amount of this additional expenditure is expected to go to households in which at least one parent was born outside the UK.
To be clear, and to conclude, Reform will only lift the cap for British families where both parents are in full-time work.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Listening to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is quite something—one would think that the recipients of this benefit were spending the money on soft furnishings for their second homes. They are not; they are spending it on food, rent and clothing for their children. The rise in child poverty under the previous Tory Government has been a shameful stain on this country, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking action, not only to provide food and basic necessities but to give children the opportunity to escape cycles of poverty and build secure, independent futures. In the months since this policy was announced, we have heard some truly shameful language from Opposition Members, including describing this Budget as a “Budget for ‘Benefits Street’”. In doing so, they completely denigrate the 450,000 children who never chose to be born into poverty, and who for the most part have simply had the misfortune of growing up during years of successive Conservative Governments.
It is telling that using taxpayers’ money to lift children out of poverty is framed by the Conservatives as an irresponsible use of public funds, while the £10 billion lost to covid fraud is something we are apparently expected to forget and move on from without consequence. I would genuinely welcome the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition to my constituency, so that they can explain directly to the nearly 1,600 children who will be lifted out of poverty by the removal of the two-child cap why the Leader of the Opposition so routinely denigrates people like them and their parents—parents who themselves are paying the price for a Government she was part of, who sent mortgages soaring and allowed inflation to reach 11%. Sadly, I will not hold my breath. When she is not using the Isle of Wight as a punchline for one of her poor, laugh-less jokes, she treats it as a photo opportunity, without having the basic respect to engage with local people, local media or, indeed, the local MP.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. The Conservative party has consistently failed to understand the real, tangible difference that such policies make to people’s lives. Instead of reckoning with the impact of their poverty-accelerating decisions, they choose to vilify those who stand to benefit from the Bill. As I understand it, Reform would now reverse the two-child cap to find money to pay for a cheaper pint at the local pub. Presumably Reform’s next policies would increase the drunk-driving limit to whatever people think they can get away with and lower the age of buying cigarettes to 12, because daddy will be too busy down the pub saving money to buy his own cigs.
As a small business owner, I know too well the damaging legacy of austerity, and the removal of the two-child cap represents the clearing away of one of the most shameful legacies of the austerity years. I know from first-hand experience the impact that Government decisions have on local economies. Austerity was not just a line in a Budget; it was a decade of under-investment that hit businesses such as mine hard. It hollowed out our high streets, weakened consumer confidence and squeezed the incomes of working families.
This policy is about more than tackling poverty and the intergenerational damage it causes; it is about giving hard-working families the chance to feel that they are a part of their high street again, and supporting those who have lost a wage earner or whose wages have simply failed to keep pace with the cost of living. It is called social security for a reason, and it is the solemn responsibility of any Government to provide a safety net to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.
This policy is not just about the removal of the benefits cap; it is an investment in our greatest asset—the British people—and in our future. It is about ensuring that the next generation do not go to school hungry or without the basic necessities and about putting our country on a stronger footing by giving every child a fair start in life.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The benefits system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship, but a fair system must balance that with the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by the taxpayers of today or, if the money is borrowed, as is so often the case with this Government, by the taxpayers of tomorrow. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on the taxpayer, and that cost is growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of the decade. It is a mark of Labour’s irresponsibility that it presents a Bill today to increase welfare spending further.
I believe in personal responsibility. Not only should our country live within its means, but every individual and family should do so too. Many thousands of couples every year think about whether to have children. They make that choice based on a number of factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Those in receipt of benefits should face the same choices as those in work. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child benefit cap, and it is why I believe it should be retained.
Under the pre-2017 system, there was a fundamental element of unfairness. A family in receipt of benefits saw them increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family not in receipt of benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work?
I understand why Labour Members are in favour of more welfare spending. They stopped representing working people a long time ago, and they now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their re-election. Why has the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), supported scrapping the two-child cap until so very recently? Voters in my constituency, some even sympathetic to his cause, have been horrified. I think the answer is that he is chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour voters. That instinct for higher spending shows that Reform UK is wholly unserious about governing our country. Britain needs a Government determined to deliver the changes we need: controlling public expenditure and reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.
Sam Rushworth
I am deeply offended by the hon. Gentleman’s comment about people in the north of England, as though they are people who simply vote for their own welfare. That is not true. The people I represent are proud to be hard-working people in good working-class jobs, and many of them have children who have been impacted by the two-child cap. Would the hon. Gentleman like to apologise to them?
Sir Ashley Fox
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would know that I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton. That, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter.
The Government seem to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The Prime Minister did, of course, try to produce a package of modest reforms last year. He set out to save £4.5 billion, but was forced into a humiliating U-turn and ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. He now says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”. Does anyone believe him? There is not a thought for the taxpayer, and not a thought about the extra debt that the Government are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it.
Let me remind Labour Members that before the election, they said repeatedly that they would
“not increase taxes on working people”.
That was accompanied by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion, but in the 18 months since they were elected, the Government have actually increased spending by £100 billion—10 times more than they promised. They have increased taxes by £66 billion, and borrowing by an extra £40 billion. This is what the Labour Government do best: spending other people’s money. It is in their DNA. They do not care about getting better value for the taxpayer; their only thought is about how to spend and borrow more, as if that were a sign of caring.
I am proud to have a leader with the backbone to tell the truth to the British people. We need to reduce the size of the state so that it does less but does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing—who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who build a more prosperous country for all of us.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of lifting the two-child cap, not just as a Member of Parliament but as someone who knows personally what it means to live on the edge of financial insecurity. That was not my child’s fault.
A few years ago, between the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019, long before I entered the House, I was for a time a single parent and out of work—not for long in the grand scheme of things, but for long enough to struggle again. I do not want to make this speech about me, but I want to give this example because, hopefully, it shows a modicum of insight and empathy that appears to be missing in more than one party on the other side of the House.
Like millions of people, I was doing everything that I could to keep going, to keep my home afloat and to shield my child from the worst of the stress and anxiety that come with not having enough. Many people experience that even in work—people with responsibility for more children than I have. At that time, I had to register a statutory off-road notification for my car because I simply could not afford to run and tax it, so twice a day, every day, I would walk to the school. That took me about three hours. Let me be clear about what that meant in practice. It meant—especially for my daughter—starting the day already exhausted, yet knowing that I still had to parent, to job hunt, to cope. At the end of the day, it meant digging deep for energy that, quite frankly, I often just did not have. On some days, if I could scrape together enough loose change—coins that I gathered from looking hither and thither—I could afford to take a bus, and that small thing, that single bus journey, made an enormous difference to me and to my child. I had a little more patience, a little more capacity to be the parent that my child needed me to be.
That, for so many, is the reality that we are talking about today. The two-child cap is often discussed in abstract terms—in terms of numbers, incentives and thresholds—but behind every statistic is a family making impossible choices, parents skipping meals so that their children can eat, and children growing up with limits imposed on them before they have even had a chance to begin. This is not about supporting families who are simply irresponsible or reckless or thoughtless or not planning ahead for children they can or cannot afford. It predominantly impacts on working families who sometimes fall on hard times, families who lose a job, families whose circumstances change through illness, bereavement or redundancy, families who did not plan to need support but need it none the less. Children do not choose the circumstances they are born into, yet under the two-child cap we are telling some children that they are worth less than others. This support will remove the arbitrary line drawn not by need, but by ideology.
Lifting the two-child cap is not about rewarding anyone, but about recognising reality. It is about acknowledging that the cost of living has risen, that wages have not kept pace and that social security should provide security, especially for children. When we invest in families, we invest in better outcomes, better health, less crime, better education and stronger communities. We also reduce pressure on public services further down the line, and we give parents the breathing space they need.
When I think back to the long walks, exhaustion and worry, as well as the quiet determination to keep going, I know how much difference a little extra support will make for the very many families and children who will be lifted out of poverty by this policy. It is not luxury and comfort; it is just dignity and a fair chance. It is the difference between a parent breaking or not, going without a meal to feed their child or not, and the difference between a child not starting the day exhausted and having a warm bedroom at bedtime or not.
Saying, “Don’t have children if you can’t afford them,” just does not wash. It is not a parent’s fault if they have record high energy bills thanks to the war in Ukraine. Saying that does not help a parent who is out of work due to ill health, thanks to a broken NHS that has not been there to help them after 14 years of Conservative government. It is no parent’s fault when they have a child with special educational needs and disabilities, who perhaps they have had to give up work to support. The fault does not lie with the more than 60% of working families who are struggling. That is why I urge this House to do the right thing, as have Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group, Alder Hey children’s hospital, the Mental Health Foundation, the Royal College of Nursing, the Women’s Budget Group and UNICEF UK—to name but a few. I notice that Conservative Members have referred to absolutely no organisations that back their claim that this is the wrong thing to do.
I want to ensure that no child in this country is held back simply because of the circumstances they were born into or the changed circumstances that have made things harder for them and their parents. That is why I am grateful that we are not passing the Bill in isolation, but that this Labour Government are delivering Best Start hubs, breakfast clubs to help parents get back into work and to get to work earlier, and up to £7,000 of childcare for working parents. We are also helping young people who are out of work, education or training into the workplace to better their life opportunities, and that is what lifting the two-child cap is about.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The two-child limit has punished children for circumstances entirely beyond their control. For nearly a decade, families have been denied support simply because a child happened to be born as a third or a fourth child. That was a cruel choice made by policymakers, not one made in children’s best interests, and it really shows that a Government can get it wrong. This was a particularly callous policy because it was designed to punish children, and because of the harm done to generations of young people, who are the future of our country.
Today, 4.5 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. This policy has been a major driver of deep poverty, pushing working families further into hardship at a time when food, energy and housing costs remain painfully high. In Stratford-on-Avon, I hear from parents who are working hard, often juggling insecure hours or caring responsibilities, yet are still struggling to afford basics such as heating, healthy food, transport and even furniture. Many live in privately rented homes where costs keep rising, while support has been cut or frozen. These families are doing everything that is asked of them, yet the system has been stacked against them.
I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that looking after five children as a single parent is a job—it is work. Raising a family is one of the most important jobs or contributions that a person can make to society. Research by the Social Market Foundation has made the wider point that when countries make it harder to have and raise children, birth rates tend to fall and populations age faster. That has real consequences for the long-term health of our economy and the public finances, because a smaller working-age population has to support a larger retired population, while demand, productivity and innovation can all suffer.
The same analysis also underlines something we should be honest about in this debate: in the UK, being a parent is too often tied to financial pressure. Where families feel supported through affordable, high-quality childcare and a safety net that does not penalise children, outcomes are better for parents and for children alike, and the whole society benefits. If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we should stop designing policy that makes it harder for families to get by.
Removing the two-child limit is the single most effective step this House can take to lift children out of poverty during this Parliament. It is backed by children’s charities, economists, educators and those working on the frontline. It will improve health, educational outcomes and life chances, while easing pressure on public services in the long term. A fair society does not balance its books by denying children support. It invests in them, protects them and gives every child the opportunity to thrive. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support the removal of the shameful two-child limit and why I am proud to back the Bill’s Second Reading.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Of course I support the Bill. It is what we are here for: to do this at the stroke of a pen—not of any pen, but that of a Government pen—after years in opposition, hoping to be able to come in and enact the sort of change we are able to make today. I am proud to stand in support of this Bill, and of the work that the Minister for Social Security and Disability continues to do in assessing the welfare reforms to come.
In my constituency, child poverty is a daily reality for too many families. More than 7,000 children in Bury North are growing up in poverty. That means that over a third of the families I represent are in poverty—well above the national average—and the majority of them are in work. Behind each number is a child arriving at school hungry, a parent worrying about rent or heating, and families doing everything right but still falling short on the bills they have to pay. What makes this harder is that Bury North is often seen, on paper, as doing reasonably well, with strong communities and pride in place, but proximity to prosperity does not cushion poverty; it simply hides it.
Too often, policy has failed to understand that. That is why the Government are right to reassess how funding is allocated, recognising that affluence and deprivation sit side by side, ward by ward. Crucially, it is why this change is being made now, when it is costed and affordable, yet overdue. In Chesham Fold and parts of East Ward, parents work every hour they can, budgeting meticulously, yet still struggle to cover the basics. The least well-off are often the best at budgeting, because they have no choice but to stretch limited means as far as possible.
Nowhere is inequality clearer than in health. A child born in one part of my constituency can expect to live seven to 10 years less than a child born barely a mile away. That gap is not about lifestyle choices. It is about poverty shaping lives before they have even properly begun. That is why lifting the two-child limit matters so much, and why I support it as an economic and moral intervention. Scrapping it will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, reduce the depth of poverty for many more and increase spending power in exactly the communities that need it most. That money is spent locally, in full, on food shops, markets, uniforms, rent, heating and transport. It circulates through local economies, gives them buoyancy, stabilises households and reduces pressure on public services downstream. Child poverty already costs our economy close to £40 billion a year in lost potential and higher demand. Ending it for families in Bury North is not ideological; it is hard-headed prevention.
I challenge those who continue to trade in the myths that cling to this debate. Most affected families are already in work; many include a disabled child. Family circumstances change overnight for many of us, through bereavement, redundancy or relationship breakdown. A social security system that fails to recognise that is not tough; it is brittle and will break too easily, as it did for 14 years. This matters even more profoundly for children with special educational needs and disabilities, with the recent Sutton Trust report stating that growing up with SEND and in poverty creates a “double disadvantage”.
I support this Government’s instincts on welfare reform. Rights, responsibilities and contribution matter, but responsibility works only if the floor people are expected to stand on is high enough in the first place. The Bill, alongside wider measures to support families and tackle low incomes, sends a clear message: we are serious about prevention, serious about fairness, and serious about breaking the link between the circumstances of birth and chances in life.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
Labour MPs are lining up today to congratulate themselves on ending the two-child limit. I welcome that decision; I fought for it and I voted for it, and I was suspended and punished by my former party for doing so. While that punishment was being handed out by the Labour Whips Office on behalf of the Prime Minister, children in Coventry South and across the country paid the price.
Facts matter: the two-child limit pushes an estimated 109 children into poverty every single day. From the moment I was suspended for voting to scrap the limit to today, when we are debating the Second Reading of this Bill, 19 months have passed—19 months of delay and excuses. During that time, while this Labour Government delayed, argued and disciplined their own MPs for doing the right thing, over 63,000 children were pushed into poverty. Those children will not get that time back. They will carry the consequences for the rest of their lives.
There are now 4.5 million children living in poverty in Britain. That is not a statistic; in the sixth largest economy in the world, that is a national disgrace. Without further action, that number will rise to 4.7 million during this Parliament. Scrapping the two-child limit matters because the limit is the single biggest driver of rising child poverty.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the hon. Member recognise that additional causes of child poverty include a tax threshold that has not been raised at all and the insufficiency of the minimum wage, which drives many working families into desperate poverty, with their children suffering as a result?
Zarah Sultana
I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] If I could continue without the heckling from those on the Labour Benches who have now decided that child poverty is a priority they want to pursue—as I was saying, scrapping the two-child limit matters because the limit is the single biggest driver of rising child poverty. Scrapping it will lift hundreds of thousands of children closer to dignity and security.
But this Labour Government have decided to stop halfway, because although the two-child limit goes, the benefit cap remains. That means that tens of thousands of families will feel no benefit at all from this change. According to the Government’s own analysis, 50,000 families will gain nothing, another 10,000 will gain only part of what they are owed, and some parents will be left with just £3 a week after rent—£3 to feed, clothe and raise a child. Let us be clear: the Government cannot claim to have ended a policy that punishes children while keeping another that traps them in deep poverty. The benefit cap does not drive employment or create opportunity; it simply takes money from the poorest families—many of them single parents with very young children—and pushes them deeper into despair and hardship.
If this Labour Government are serious about tackling child poverty, they have to finish the job. That means scrapping the benefit cap, ending the two-child limit in full, increasing child-related benefits and making free school meals universal so that no child is excluded simply because their parents earn a pound too much. It means introducing an essentials guarantee into our social security system so that everyone can afford the basics, and ending the four-year freeze on local housing allowance so that families can keep a roof over their heads in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Every single day of delay causes real harm to the most vulnerable in our society; every day of half measures by this Labour Government means that children will continue growing up cold, hungry and anxious about what comes tomorrow.
Reducing child poverty is not radical; it is responsible, it is the right thing to do, it improves health, it improves education and it improves long-term economic outcomes. Last July, alongside six other colleagues, I voted to scrap the two-child benefit cap not for applause; I voted for it because poverty is a political choice, and it was the right thing to do. If this House truly believes that all children are equal, it must act on that belief and abolish the two-child benefit cap in full, without delay.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I was also one of the seven Labour MPs suspended: for voting, to be quite clear, on an amendment to strengthen the King’s Speech by removing the two-child limit. I had made a vow to my constituents in Liverpool West Derby during the election that I would vote to scrap that inhumane policy at every single opportunity I had—so I did.
Today I am grateful and, frankly, relieved that the Government have recognised this policy for what it always was: an immoral attack from the architect of austerity, George Osborne, which punished working-class children. That is everything we should oppose in a Labour Government. Today is a big step in the right direction for the Government elected on a promise to support the most vulnerable, and for change. I am delighted that we stand here today.
Shamefully, 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK—850,000 more than in 2010. The two-child limit has been a key driver of that increase since its introduction in 2017. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, every single day that the policy existed, 109 children were pushed into poverty and denied their ability to live life to the full. Trussell figures are just as stark: almost one in three emergency food parcels last year went to families with three or more children, who make up just 11% of the population, and more than two in five of those families experienced food insecurity. This winter, food banks have been forced to provide an emergency food parcel every 10 seconds—in one of the richest, wealthiest nations on Earth.
Jeremy Corbyn
I compliment the hon. Member on the amazing work he has done on the Right to Food Commission and on food banks in Liverpool, supported by all the football clubs there. He must be aware—maybe he has figures—of the number of families with children who use food banks who are in work, and sometimes doing two jobs, but who are still so poor that they cannot afford to pay a weekly grocery bill.
Ian Byrne
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. We run food pantries in Liverpool with Fans Supporting Foodbanks, and over 60% of those who access those pantries are in work. That is the stark reality of the world we live in.
Behind the figures are real families and real children. Alder Hey Children’s Charity made abolishing the two-child limit its primary focus in its Put Children First campaign report. That charity see at first hand the damage the policy causes to the children in our communities. I have spoken to my great friend, the paediatrician Dr Ian Sinha from Alder Hey children’s hospital. He was presented with a child who, at first sight, he thought had leukaemia. It turned out to be malnutrition.
Poverty kills. That is why scrapping the two-child limit matters. In my constituency of Liverpool West Derby alone, over 3,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. Nationally, 470,000 children will benefit by 2027, alongside 200,000 adults. That represents a 15% reduction in child poverty, with the living standards of 1.6 million children improving immediately.
The impact goes far beyond immediate relief. As we heard at the Right to Food Commission’s evidence session last week in Knowsley, lifting families out of poverty and improving their food security transforms lives, leading to better health outcomes, less pressure on the NHS, higher educational attainment and a stronger future workforce. For those in this place today and many who are not here now who rallied against the cost of lifting children out of poverty, the economic benefit of removing the two-child limit is estimated at £3.1 billion per year through reduced pressure on public services, increased employment and higher tax revenues. It is cost-neutral. For those who speak only the language of the Treasury, it is not only morally right but fiscally responsible. If that floats your boat, that is what we are talking about.
We must be honest, though: this measure does not go far enough. We are voting to remove the two-child benefit limit, not the benefit cap. The cap remains, meaning that 50,000 families will see no benefit at all and 20,000 will see only a marginal increase. If we are really serious about ending child poverty—and I hope we are, with the strategy that we are bringing forward—this Government must commit to removing the benefit cap entirely in this Parliament. The Right to Food UK Commission will also call for legislation on a comprehensive right to food, including universal free school meals, transparency on food costs and the requirement for food security to be considered across all areas of policy.
I urge colleagues to support the Bill, but I remind the House that when it comes to inequality, we do not get to choose where our moral mission ends. As long as children in 21st-century Britain are growing up hungry or in poverty, there is more we can and must do. Let us remove the two-child limit today, end the benefit cap, legislate for the right to food and build a Britain where no family or child is left behind.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the single most important action this Government could take to improve outcomes for children in poverty. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for it consistently, so I am pleased that the Government are finally taking this step. Children and young people in Eastleigh and across our country have paid the price for a policy that was never about fairness, but instead about cutting support to the families who are often struggling the most. This cruel, shameful policy should never have been introduced in the first place. I reiterate that circumstances can change in a heartbeat: redundancy, bereavement or discovering that a child needs special care, meaning that a parent has to give up work—these life-changing events can all have a huge and sometimes devastating impact on household income.
According to the End Child Poverty coalition, 20.6% of children in Eastleigh are growing up in poverty. These experiences in early childhood shape outcomes for life, affecting health, educational attainment and future earnings. Without further action, over 4 million children in the UK will still be growing up in poverty by 2029. Housing costs, inflation—particularly food inflation—and high energy costs continue to be central drivers of hardship.
The Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment has found that around 50,000 low-income families currently affected by the two-child benefit limit will gain nothing when it is lifted in April. A further 20,000 will see their incomes lift only partially from April, due to having their income raised to benefit cap level. What further measures will the Minister take to ensure that all children can fulfil their full potential? Citizens Advice Eastleigh recently advised a single parent whose universal credit was reduced by nearly 30% due to the benefit cap, which, combined with her high rental costs, left her with only £400 a month to feed and clothe her children and keep them warm. Charities in my constituency and across the UK say the same thing: the Bill on its own, while welcome, is not enough.
A fair society does not balance its books on the backs of children. It is frankly astonishing that the Conservatives would reinstate the two-child benefit cap. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Conservatives’ policy did not have a significant impact on labour supply and has not considerably affected fertility decisions, so the only thing it did was to drive more children into poverty. What a terrible legacy that is. I wonder what they would say to the 72% of children living in poverty who are in working families, and the families with three or more children who are in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own. A fair society protects its children, invests in them and gives every child the chance to thrive. That is why I support this Bill, and why I will continue to press for further action until child poverty in this country is eradicated once and for all.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I am proud to support the Bill and do so with the families of Southampton firmly in mind. Those are families who fell foul of the last Conservative Government’s mission to make Britain Dickensian again.
Child deprivation in my city is among the worst in the country—worse than more than 83% of local authorities. Here, that is a potentially abstract statistic; there, it is reflected in the lived reality of my constituents. More than one in five working-age adults in Southampton are on universal credit. That rises to an average of one in three in our most deprived neighbourhoods. As colleagues have said, many of those people are working hard but are still falling short. What was the last Conservative Government’s answer to that? It was to count the children and punish the whole family. No doubt tonight Conservative Members will traipse through the Lobby and vote to keep a lid on the 450,000 children who are about to be released from poverty.
The two-child limit simply did not work. If anything, it compounded the pressures on families—families who repeatedly tell me that the universal credit they receive barely covers the rent, let alone food, heating or school essentials. That is the Tory legacy, and that is the deeply entrenched poverty that this Labour Government are having to undo bit by bit. It is therefore no surprise that an estimated 10,000 children in Southampton still live in households with absolute low income and that 25% of children live in households with relative low income. These realities demand clear action, and this Bill is part of that action being led by the Labour Government.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The issues he describes in his Southampton constituency apply in a similar way to my residents in Reading. Does he agree that an important aspect of the Government’s work is not only what we are debating today, but the wider and broader package of measures, such as help on housing and the cost of transport and the warm homes initiative? Perhaps he will talk about the overall impact of these measures.
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend for making that salient point, and I will come to that wider package of measures.
Of course, we have heard straw-man arguments, saying, “Well, this one thing will not solve child poverty.” No one is claiming that it will solve child poverty; it is one piece in the jigsaw of the wider work that this Government are doing. But I am glad that this punitive, arbitrary cap, which only made life worse for so many, is being scrapped. That will lift up to 2,500 children in Southampton Itchen out of poverty.
If I were to credit the Conservative Opposition with one thing in this debate, it would be their consistency.
Darren Paffey
Consistently wrong, and they have made a consistent and desperate attempt to be divisive. They are trying to split the country into those who pay tax and those who receive welfare. These generalisations around the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor are not only crass but factually wrong. Many contribute through work for years. They fall on hard times and rely on the safety net that they have paid into—my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) made that point eloquently. The Conservatives ignore the fact that many receive universal credit while they are working. That is the state topping up poverty wages. The Conservatives might be happy to ignore that, but Labour is taking action on the minimum wage—what a contrast.
This Bill removing the two-child limit is a vital step, but—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda)—it is not a stand-alone measure. It sits alongside this Labour Government’s wider work, such as opening free breakfast clubs, which will transform life chances, with early adopters in St John’s, St Patrick’s and Hightown primary schools in my constituency. It also sits alongside the £20 million Pride in Place investment in the Weston estate and the expansion of free school meals. A third of pupils in my state-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, and more are set to get that support, making a material difference to their lives and breaking down some of the barriers to learning that still exist.
Labour is investing in more childcare to help those parents who face barriers to getting into work. We are strengthening some of the universal credit work allowances, and delivering a comprehensive child poverty strategy aimed at giving every single child a fair start. I commend the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions for the work they have done on leading that vital change.
We all dream of a future where these kinds of benefits might not be as necessary as they are now. We dream of, and Labour is working towards, a world where work pays well and pays better, which our Employment Rights Act 2025 moves us closer to achieving. We dream of a world where the cost of living crisis is less acute, as our action on warm homes and freezing rail fares, VAT rates, income tax rates and fuel duty will help to achieve. Add to that the creation of opportunities through the youth guarantee scheme and more apprenticeships, and we can see that a lot is happening, but that there is still much more to do.
The Bill recognises a very simple truth: children do not choose the circumstances into which they are born. Supporting the Bill and scrapping the arbitrary failed cap is not only the right economic decision; it is the right moral decision.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Government have drawn this Bill too narrowly. It will, as Members have mentioned several times, leave at least 150,000 children in larger families with no extra help at all. For example, Maryam, highlighted by the Z2K charity, is a lone parent of three. She fled from domestic abuse and relies on us for her income while she restarts her life. Abolishing the two-child limit alone will not improve her life one bit, because she is affected by both the two-child limit and the overall benefit cap.
In December, after this policy change was finally announced—about 18 months after the Government should have taken action—I asked Ministers how many families and children would be excluded from the extra help, and they told me that that information was not available. It is beyond me how they could decide that this policy would leave out children without knowing exactly how many. DWP data shows that there are nearly 1,000 families subject to the benefit cap in my constituency, but I was not told—and I still do not know—how many of my families will be excluded from the provisions in the Bill. We do know how many children in total will be left out and not helped. The impact assessment for the Bill says that 50,000 families will see no gain at all, and that another 20,000 families in the first year will only partially gain before the household benefit cap kicks in for them too. In total, at least 200,000 children will not get the help they need from the Government.
The benefit cap, like the two-child limit, was always unjust. Introduced by the Conservatives who used headlines and misrepresentations, they drove up stigma and demonisation—demonisation of children in poverty and their parents. The Conservatives failed to see that social security is security for everyone, and that this spending pays back in wider benefits that the Treasury and the country will see. We should not limit lives through prejudice,
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Member share my concerns that the arguments that are being made by the Labour Government in cancelling the two-child cap were applicable 19 months ago, and that 61,000 children could have been kept out of poverty if the Government had agreed with us in debates on the King’s Speech, rather than waiting until now?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for pointing out yet again that some of us in this House voted to move on this issue many, many months ago, and it is about time that the Government caught up.
I utterly reject the racist agenda of Reform’s objections. The fact is that the Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children, so what will the Government do to fix that? The scope of the Bill could be widened by the Government to remove the benefit cap. This could be done through a motion or even by a simple amendment, which I have been trying to achieve. It is down to the Government to listen to Members who have spoken on this issue today. I quite simply ask them whether they will now act.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The introduction of the two-child limit by the Conservatives in 2017 has had a devastating impact on child poverty rates. Every day, it affects 1.7 million children, with a loss of roughly £3,500 a year for affected families. A huge 17% of children in my constituency live in families subject to this inhumane and unjust policy.
It is also a policy that has failed on its own terms: a study by the London School of Economics found that it did not increase employment rates among those families affected, the majority of whom are already in work. Meanwhile, the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children became collateral damage in this reckless experiment, from living in overcrowded homes to going to bed hungry.
It is utterly disgraceful that this cruel policy has remained in force for so long, and I know that many of our constituents have felt let down that our Labour Government did not act more quickly. I am therefore greatly relieved that the calls that so many of us have repeatedly made are now being heeded, and that the Government are finally scrapping the two-child limit. This would not have been possible without the tireless work of campaigners, who have spent almost a decade fighting for this change.
Experts agree that the removal of the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to cut child poverty, with the change expected to lift almost half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. With more than a third of children in my constituency growing up in poverty, I breathe a sigh of relief for the children and families in Nottingham East, and right across the country, who will finally be receiving the support that they should always have had.
Poverty is a political choice, and this Bill proves that we can make decisions that have a real impact, but this must be the start and not the end. I am concerned that around 50,000 low-income families currently affected by the two-child benefit limit will gain nothing when it is lifted in April because of the benefit cap. I am also worried that children whose parents are subject to no recourse to public funds will continue to be at a disproportionately high risk of poverty because they are denied support. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has also warned that progress on tackling poverty is likely to stall without further action.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I absolutely agree with her about those 50,000 families not getting any benefit. Does she agree that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to child poverty, including raising the tax threshold to take the poorest families and poorest people out of taxation altogether, and looking at the extraordinarily high private sector rents in many places, which are way above the local housing allowance and mean that families on benefit end up subsidising their rent in order to keep a roof over their heads?
Nadia Whittome
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with the points that he made, particularly because, from my constituency inbox, huge numbers of constituents are effectively evicted because landlords keep hiking their rents. That is why I back his call, and the calls of Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham—our mayors—to allow local areas to introduce rent controls. I also back the calls of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for universal credit to cover the cost of essentials such as food, toiletries and heating.
Addressing people’s material conditions—their living conditions—is how we keep the far right at bay. We must show that we are on the side of working-class people. We must tax the multimillionaires and put money back into our public services and people’s pockets. We must do that at pace, so that no child grows up in poverty, in the sixth-largest economy in the world, so that people can see the difference that a Labour Government can make, and so that our society becomes a happier, healthier and more equal place for all of us to live. That must be our goal.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It seems that with increasing frequency I stand in this place welcoming Labour U-turns, and today I welcome yet another. The decision to lift the two-child cap is clearly the right moral choice, and it will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
For those in Scotland, this is a particularly welcome change. There will no longer be any need for the Scottish Government to divert funds from social care and council services to the Scottish child payment. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who is on the Bench behind me, to discuss with her colleagues in Holyrood the merits of using some of the projected £155 million savings to help fund a new health and care hub for the people of Bearsden and Milngavie in my constituency.
I am aware that some people do not support lifting the cap. The change is set to cost UK taxpayers over £3 billion annually by 2030—clearly an enormous sum. Over the past year, we have seen that this Labour Government are set on making working people pay for their changes through tax band freezing, national insurance rises and pension changes. With that in mind, I urge the Government to look seriously at the Liberal Democrat proposals that aim to raise tax revenue. First, banks have made record profits—an estimated £50 billion in a single year—off the backs of hard-working people. We Liberal Democrats believe that it is only fair that the banks pay back some of that money. A windfall tax on these enormous profits could raise £7 billion per year, without placing any more strain on people who are already struggling.
On top of that—I know that Conservative Members will not be happy to hear this again—we need a customs union with Europe. Trade deals with China and India are not unwelcome, but the biggest opportunity is right on our doorstep: an extra £90 billion a year in tax revenue that does not require going cap in hand to those who stand against our values or who facilitate our enemies.
Lifting children out of poverty does not have to put a further strain on working people. We can create a fair tax system in which companies pay their fair share to help those from whom they profit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is a very specific debate about the removal of the two-child limit and not a wider debate on tax policy?
Susan Murray
I apologise.
Removing the two-child cap is a vital step, and I hope that the Government choose to listen to more Liberal Democrat proposals.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Scrapping the two-child limit is a clear win-win. It will improve the living standards of around 1.6 million children overnight and prevent hundreds of thousands more from being pushed into poverty in the years ahead, while also leading to better health, development, educational attainment and economic outcomes. These improvements will shape life chances, ease the pressure on our public services and strengthen our wider economy.
This decision is a testament to the campaigners who have worked tirelessly for years to see the two-child limit repealed, and to hon. Members from across the House who have repeatedly called for change, including those who lost the Labour Whip in 2024 for standing firmly by their principles. I strongly support this measure and will, of course, vote in favour.
The cruel two-child limit was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2015, with the stated aim of making savings in the welfare system. The bottom line is that misdirected interventions, based on cuts rather than investment, will never fix a system that is producing deepening poverty.
Poverty and the cost of living crisis are taking a devastating toll on Welsh communities. Across Wales, thousands of people are struggling to make ends meet, going without essentials and falling further into debt. With just three months to go until the elections, it is clear that this crisis will not disappear, and we should pull every available lever to tackle it. Removing the two-child cap and delivering a robust child poverty strategy are welcome steps, but more must be done.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without the essentials. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust say that the welfare system must provide the essentials of daily living— food, heating and so on—if we are to tackle deep-seated poverty in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Steve Witherden
I agree with my hon. Friend, who cites some absolutely appalling statistics. An essentials guarantee would embed the principle that universal credit should, at a minimum, protect people from going without food, heating and other basics. A protected minimum floor would ensure that no one falls below a humane safety net.
I hope that the Government continue along the path of reversing cruel Conservative policies that harm the most vulnerable in our society.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
This has been a very revealing debate in which Members on all sides of the House have made interesting points, but this matter has unfortunately become quite polarising.
On one side of the debate, we have those who work with children and families and see the hugely damaging impact that the two-child limit has had. The Child Poverty Action Group says that
“scrapping the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to start to reduce child poverty”.
Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, called removing the two-child limit
“a vital first step towards lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty quickly, with the potential to transform their lives.”
I agree with Unicef, which said:
“No child should be punished for the number of siblings they have.”
Scrapping the two-child limit will lift around 2,500 children in St Helens North out of poverty. In this Parliament, we are on course to lift a record number of children—more than half a million nationally—out of poverty. Free breakfast clubs are opening in more primary schools, more than 5,000 families in St Helens North will benefit from extended free school meals later this year, and working families receive 30 hours of free childcare. Yes, that must all be paid for, and I am aware that it will be paid for by taxpayers, but politics and government are about choices.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that we should look at the Conservatives’ record in government. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said that government is about choices. Well, the country is well aware of the Conservatives’ record and the choices that they made, which is why they are sat on the Opposition Benches. This Labour Government are choosing to give all children the opportunity to thrive, and we will all benefit as a result. Every single penny spent in pursuit of that goal is money well spent, in my opinion as a taxpayer.
On the other side of the debate, however, the Leader of the Opposition and others do not take a reasonable and reasoned position but use language that is at best insulting and at worst dangerous. In a single stroke, talk of the so-called “Benefits Street” alienates and denigrates the millions of Britons who receive benefits, many of whom work. They are our neighbours and friends; the people we see day in, day out around our communities. As my hon. Friends have said, most of the children who will be helped by the removal of the two-child limit are from households in which someone works—59% of the households affected by the two-child limit are in work.
I agree with those who say that work should pay, which is why I support this Government’s measures to ensure exactly that—measures that are opposed by those who say that work should pay. Try to square that circle, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I cannot—good luck to them. All I ask is that those who talk in that way about “Benefits Street”, and who denigrate millions of people, including children, think about how those children —never mind their parents—might feel when they see those headlines. We can and should debate policy, but we gain nothing from making people feel worthless.
We also hear a lot about “looking after our own.” I agree that we should look after our own and support the people who need help. That is what the Bill would do through investment in children and the wellbeing of future generations, for their sake and for our collective good. I have seen the impact of poverty on families and children throughout my working life, and I have tried my best to help them. I am sure that all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have met many families who have struggled and dealt with sudden changes in circumstances, whether from ill health, bereavements, job losses or housing crises.
For families with more than two children, the impact is even more acute. It saddens me—frankly, it staggers me—that some would choose to extend that pain tonight. Every child matters; every child counts; every child has a role to play in our country and its future. I will vote tonight for them.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I know all too well the difference this Bill will make for families across the country. In my constituency, I have seen far too many families struggling to make ends meet. Indeed, that reality was a huge part of what drove me to this place from my primary school classroom and a lead role in local government, so I am pleased and proud to welcome and support the Bill today and the tangible difference it will make in Clwyd North and beyond.
It is important to note that the Bill has been fully costed and is part of an overall strategy. Everyone can call for something, but we have made it happen. Across Wales, this change will help 69,000 children, including 3,100 children in my Clwyd North constituency. I cannot overstate how deeply this change is needed and how proud I am to see it delivered under this Labour Government. It is exactly the kind of action we need to support families of all shapes and sizes after 14 years of Tory austerity, which have left far too many children in poverty.
Although it might seem obvious, I want to emphasise that children are part of these families; they do not exist in a bubble, and they cannot disappear when life gets tough. Supporting families makes children better off. Families face a range of circumstances, often unexpected, and every child deserves to have their needs met regardless of that. Poverty in childhood does nothing but cost society in the long term. Children growing up in poverty are less likely to work as adults, and by the age of 30 they earn 25% less on average.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. You either get it or you don’t: what we are doing is giving children an opportunity to better their futures. When I was young, my father, who was an engineer, fell ill, and my mother and my family fell to the state. Today, I am an officer of the court, and I am here as a Member of Parliament. Let us give every child a chance to develop and better their futures.
Gill German
I absolutely agree. Every child deserves the chance to fulfil their potential, and it is our responsibility to make that happen.
I am proud that a Labour Government in Wales have led the way with practical initiatives to support children, including free breakfast in primary schools since 2004, protected by legislation since 2013; universal free school meals for primary school children since 2022—I was incredibly proud to be part of rolling that out across Clwyd North; statutory guidance on school uniform branding that has been in place for years; and the school essentials grant, to help with the cost of going to school.
Although those initiatives are invaluable, I have heard repeatedly for many years, including as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children in Wales, from organisations such as Barnardo’s Cymru, Citizens Advice Wales and Save the Children Wales that the single most effective step to lift children out of poverty would be to remove the two-child cap. Now, finally, with a Labour Government in Westminster, we have done exactly that, and we have done it in a measured, fully costed way that accounts for every penny needed. Those organisations have long sounded the alarm, and I am proud that it is our Labour Government who have taken action.
As the MP for Clwyd North, I know exactly what I want to see. We need a long-term solution to child poverty. We need parents and families in reliable, fairly paid work to see child poverty off for good. We must rebuild our economy after it was decimated in the worst way. We must create clear pathways into work for young people and those locked out of employment. We must equip people with the skills that are needed for today’s jobs and the jobs of the future, and we must ensure that we have the transport, childcare and infrastructure that are needed so that people can get to work in the first place. I will work tirelessly to ensure that those opportunities are open to people in Clwyd North, particularly our young people. My constituency is ideally placed between two major investment zones, and it is my responsibility to ensure that my residents benefit from the opportunities that that brings.
It is absolutely right that this cap is being lifted here and now, but we must remember that the very best way to ensure that children live well is to ensure that their families are supported and are in fairly paid, reliable work. That must be our relentless focus if we are to reduce our shocking child poverty figures, not just for today, but for generations to come.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am pleased that I have sat through the whole debate today. The speeches I have heard from Members on the Government Benches have been incredibly eloquent and moving, and I am really pleased that we are where we are now in scrapping the two-child limit.
I have listened to the speeches by Opposition Members. Looking back in history, they were reminiscent of the debates on the Poor Law in the early 19th century. If people remember their history, they will know that there was an economist called Malthus at the time. He suggested that if anything was given to the poor by way of support or benefits, it would make them lazy and make them breed, and he thought that the only way to control the population was to starve the poor. That was reflected in the debate today. I hope that one day we will have a civilised society in which those views are not heard, especially the racist views expressed by Reform on how to separate our society, when we know that there are divisions and that we need to bring people together.
Let me say to my hon. Friends and to those on the Front Bench, please do not spoil this Bill now. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but others have raised the issue of the overall cap. If we allow that to exist, it will spoil the Bill; it will not do the job that we need it to do. Scrapping the two-child limit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, but, as others have said, if we maintain the overall cap, it will mean that 150,000 children will still be hit. That means that we will not have done our job. I know we can argue that we will come back to that, but the longer we delay, the longer those children will live in poverty.
There must be a way to resolve this issue quickly, and this piece of legislation could be that way. In comparison with removing the overall two-child limit, it is—I say this in inverted commas—“relatively inexpensive”. I think the cost would be about £500 million compared with £3 billion, so we could do it. It cannot be done by an amendment from a Back-Bench Member, because only the Government can bring forward proposals that involve increased expenditure in any form.
I appeal to those on the Front Bench: please do not spoil the Bill at this stage. Try to bring us all together in absolute consensus across most of the House and do the job properly. Lift all children out of poverty in this way, because, as I say, I think it will be relatively inexpensive, and the impact of not doing so will be severe.
I do not want to get into another row over this particular issue. I voted against the two-child limit when it was introduced. I railed against it—I do not think that I have ever been so angry in this House as I was that day—and that is why I have continually voted to scrap it. I know that people are anxious about the vote in the King’s Speech debate, but that was a vote not against the King’s Speech but in favour of scrapping the two-child limit. I understand the argument that it must be done as a component part of a Budget so that we can afford it, but that is why I was disappointed that we had not done it first—because it was so meaningful for me to scrap the limit itself. We are where we are now, and I am really pleased.
I just want those on the Government Front Bench to go that little step further and scrap the overall limit. There are other issues, such as rate controls, but we can come back to those at the next stage of tackling child poverty through our strategy. So I make that appeal. Let me just say that although a Back Bencher cannot table an amendment that raises expenditure, we can table ones that make the Bill dependent on further reports being published within a time-limited period on scrapping the overall limit. I will be open in giving notice now that, if the Government do not bring forward a meaningful amendment, I will seek to work with the Clerks to table an amendment that at least commits the Government to consider and report back to the House on scrapping the overall limit. If necessary, I will push that to a vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. For the assistance of Back Benchers who still wish to speak, I am about to remove the time limit. [Interruption.]
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
You’re in trouble now, Madam Deputy Speaker!
The Bill will be remembered as one of the proudest moments of this Government’s first term. Before entering this place, I worked on policy around poverty, and it is something that motivates me every day. A constant theme that I have found, when looking at the evidence, is that the simple solutions are often the best. Indeed, it is interesting that Opposition Members often argue for a simplified tax system for the wealthy, but when it comes to benefits, they have done nothing but buttress the system with more and more complex rules.
Poverty ruins lives. We know that growing up in poverty leads to worse life outcomes, including poorer educational outcomes. Being in poverty as children leaves us three times more likely to be in poverty as adults, and the longer the period of deprivation a child goes through, the worse their chances will be as an adult. It is clear that the impacts of child poverty are deep-rooted. Lifting the two-child benefit cap is one of the single most effective ways to change that trajectory and give people a better outcome for the rest of their lives. If someone is constantly hungry, cold or in damp housing without repairs, the effects on their health, self-esteem and chances are long-lasting.
When kids grow up in poverty, the economy loses out too. Even if Members choose not to care about worse outcomes for children—something I think we have a moral imperative to care about—it is a question of cold economic logic. In 2023, my old employer, the Child Poverty Action Group, estimated that the cost of child poverty was £39 billion a year, and that investing to solve the issue
“would bring similarly large gains to the economy”.
The lifting of this cap alone will ultimately save £3.2 billion a year.
This is the first piece of legislation passed on child poverty since the Child Poverty Act 2010. I remember working on the passage of that Act, and how the now Lord Cameron committing to halving and then ending child poverty. Indeed, he accepted the evidence-based view that relative poverty is appropriate for measuring child poverty, because children with less money are less able to take part in the society to which their friends belong, and are less able to achieve in the same way. It was a bold way to face the electorate in 2010, but it was not matched at all by the Conservatives’ record in power of abject failure. The two-child limit pushed hundreds of thousands more children into poverty. This Bill is shot through with the needs created by the last Government’s 14 years of failure. UNICEF found that between 2013 and 2023, the UK saw the largest increase in relative poverty out of the 37 high-income countries that it measured—an increase of a third. That is a larger increase than across the EU.
We have heard a lot from Members across the House about people in work. When I was working at the Child Poverty Action Group, we had a killer stat. We used to say, “One third of children in poverty have a parent in work.” By the time that lot left government, two thirds of children in poverty had a parent in work. Even if a child does not have a parent in work, I do not believe that the sins of the parents are visited on the children. I do not believe that children have control over where they are born. We hear about choices; should children choose to be born to a different family? The two-child benefit cap is social and economic vandalism that we will reverse when this Bill becomes law. The removal of that cap will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, with 2 million children set to benefit overall. Think about what that means—the lives changed and the futures opened up. If nothing else moves Members, think about the savings to the public purse from fewer children growing up facing the barriers that poverty causes, which follow them into adulthood.
There is more to do. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will know that I am likely to be very annoying about the further things we have to do, but I welcome the Government’s support for free breakfast clubs, expanding childcare, family hubs and getting more young people into work. I look forward to reviewing how those programmes bring children out of deprivation. Today, I could not be prouder that I will walk through the Division Lobby to give millions of children a fairer start.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The last time we debated this issue, I took many interventions from Conservative Members—there are fewer of them in the Chamber today—who wanted to know whether I would support lifting the two-child cap. As I said at the time, increasing the household incomes of children in poverty is one of several things we need to do to tackle the scourge of child poverty in places like Bishop Auckland, and I trust that the Government’s heart is in the right place on this issue. As such, I am delighted by the proposals they have brought forward and I will enthusiastically vote for the Bill. It will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. Some 2,310 households in my constituency are currently affected by the two-child cap.
As I said, the Bill is only one measure; it needs to be combined with others. We have heard often in this debate that removing the two-child cap is the single quickest way to lift children out of poverty. That is because we measure poverty by household income, but poverty is multi-dimensional, and it is important that we address its multifaceted aspects. Combined with other measures, the Bill will make a real difference. Those measures include: the Renters’ Rights Act 2025; the Employment Rights Act 2025; increases in the national minimum wage; the falling interest rates that are cutting mortgages; the new rules on school uniforms; the 30 hours of free childcare; free breakfast clubs in every school to reduce the early morning stress on working parents; the extension of free school meals to a further 4,500 children in Bishop Auckland; the extension of the warm home discount to more households; and investment in youth hubs, family hubs, and arts and culture. All those things will help to support children in poverty, which is why I am proud to be part of this Labour Government at this time.
At a roundtable in my constituency shortly after I was elected, we invited educators and charities—people who work with children—to talk to us about their experience of child poverty. There were tears in the room as headteachers talked of having to bring food into school to feed hungry children; of a child whose uniform was wet because there was no glass in the window of their home; of children living in cold and damp homes; and of children in Shildon who are excluded from extracurricular activities because they have to get the only free bus home, as their parents cannot afford the £1 bus fare to take a later bus. I came here today to speak on behalf of those children and to be their voice.
I will address some of the arguments that we have heard against the Bill. Too much of this debate has focused on party politics, rather than children. The Opposition seem to be simultaneously arguing that we should have done this sooner and should not be doing it at all. As I have engaged with the Government over the past 18 months and had many conversations, including in No. 10 and with Ministers, I have been reassured throughout that the Prime Minister has a strong personal commitment to eradicating child poverty, so it did not surprise me at all to see this legislation brought forward.
The opposition to what we are doing today is based on falsehoods. The first is that the Bill is about supporting children in workless households. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) said a moment ago, the children are not to blame. We can never blame a child for being born in a poor home. Also, 59% of the families affected by the two-child cap are families in work. We also know that universal credit requires people to show evidence of actively seeking work. People cannot simply sit on universal credit—it is not that easy. We know, too, that it is often a temporary measure.
I think about my family. Twelve years ago, I was working as a gardener on just above the minimum wage while I was completing my PhD, and my wife was working as a carer. We relied for a time on having our income topped up by tax credits, as they were called then. I almost crossed out that bit of my speech, because I know I will get an onslaught of abuse just for saying so, such is the rhetoric in our country right now, demonising people who ever draw on our social security system. My twin sister became a single parent, not of her choosing, and raised three children, two of whom had a disability. I remember her telling me that when she moved into her council house, a friend told her that she could paint the floor and put duvets at the windows to keep it warmer. My sister put herself through a degree in pharmacy at Durham University and now works in my constituency as a pharmacist for a GP practice. My brother, who was the highest earner in our family, died at the age of 35, leaving behind three children. People fall on hard times, and when they do, a caring society should be there for each other.
One of the other lies we are hearing in this debate is that the Bill is funded by a tax on workers. Other parties seek to divide people, telling those who are just about managing that their taxes are paying for people who are not working, and it is not true. We know what is funding this Bill and many other things: a fairer tax system, abolishing the non-dom status, a mansion tax, and the remote gaming duty, which will generate an extra £1 billion. It is about fairness and who pays.
Finally, there is this lie that keeping children in poverty is good or necessary for the economy. It is not. The welfare bill increased by £88 billion under the Conservative Government, despite the real value of welfare decreasing. They oversaw a real-terms decrease in living standards. That led to a generation of children who were malnourished, who experienced family breakdown and who were denied opportunities to become a generation of adults realising their full potential. We had an increase in sickness and in days lost to sick pay, an increase in mental health disorders and a 250% increase in looked-after children. We have rising cost pressures on Government as a result of those policies.
As I finish, I must turn my attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), who is no longer in her place. I intend to write to her, because I was deeply offended by the suggestion that people who were not born in this country, but work hard, are somehow less. My wife was not born in this country; she came here as a teenager. She worked in a meat factory and as a carer. More recently, she went through university and now works as a midwife in our NHS. I am so proud of her, and I find the idea disgusting that she should somehow be less entitled because of her birth. Reform needs to rethink that.
To conclude, I will be voting with the Government tonight, and I re-emphasise that this is one of several things that we need to do in our national mission to end the scourge of child poverty in our country once and for all.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
When the Labour Government came to office, 4.5 million children were living in poverty, and I believe that that is a moral stain on our nation. It has been a central mission of this Labour Government to tackle child poverty in all its forms. They are taking a range of measures, like introducing breakfast clubs. We have had some fantastic pilots of those in my constituency, and we have heard from schools that provide them that attendance is improving as a result. That is yet another impact of tackling childhood shortages. The Government are also extending free school meals to more children, while family hubs will help families who are struggling to get the support they need, and of course, there is more childcare support for working parents, who are too often kept out of work by the high costs of childcare.
Today, though, we are talking about ending the two-child limit on universal credit. This measure alone will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty, and in my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale about 1,900 kids will benefit. It is not just the right thing to do, in and of itself; the evidence shows that tackling poverty in childhood is more cost-effective than mopping up the damage later—the damage of poverty that was outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). The fact is that poverty kills. It is as simple as that.
Some will say that poverty is caused by fecklessness or laziness, ignoring the 70% of children affected by this limit who live in working households; ignoring the fact that 15% of those affected by the cap are mothers with really young babies—mothers who we would normally not expect to work; ignoring the significant number of people affected who are in ill health or have caring responsibilities; and ignoring the fact that the cost of living crisis, which was brought upon us by the Conservatives and by reliance on foreign gas, means that people who could afford their children when they had them are now struggling to put food on the table.
About six months after the election, I knocked on a door in Morecambe, and it was opened by a lady who was really distressed. Once I got talking to her, it turned out that she had five kids. She said to me, “I could afford those children when I had them. I would never have had these children had I not been able to afford them.” She worked days, her husband worked nights, and she was on the minimum wage. They were struggling to prevent their children from finding out just how difficult a financial situation they were in. I was able to tell that lady that in a few months’ time, thanks to the Labour Government, she would receive a pay rise, because we were putting the minimum wage up—yet another measure that we are taking to tackle child poverty.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
One of the most distressing things that I discovered when I was working at Church Action on Poverty and talking to parents of children in poverty was how often mothers went without food. My hon. Friend has talked about families struggling so that their children did not find out. Does she agree that that is what we are changing today, and that that is the reality of this policy?
Lizzi Collinge
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Parents, in my experience, will do anything to protect their children from the harsh realities of life. It is parents who go without food. It is parents who have to go to the food bank. I remember the first time I met the people running the food bank in Morecambe, in 2017. I walked up to them and said, “One day, I will put you out of business.” And they said, “Thank you”, because their strategic aim is not to exist. Food banks should not exist.
Some of the people who oppose the lifting of this limit are also willing to ignore the fact that the policy itself did not work on its own terms. It did not limit the number of children born, but merely condemned them to living in poverty. They are also willing to ignore the evidence that dealing with poverty in childhood is much more cost-effective than mopping up later. It prevents huge costs later down the line in terms of education, health or indeed the criminal justice system.
I am not saying that there are no feckless parents. Of course there are feckless parents, and there have always been feckless parents. I remember my great-grandma telling the story of having to go to the pub on a Friday night to try to get the housekeeping money off her drunkard father. She used to tell it as a funny story with a smile on her face, but it was not funny then and it is not funny now. I was really quite shocked at Reform saying that it would keep the two-child limit on universal credit and instead put that money into reducing the cost of beer. I love a drink—do not get me wrong—but I cannot help but think that, if Reform Members were around 100 years ago, they would have been standing with my drunkard ancestor, rather than with the little girl with her hand out for the housekeeping money. Do we condemn hundreds of thousands of children to poverty because there are a few feckless parents?
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that fecklessness is not a trait exhibited only by poorer people in our country?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that fecklessness is not limited to any one socioeconomic group. It is interesting how people born into great wealth consider their position to be due only to their very hard work, yet they consider it to be other people’s own fault if they are born into poverty. That is really quite shocking.
More than 1 million children live in households unable to afford even the most basic necessities of life. There are parents choosing between heating and eating, children doing their homework on the floor in housing that is too crowded to provide a space to study, whole families staying in one room because that is all they can afford to heat, and kids wheezing due to damp. What compounds this heartbreak is that childhood poverty festers and grows. It infects people’s prospects in education, health and employment across their whole life.
Rather than tackling that, discussions about welfare inevitably descend into conversations about merit: who deserves help and who does not. These are children we are talking about—children entirely reliant on adults for their existence and their support, and entirely reliant on Governments such as ours to make sure they are looked after if, from no fault of their own, their parents do not have enough money for the necessities of life.
If this Victorian attitude to the deserving and undeserving poor had won the day previously, we would not have had any of the public services that we now take for granted. We would not have had free education, because why should parents not just pay for education themselves? We would not have had the NHS, because why should people not just pay for doctors themselves? As we know, Reform Members would be very happy to get rid of the NHS and bring in a private insurance system. None of us earned those things through our own merit; we inherited them from people who recognised that everyone deserves a good chance in life and the chance to thrive and succeed, whether by starting their own business, getting an education or doing whatever it is that will make their life a good life. That is the obligation we have to our children.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have shown that scrapping the two-child benefit limit could drive the single largest fall in child poverty in a single Parliament. My local Citizens Advice has done a brilliant report saying that scrapping the two-child limit is the fastest and most cost-effective intervention to tackle child poverty.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech. If the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that this will be the biggest change made in a Parliament —a full parliamentary term—why are the Government doing it now after refusing to do it 18 months ago?
Lizzi Collinge
That is actually a reasonable question. The answer is that we had to make sure the country could afford it and we had to take a strategic approach to tackling child poverty. What we were not going to do, given the absolute state of the economy when we came into government, was make very quick decisions on such a scale. We did it properly, carefully and as part of a strategy. [Interruption.] I am interested by Opposition Members’ interpretation of reality.
Let us not forget—moving on to something else that seems to have been missed in this discussion—that the families hit hardest by the two-child limit are those who spend the largest share of their income on absolute essentials. Lifting those families out of poverty not only reduces hardship, but actually boosts the local economy in the same way that raising the minimum wage does. In Morecambe and Lunesdale, I have thousands of fantastic small local businesses who rely on local people having enough money in their pockets to go out and spend, whether it is in the corner shop, the local supermarket or the clothes shop on the front where I get my kids’ school uniforms. They rely on people spending and we know that people who are hard up spend every single penny that they have. I have spoken in this Chamber before about the cost saving of prevention. This measure is no different. Investing in our children now pays dividends later, improving educational outcomes and raising adult earnings.
Even if, in the face of all contradictory evidence, we accept the myth sown by the right that all the parents affected by the cap are somehow scroungers and feckless, I still do not believe that their children should have to live in poverty. Using children as pawns to influence parental behaviour or illustrate moral lessons not only does not work, it is profoundly unjust. And it did not work. Even by its own logic, the two-child benefit limit has been woefully ineffective. Back in 2019, a cross-party Work and Pensions Committee found “no evidence” that it was working as intended. It had next to no effect on employment rates and hours worked in affected households, and the stated effect on birth rate is so tiny that it is doubtful that it is greater than the margin of error in the data. The cap has not led to greater employment rates or a higher number of hours worked. What the cap has done is make childcare and travel costs an even higher barrier for those households who are trying desperately to work more.
The two-child benefit cap also assumed that all pregnancies are planned, in full knowledge of the Government’s social security policy. I do not know about others, but most people I know are not over the details of social security policy. We know that it is simply not true that all pregnancies are planned. We know that contraceptives fail. Stuff happens. I remember when Tony Blair had an oopsie baby in the ’90s. With apologies to the Blairs for referring to them, I remember my dad saying, “Well, if the Prime Minister can’t always get it right, how we do expect every single person in the country to do so?”
We also know—it became really clear from the previous Conservative policy—that a startling number of children are conceived through rape. The policy meant that traumatised women were having to disclose their rape to faceless bureaucrats just to try to get enough money to raise the child who had been conceived through rape. That is surely compounding the trauma of survivors of sexual assault.
Finally, our country’s future depends on investing in the potential of our children—all our children, wherever they were born and however they were conceived. Today, we are saying that there are no second-class children in Britain and that under a Labour Government child poverty is not an inevitability. It is a choice and we choose to end it.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak for the next hour, while there is no time limit. [Laughter.] Buckle in!
I want to start today’s speech by first addressing what the Conservatives said and why we need state support to help end child poverty in the technological era we are in. I also want to make clear why we are ending the two-child limit. In the economic sense, yes, it is a pounds and pence issue—we save more money by feeding kids today—but far more importantly, morally no child in this country should be going hungry.
Before I get to that, I would like to share with the House where I spent two years of my life between 2016 and 2018, when I was the economist working in Somaliland’s Ministry of Finance. I was there during what was then its worst drought in living memory. When drought came to Somaliland—one of the poorest nations on earth—it meant failing harvests, dying livestock and rising hunger. I will never forget what that hunger looked like and what it felt like for a whole nation.
I could understand what was happening in Somaliland, even if it was incredibly difficult, but I was shocked and appalled on returning to this country to see children going hungry here—in the fifth richest nation on earth. Those children went hungry after the introduction of the two-child limit. Poverty went up in the largest families, who were affected by the two-child limit, and child hunger went up. Food bank parcels were unknown in my childhood; there were a million handed out in 2017, and three million by the time the Conservatives left office. Most shamefully of all, child malnutrition has doubled over the past decade. That is the shameful legacy of the two-child limit and what it meant for child hunger in this country.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trussell Trust was founded in this country in 2000, under a Labour Government, and that the Department for Work and Pensions did not recommend that it be offered as a solution to families in need at the time? It is one thing to talk about food banks, but it is important to ensure that we acknowledge when they were first set up in this country.
Dr Sandher
Did the guidance change between 2016 and 2024? Could the hon. Lady explain to me from the Opposition Front Bench why the number of food bank parcels tripled from the introduction of the two-child limit to 2024? I will give way if so.
Rebecca Smith
Well, without having the statistics in front of me right this second—[Interruption.] No, let me finish. We had the global pandemic, when there was a huge need for food banks. In fact, it was the Conservative Government who invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in food banks to ensure that nobody went without. The council for which I was a cabinet member at the time used the funding from the Conservative Government directly to ensure that poverty did not increase over the covid pandemic. If numbers went up, we have to ensure that that fact is reflected.
Dr Sandher
The rise happened before covid; it happened after the two-child limit was introduced. I agree with the hon. Lady on one point: she is not across the statistics.
Opposition Members have advanced an argument that I think is fair. They ask why we do not just create lots of jobs, which is the way to get out of poverty. The way to get out of poverty is through work, right? I want to take that argument head-on. We are living in a different technological era. In the post-war era, we had the advance and expansion of mass-production manufacturing, which meant there were good jobs for people as they left school. They left school, went to the local factory and earned a decent wage, meaning that they could buy a house and support a family.
Then, in the 1980s, in this country and indeed across high-income nations, we saw deindustrialisation and automation, bringing the replacement of those mechanical jobs with machines. Like other high-income nations across the world, we have been left with those who can use computers effectively—high-paid graduate workers—and lots of low-paid jobs everywhere else. It is not just us confronting that problem, although it is worse here because of decisions made in the 1980s; we are seeing it across high-income nations. As a result, state support is needed to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Sandher
In a moment.
This is not, by the way, the first time in history that we have confronted this problem. In the early part of the industrial revolution, between 1750 and 1850, we saw machines replace human beings. What did we see then? The economy grew by 60% per person, but people had less to eat. Men were shorter in 1850 than in 1750 because of the change of the technological era. I think my right hon. Friend would like to intervene.
Gareth Snell
I am an hon. Friend, not right honourable, though I welcome the promotion.
I have listened to this debate from outside the Chamber this afternoon and heard many Conservative Members talk about how the route out of poverty is through work. I absolutely and fundamentally agree with that, so I find it completely incongruous that whenever they have had the opportunity to vote for our make work pay Act, to increase stability in work and create well-paid jobs, they have voted against it. Indeed, only last week, the shadow Secretary of State made an argument for cutting the minimum wage for young people. How does my hon. Friend think that someone can argue, on the one hand, for work as a way out of poverty, but on the other, restrict the opportunities for work, push down pay and reduce the opportunities created for working people?
Dr Sandher
I agree with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members have often spoken about their employment record in office and how many jobs were created. Yet while that happened, child poverty and child hunger rose. Something is not right in their model of the world and there is something to review there.
There is no law of economics that says that just because someone works hard and is a decent person, they will earn a wage that can support a family. That is not the technological era we live in today. That is why we are ending the two-child limit today and I am so proud that we are doing so.
In an economic sense—in pounds and pence—as Labour Members realise and have stated, when we ensure that children have enough to eat, they learn more today and they earn more tomorrow. The cost of child poverty every single year is around £40 billion. The cost of ending the two-child limit is about £3.5 billion. It makes sense to invest today so that our children can eat and learn more, yet this is not just a matter of pounds and pence; as an economist, I often talk about that and I get it, but it is about so much more. This is about the moral argument. No child in this country should go hungry—no ifs, no buts and no exceptions. That is why I am so proud of this Bill, I am so proud to vote to end the two-child limit and I am so proud to be sat on the Labour Benches.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The child poverty crisis that we inherited from the previous Government is, indeed, stark. In 2014, 16.5% of children were in relative poverty and by 2024, that had risen to 21.8%. The simple truth is that Conservative Members oppose a measure that lifts children out of poverty. They have not changed.
Successive Conservative Governments—and yes, the Liberal Democrats, who cannot get off scot-free, given the coalition—carried out policies that led to hundreds of thousands more children being pushed into poverty. To be precise, the figure is 900,000 more , leaving 4.5 million children living in poverty across our country. That is a shameful number, as large as the population of countries such as Croatia or Ireland. By the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, almost a third of children in the UK were living in poverty. That tells us exactly who they prioritised and who they did not. Even now, they would undo progress.
Stuart Anderson
Will the hon. Member say what statistic backs up the statement that a third of the children in the UK were living in poverty?
John Slinger
The number of children—[Interruption.] The number of children in poverty rose substantially.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the statistics on below-average-income households are published annually by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is the source of the statistic that he so cleverly deployed in the course of his argument.
John Slinger
That is indeed the statistic that I was reaching for in my notes, and I thank my hon. Friend.
Even now, Opposition Members would undo progress. They would reintroduce the limit; they would make things worse. And as for Reform UK— [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Exactly! Where are they? We have seen populist policy hokey-cokey already today. It was probably taking place while the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was speaking.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The Reform policy really is quite something, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. In fact, if someone lost their child benefit because of the Reform policy, it would take 345 pints a week to make a saving. So it does not really help anyone, but it does hurt those in the most poverty. Will my hon. Friend recommend that people do not listen to the easy answers of Reform and actually work to make people’s lives better?
John Slinger
I thank my hon. Friend. I was very moved by his speech, which he delivered from a position of great knowledge and great concern built up over a very impressive career. He is absolutely right. I, of course, would not recommend people to take too seriously policies that are, as I said, populist policy hokey-cokey. To scrap or to reinstate? It is hard to tell. What we have seen from Reform UK is the concept of political triangulation being stretched absolutely to breaking point. In fact, it has broken, with some of the populist nonsense that Reform has spoken about in recent days.
Dr Sandher
I like a pint as well, as it happens—sometimes more than one—but I think it is fair to say that parents across this country will not appreciate getting 5p off each pint they buy, knowing that it will make more children hungry. I am pretty shocked by the trade-off there. I agree with supporting our pubs, and I will do it every single weekend as part of our patriotic duty, but that is not fair. There is another, more damaging, side to this which says that if we just deport and attack enough people, it will make us richer. That is absolutely something that we on this side of the House should reject, and something that Members on the other side of the House sometimes reject as well.
John Slinger
I could not have put it better, particularly the point my hon. Friend made about enjoying a pint. I too enjoy a pint, but linking something as serious as tackling child poverty to the price of a pint in our pubs is trivialising an incredibly serious topic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is speaking from a sedentary position. Would he like to intervene?
Dr Evans
I just see the irony of the hon. Member talking about linking this to alcohol, which is a serious problem. Gambling is a serious problem as well, and his party has directly linked this to gambling, even though this is not a hypothecated tax. Could he explain the dichotomy between the two?
John Slinger
It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a Government such as ours to take measures in Budgets to provide the resources necessary to enact a policy, as this Bill would do, that will lift so many children out of poverty. I think the hon. Member makes a fairly fatuous point, if I may say so.
Sam Rushworth
Does my hon. Friend share my confusion at the point that has just been made? Does it not illustrate that all of this is about choices, and that the choice that is being made on this side of the House is, yes, to increase the tax on gambling and on mansions in order to decrease child poverty? The choice that Reform would make would be to increase child poverty for 5p off a pint.
John Slinger
I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is opposing the policy before us today. So you actually do not want to take the measure that we are going to take—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “You”, Mr Slinger—I have mentioned this to you so many times. Let us start again.
John Slinger
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will reduce child poverty by an enormous number.
Conservative Members have not really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible. Their decisions were not accidents; they were choices. The consequences were known, the damage was predictable and the outcome is now painfully clear. Years of ignoring child poverty have left this country with many problems, including the number of children not in education, employment or training. That is an inheritance that this Government are now tackling, not least through the excellent work of Alan Milburn and his investigation into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Children are being condemned to a lifetime of economic inactivity, which is bad for them and their future wealth. As the “Keep Britain Working” report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose up to £1 million in earnings. It is also bad for their health. Having four more years in education on average relates to a 16% reduction in mortality rates and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also bad for the country—all that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
John Slinger
I will not give way.
The arguments we heard about parental responsibility, the claim that people have children to get benefits, are short-sighted, wrong and, frankly, insulting. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), could not cite any evidence for her claims.
David Baines
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He says no evidence was given for those arguments. That is because there is no evidence, and yet opponents of the policy continue to make the arguments. Does he agree that it is damaging, dangerous and insulting to children and to families that are working hard up and down the land to do the best they can?
John Slinger
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is insulting, and it was surprising that the shadow Secretary of State could not cite any evidence at all.
Regardless of any two-child limit, parents will of course still have children, and those children must never be punished for the circumstances of their birth. The best way to support them, the single most effective way to lift them out of poverty, is this Bill.
Some Members across the House and some across our country implied that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not care about child poverty. They implied and claimed that she does not care about economic inactivity and our moral duty. That accusation was not just wrong; it was deeply disrespectful, particularly given her long record of campaigning on these issues.
Graham Stuart
I was not here earlier in the debate, so please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman talked about Members being able to back up their assertions. Who was it in the debate who suggested that the Chancellor did not care? I have never heard anyone on the Opposition side of the House saying that she does not care. Whether she is capable of dealing with it is a different matter entirely, but who was it who said she did not care, because I am sure we would all want to take it up with them and tell them to change their line?
John Slinger
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I always enjoy them. I found this one particularly amusing—and I very much respect and like the right hon. Gentleman—given that I was not actually quoting. I did not say, “And I quote”. I am allowed to use words without having to justify every single one. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I was referring to the general view of hon. and right hon. Members in this House. [Interruption.] I think I have dealt with that—it was a good effort, but I will move on.
This measure, made possible by the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—let’s not forget that—will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and I am proud to say that that includes 2,020 children in Rugby. Let me be clear: lifting the two-child limit is not the whole answer; it is part of the Government’s wider mission. I say to people outside this Chamber, “Do not let the doomsters, the gloomsters, the cynics and the propagandists mislead you.” In just 19 months, as part of that wider mission, this Labour Government have achieved the following: day-one rights for paternity and parental leave; Best Start family hubs bringing health, parenting and wellbeing under one roof; 30 hours of funded childcare from nine months old; free breakfast clubs, with 405 children in my constituency of Rugby benefiting from the April roll-out; minimum and living wages up; record investment in schools; apprenticeships reformed; full funding for apprenticeships for under-25s in our small and medium-sized enterprises; the youth guarantee, mentioned by the Chancellor in the recent Budget; ensuring routes into work, training and education; and Young Futures hubs and youth hubs. May I please ask Ministers on the Front Bench whether I can have one of those hubs in Rugby? Helping children is about more than lifting the two-child cap. This Government do not, and should not, define our moral purpose solely by the pounds we give to those in need—although we should of course give money to those in need. Unlike the Conservatives, we will do those things I listed and, of course, spend money on lifting the two-child limit.
We are glad to do that because it is not just about poverty in financial terms; it is about the poverty of aspiration for our children, which all too often results from the policies of the parties of the right, and it is about the poverty of ambition for what a Government can and should do to unleash the potential of all children. We reject that poverty too. Opportunity, prosperity and dignity for all cannot come—whether through the animal spirits of the economy or the progressive policies of a Government such as ours—unless child poverty is ended once and for all.
In conclusion, we are the Labour party; we want to give young people the skills and opportunities, and to create the ecosystem, that will unleash their potential. That starts by preventing their early years from being blighted unnecessarily by poverty. We also stand for compassion and support for those who really need it, and that is what we will provide. Ending the two-child limit, and the wider measures I have outlined, are vital to ensuring that our young people become the architects of their futures, not merely tenants living in a world shaped by the older generations, by vested interests and, indeed, by those who are opposed to this Bill.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I first put on record my thanks to my Deep Heat patch; three hours of bobbing with a bad back has been a very special introduction to this debate. I welcome the opportunity to highlight an issue that is the driving mission of so many of us and the reason why we are in this House.
Like many Members, I had the opportunity over December to attend services at some of the wonderful churches across Peterborough. That was not just Christmas spirit; there is nothing more majestic than the raising of voices “to the newborn King” by a packed congregation in a 900-year-old cathedral. At every service, I met congregations dedicated to helping others in my city. Child poverty was at the heart of those conversations—the impact of child poverty on the children themselves, but also its corrosive impact on parents and on all of us in society. Nothing goes to the heart of Labour’s values more than addressing the corrosion that poverty causes in young lives, and I am deeply proud to speak in this Second Reading debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government are bringing forward.
I would like to use this opportunity to thank the Peterborough food bank volunteers and our Care Zone furniture volunteers, whom I have met consistently since being elected, for the incredible work they have done to support and help families and children in need. I also thank the volunteers at KingsGate community church, who do so much to help families in need with food and debt advice, and to navigate the still-too-clunky networks of the DWP and the state.
That help is needed; we all know the national statistics. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) mentioned the Trussell Trust, and I looked up the figures in preparing my contribution: in 2010, the last year of the Labour Government, the Trussell Trust reported that just over 43,000 emergency food parcels were handed out; in the last year of the Conservative Government, more than 3 million food parcels were handed out.
Rebecca Smith
No one has ever told me that they would adore to hear me speak in this place! I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I too have been doing some research while this debate has been going on. It is worth noting that those food bank numbers have increased because they only count Trussell Trust food banks, so the more food banks join the Trussell Trust network, the more those numbers go up.
In my city, where, as I may have mentioned, I held the cost of living portfolio during the pandemic—[Interruption.] There’s no need to yawn! My city did not need the additional food bank that was set up, and it ended up having to send food away. If that food bank had joined the Trussell Trust, it would have added to those numbers and distorted the figures. While I am not saying that there might not have been an increase, I believe it is worth recognising that particular point.
Andrew Pakes
It is a very unusual way to defend food bank use to say that it is because poverty is now being counted in a better way. The Trussell Trust is very clear that when Labour was last in government, food banks existed as an emergency provision for when people fell through the cracks of the welfare system. The industrialisation of food banks is shocking, as is the justification of it by the Conservatives.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for his speech. We all have to admit that when the Conservatives came into government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, they unleashed their social security cuts on our communities. That is what has devastated our communities. Food bank use went up, child poverty went up and disabled people’s rights went down because of the policies of the Conservative Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only this Labour Government who are committed to eradicating child poverty and ensuring that many children, including thousands in my Battersea constituency, will be lifted out of poverty as a result of lifting the two-child benefit cap?
Andrew Pakes
I wholeheartedly agree. There is something wrong with society when Members of Opposition parties, including my Liberal Democrat colleagues, do not mention the long-lasting impacts of austerity on our public services, our welfare provision and the support given to families.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for recently welcoming me to the Peterborough museum and art gallery, where we went to a “Dr Who” exhibit and discovered that Davros was considering defecting to Reform. I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. I recently talked to the chief executive officer of the food bank in Harlow, and he spoke of the big difference that this policy will make. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who work for food banks want them not to be needed any longer, and that this Government should try to achieve that?
Andrew Pakes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I put on the record my tribute to all food bank volunteers, not just for holding me to account and making sure that I am here today to support policies like this, but for making the case that he so powerfully makes: they want food banks to no longer exist. Whenever I speak to Christians Against Poverty, churches, mosques, temples and so many of the faith communities that are important to the social infrastructure that holds poverty at bay for so many families, they all say to me that they wish that they did not have to provide food banks and that they could spend more time doing other things. It is our job, starting today with this Bill, to put that into practice for them.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) agree with him that it would be a sign of this Government’s success if we saw fewer food parcels being put out by food banks by the end of this Parliament than we do today?
Andrew Pakes
Certainly. Many of my food banks would support the single policy that we are voting on today, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby tonight to vote to eradicate food banks. This Bill will put money into the pockets of families. It will not just lift their children out of poverty but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is no longer in her place, said—put money into the local economy.
If we ever wanted a symbol of the legacy of Tory failure in government, it is this: in my city of Peterborough alone, nearly 43% of children are growing up in poverty. In the North ward of Peterborough, which is a two-minute walk from my house, six out of 10 children are growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our society, and I am dedicated to eradicating it.
I am proud of the work that my council does, but this policy will help. I am proud of the focus of Peterborough city council, pushed on by groups such as Peterborough Citizens, which has ended the practice of children sleeping in bed-and-breakfast and hotel room accommodation. I was equally proud in the autumn to welcome the Prime Minister to Welland Academy, where he made the national announcement of the roll-out of free school meals for all children on universal credit. An incredible 16,000 extra children will benefit from free school meals this September because of the action taken by this Government, which will be delivered in the coming months.
We all know that we need to do more. The Bill is an investment in our country’s future. The single act of voting for it will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including 10,000 in Peterborough. As many hon. Friends and comrades in this place have said, almost half of the families on universal credit are in work. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life, and that hurts our economy. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Members have returned to the debate. I thought for a while that the lights were on but nobody was home—it turns out that that applies just to their policy on child poverty rather than to them as individuals. The Conservatives would do well to remember that these figures are not merely statistics; they tell a story of lost opportunity, of lost moments of childhood, and of lost potential not just for the affected children but for our local economies.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend’s point about lost moments of childhood is often missed. It is all well and good to talk about the impact on parents and on the economy, but having grown up in poverty, I remember walking to school with a hole in my shoe, and not being able to ask my grandparents for anything because they could not afford it. I remember feigning not wanting to go on school trips because I knew that they could not afford it. I remember making sure that the holes in my jumper were hidden when I got home because I knew that they could not afford to replace it. Those memories stick with people throughout their lives and continue to have an effect on them once they have grown up. This is not just about the economics of the here and now; it is about the real-life impact on young people today and in the future. I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that those voices are heard.
Andrew Pakes
I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It sounds as if we may have had similar childhoods, only in different parts of the country.
The statistics cited in this debate do not sit in isolation. It is no coincidence that, alongside high levels of child poverty, Peterborough also has some of the highest levels of low-paid and insecure work in the country. At the last count, and going by the Government’s definition, one in three working people in Peterborough are in chronically insecure work—largely zero-hours shift work, which the Conservative party voted to keep in our economy, while we voted to eradicate it. Peterborough has one of the highest numbers of adults with no qualifications. Despite our city’s wonderful industrial heritage, nothing says more about the wasted opportunities of the last 14 years than the 70% drop in level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships in Peterborough—that comes at a cost to the country.
Although I have painted a picture of the difficulties that many families face in my city, I pay tribute to the incredible ingenuity, determination and grit that parents demonstrate—often in difficult times and despite the adversity that they face—to do their best, look after their children, raise ambition and give people jobs and opportunities. We were sent here to serve them, and we will help them by voting for the Bill.
To be honest, the Conservatives have some brass neck to talk about poverty, as do our colleagues and friends in Reform UK. At one point, I thought that they were plastic Tories, but now that the transfer window has closed, I just think that they are Tories. I represent a wonderful, brilliant and diverse city, so the naked racism in the Reform amendment, which talks about denying support for hard-working families based on the birthplace of the parents, is an affront to democracy and to British values.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree with us that British people should be put first?
Andrew Pakes
I think that my community is full of wonderful British people—people who stand up for British values, and who go out every single day and work to do the best for their children and community. If you want to have a fight based on British values, bring it on, because every day Labour Members will defend—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman not to use the word “you”. He was suggesting that he might like to have a fight with me, and that would not end well.
Andrew Pakes
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am wearing a deep heat patch for my bad back, so there would be no fight from me today. I apologise to the House for the passion I have for British values and the hard work of people in my community, who I will stand up for every day against the plastic patriots and others who seek to attack them.
Andrew Pakes
I will try to make some progress.
We have inherited an economic and moral failure by the previous Government, and this Bill will start to put that right by injecting money into the pockets of families and supporting children. It is also why I welcome the youth guarantee and the focus on earning and learning for this Government. The DWP has described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot, and it is a national hotspot for child poverty, too. Through the work of this Government to address the needs of children in poverty—the expansion of family hubs, the support for breakfast clubs, the investment in schools and early years alongside the investment in further education and apprenticeships—we are beginning to turn the tide.
What matters to the people of my constituency is having the chance to get on in life, to support their children and to have pride in their community and their families. Today, with this Bill, which I hope all Members will vote for, we begin to restore pride in our community by giving dignity back to parents in difficult situations.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I stand here as a proud representative of the Black Country and the trade union movement. Black Country people work hard. We are proud and we are resilient, but 50 years of deindustrialisation and 14 years of Tory austerity mean that wages are low, poverty is high, unemployment is high, economic inactivity is high, and many families have to rely on universal credit to make sure there is enough money to get to the end of the month. I resent the implication that areas like mine, where universal credit payments are high, are somehow “Benefits Street”.
Antonia Bance
I will get to the right hon. Member.
It was the Conservative party that changed the benefits system to give us one benefit for all circumstances, in and out of work. For the Conservatives to now attempt to invent a deserving and undeserving poor dichotomy, when they made that change to one unified system—which was the correct one—is a little bit galling.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is, as ever, showing a powerful oratorical style, but it is so easy when doing that to get one’s facts wrong. Unemployment, I am sure she will recognise, was at a near record low when the Conservatives left office and has risen by more than 20% in the less than two years that Labour has run the country. I know the hon. Lady is careful with the facts and will want to retract the point about unemployment under the Conservatives. Whatever other ills she wants to attribute to us, I do not think she can genuinely attribute that.
Antonia Bance
The right hon. Member will note that I was making a point about the comparative rates in different areas of the country, including my own, and the impacts of deindustrialisation over the last 50 years, rather than about national rates.
On the Labour Benches, we deal with the world as it is—human lives in all their messy complexity—because everyone is deserving of dignity, opportunity and hope, and every child deserves a decent start. That is why I am so proud today to say this: if you get ill or lose your job, if—heaven forbid—your partner dies, or if your husband beats you up and you have to grab your kids and run, the safety net of our welfare state will once again catch you and every single one of your kids.
Since the day I came to this place and long before, I have argued for this change—I have argued that no child is responsible for the actions of their parents, that the happy event of a little one being born should not tip a family into poverty, and that whether a six-year-old eats tonight should not depend on how many sisters or brothers they have. This day has come because we have a Labour Government, and for that reason alone. I invite everyone sitting on the Opposition Benches who thinks they had something to do with this day to retract their comments and remember who those children have to thank.
Ending the two-child limit helps 5,540 children in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. Whenever I go on a school visit in my area—where child poverty levels are at 50%, but not for long—I say to that assembly, to those children, “If you have more than two sisters or brothers, please raise your hand.” And I look and the teachers look at the forest of raised hands of children in larger families, and we know what that means. It means that in April, those families will open their universal credit journal or their banking app, and they will see an amount of money that is adequate to meet their family’s needs—not luxury, not extras, but adequate at last.
Some 1.6 million children nationally will be helped by the policy that we will pass tonight—one kid in every nine of our kids helped. Most of the families that will be helped—six in 10 of them—are in work. Loads of them—four in 10—have a disabled family member. Some of those families have kids so young that the parents cannot work. Not a single one of them deserves to live in poverty.
To the mums with three or more kids, using universal credit to top up low wages and high rents: this is for you. Know that far away in Westminster, a bunch of people you elected to stand up for hard-working, low-income families thought of you and your kids, and took out a gross, punitive law that kept you and your kids poor.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Lady talks about speaking for the public, but consistently, in all polling, 60% of Brits want to see this policy stay in place. What does she say to them?
Antonia Bance
I say to the people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised questions with me about this policy that in order to will the ends, you have to will the means. Save the Children published this morning some polling showing that 78% of the country want to see child poverty cut. The fastest and most effective way to cut child poverty is to get rid of this punitive, gross policy that artificially inflates the number of children in poverty and creates an escalator to get more into poverty every day, with every child born.
To the Opposition parties, I would say this. I hear you say to these families, “Go out and get a job.” Most of them are already in work. Are you telling those five and six-year-olds—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Not “you”—I have not spoken in this debate!
Antonia Bance
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say to those on the Opposition Benches who are telling people already in work to go out and get a job: what are those people supposed to do? Are they supposed to send their five-year-olds out on a paper round to make the money add up when it does not? Do not talk to me about how families should plan better—you will never meet a better planner than a single mum in Princes End making the money stretch. Do not cry crocodile tears for kids whose dad died but when his widow needed help, we said, “Nah. You shouldn’t have had so many kids.” Do not tell me that a dad who lost his job does not deserve help for his kids because he did not predict years in advance, when planning his family, that his factory would close and he would be dumped out of work. Be honest about what supporting the two-child limit means. If you support it, you think that some kids should be hungry tonight—well, we don’t.
I have no words for the idea of the charlatans of the Reform party, who would reimpose the two-child limit, plunge thousands of children into poverty and take hundreds of pounds from families each month in order to make it cheaper to have a pint. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was too frit to give way to me, so I will say this to her this now. Her policy would affect Sikh children living in my constituency who have a mum or dad born in the Punjab, or children in my constituency with a mum or dad who was born in Bangladesh, Poland or Pakistan. These are British people. They are our neighbours and our friends—people who work and play by the rules. They are British citizens, but they are second-class citizens for Reform.
I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) called out Reform. I would like to see more calling out of that frankly disgusting point of view: the differentiation between different types of British citizen based on nationality and the colour of their skin that we see going on in our national political dialogue and in the Reform party. I hope that people across the country, in Scotland, in Wales and in my borough of Sandwell, will reject that division when the time comes in May—and that those in Gorton and Denton will do so as well.
I say this to my constituents who are working hard to make ends meet: I will not apologise for prioritising our kids. Every child deserves a fair start in life. As one of our greatest Prime Ministers said when launching his own child poverty mission:
“Poverty should not be a birthright. Being poor should not be a life sentence”.
We want every child to have the freedom to learn, to play sport, to sing, to dance and to get on in life, free from want and fear—the freedom to be kids. This is what a Labour Government will deliver: half a million of children out of poverty. I will be voting for the Bill tonight, and I hope other Members will too.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I will start by repeating something that the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate. He made much of the need to set against anger and division, so I am going to appeal to everyone’s better nature. Ultimately, the removal of the two-child limit was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, so until recently it was not something to which the Government had committed—in fact, it was ruled out by the Chancellor. I have sat through the entire debate and I have to say that it is a bit rich of Government Members to lecture us today, when in 2024 the limit was clearly good enough for the Labour party, including the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It is also worth pointing out that we keep hearing the figures 4.5 million and half a million. It seems that the removal of the two-child limit will reduce the 4.5 million people who the Government say are in poverty by just half a million. It will be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that.
The debate has been caricatured as being rich Conservatives versus everyone else, but nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a safety net, but we also believe in personal responsibility. Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped the child benefit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported by dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children. When I am asked why I am a Conservative, that is what I say—and I have checked that this afternoon to ensure that I am factually accurate. We are speaking up for those who work hard and have high bills, as well as housing and food costs, but who are paying tax because they do not qualify for universal credit.
I want to make one final point before I come to the body of my speech. Lots has been said about free school meals this afternoon, but when I recently questioned the Department for Education on whether it has any record of the number of councils making the most of the auto-enrolment for free school meals, I was told that the Government do not have the figure. They might wish to go away and look at that. I absolutely appreciate that auto-enrolment helps the most vulnerable, but if the Government are not taking account of the levers in their hands to improve that system, then they need to do some work.
Having done my bit of ad-libbing, I will make some progress with my speech. Fundamentally, maintaining the two-child limit is about fairness—fairness to working parents who do the right thing, fairness to working parents who make difficult choices and fairness for families who live within their means.
Rebecca Smith
No, I am going to make some progress.
We are talking about men and women who are working long hours in shops, schools, offices, construction sites and care homes right across the country. Why should families in receipt of universal credit have to avoid the difficult decisions about how many children they can afford, unlike those who are not in receipt of it?
Compassion is often framed in terms of supporting the most vulnerable, and rightly so—indeed, I have highlighted my own personal conviction on this in previous debates—but as one a colleague in my previous council career told me, “The left has no monopoly on compassion, Rebecca.”
Compassion cuts both ways. We must remember the millions of hard-working families across the UK who are not on large salaries yet fall outside any thresholds for universal credit—the families who earn the same for going to work as their neighbours do on universal credit. It is unfair to these parents to make them bear a double cost: raising their own children and subsidising other people’s.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rebecca Smith
No, I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.
These mums and dads are the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to let them down. Scrapping the cap reduces incentives for parents to look for a job or work longer hours. Why would they bother going to work, or working more, when they could get more in benefits? A strong economy must provide incentive structures that help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these fundamental structures at our own peril.
Gareth Snell
On the point of doing the right thing, the data suggests that in the shadow Minister’s own constituency there are 1,160 children living in a household that does not currently receive universal credit support for the additional children. Some of them will be listening this evening, and some will be teenagers. What would she say to them? Would she tell them that she could do something this evening, but she is choosing not to? What is her justification to those children?
Rebecca Smith
I also speak for the 60% of the population who do not think we should be scrapping the cap. No doubt a large proportion of those people are also in my constituency.
As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. Our welfare system should be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so powerfully. As I have alluded to, it seems that we are not alone; that principle of fairness is echoed across the country, with a recent YouGov poll finding that 57% of respondents believe that the cap should be retained.
The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance —a flat rate that falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. I recently met one self-employed mother who told me that she is seriously weighing up whether to have a second child because she and her husband simply cannot afford it right now. This is a deeply personal dilemma, fraught with conflicting emotions. Equally, those not on benefits who have more children do not get paid more wages—they just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets—so this idea that we need to give people more money because they have more children does not always make sense. However, this Government are determined to give families on universal credit a free pass; as a result, those families will not have to make those kinds of hard choices.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for 70% of the poorest households currently subject to the two-child limit, any money they stand to gain from the scrapping of the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. How do the Government square that circle when they have been quoting the headline figures for poverty? As has been raised numerous times today by Opposition Members, if Labour truly followed its own logic on child poverty, it would also need to scrap the household benefit cap, at even greater cost to the taxpayer.
Conversely, 40% of those affected by the two-child limit will be exempt from the overall household benefit cap, because they have at least one claimant or child receiving health and disability benefits. This means that households with six children will get an additional £14,000 every single year. For larger families in particular, the financial gap between going to work and being out of work will shrink significantly. We are trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, one in four full-time workers would be better off on benefits than in work—that is 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbours on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day 5,000 people sign on to long-term sickness benefits. According to the Centre for Social Justice, a claimant who is receiving universal credit for ill health plus the average housing element and personal independence payment could receive the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £30,100, and a family with three children receiving full benefits could get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness?
At best, scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster that does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty—in fact, if this Government hit their ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, that could lift approximately the same number of children out of poverty as scrapping the two-child limit. Instead, this Bill will be yet another strain on our ballooning benefits budget. If it had been retained, the two-child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31. Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already.
Rebecca Smith
No, because I believe the hon. Gentleman’s Minister will want to have a fair share of time as well.
When it comes to reforming welfare spending, the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary weakness of resolve. Scrapping the two-child cap is simply a political decision to placate his Back Benchers, costing taxpayers billions. It is unaffordable for a welfare system that is already on its knees, and damaging to the very work incentives his party promotes. Indeed, no one voted for it at the general election. As the Leader of the Opposition has said,
“28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others. The rider is as big as the horse.”
Let us look at this through the eyes of hard-working parents and individuals. Many of their businesses and workplaces are already being hit by Labour’s damaging tax rises. These are people with a work ethic—they willingly shoulder the burden of supporting their families without relying on the state—but their commitment to doing the right thing is being thrown back in their face. The Conservatives are the only party truly standing by hard-working families. We are the only party serious about bringing the welfare bill under control and protecting taxpayers from yet more unavoidable costs. Keeping the cap is about fairness, responsibility and respect for the sacrifices that parents make every single day. To scrap it flies in the face of that.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Like the shadow Minister, I will start by quoting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. At the start of the debate, he said that this Government have chosen to reject the politics of division and of rage. Instead, we have chosen to seek to bring the country together and to open up a hopeful way forward. That is the choice that underpins this Bill.
It was my great privilege to take through this House the Child Poverty Act 2010, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). That Bill, as he pointed out, had all-party support. George Osborne spoke in favour of it. A few months later, George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government took the opposite stance. The four separate child poverty targets were scrapped. The headline rate of benefits was over time cut to the lowest real-terms level for 40 years. The Child Poverty Commission set up by the Act was replaced by the Social Mobility Commission, and child poverty eventually rocketed by 900,000 to 4.5 million. That is what Tory policies did. Their claim of wanting to tackle child poverty proved to be hollow, and we discovered the authentic voice of the Tory party, which we have heard again this afternoon.
We should not forget the contribution of the Tories’ coalition partners in the 2010 to 2015 Government. I warmly welcome the Lib Dem support that we have heard today. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made a thoughtful speech on behalf of his party, and we also heard from the hon. Members for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). Their party leader was in the Cabinet when much of the damage was done, and he did nothing to stop it when it came to the crunch. In the battle against child poverty, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not just at the moment. Poverty does immense harm, as we have heard, to children and their future prospects. In the classroom, children eligible for free school meals are on the wrong end of an education gap that reaches 19 months by age 16. They earn around 25% less at age 30. Recent research by Liverpool University has shown that children growing up below the poverty line are three times more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. To tackle the NEET problem—as we must, with almost a million young people left NEET by the last Government—we have to tackle child poverty, too.
We have heard arguments in this debate that we are piling up costs for the future. Actually, it is the failures of the past that have piled up those costs, and we are now having to address that. The costs of child poverty play out throughout the lives of those affected. They play out in our social security system, in the NHS and in other public services, too. The Tories claim that by making those cuts, they were saving money. What they were doing, in fact, was heaping up massive costs of future failure, which we are all now having to pick up.
The Bill will deliver a better future for our children and for the country. Removing the two-child limit in universal credit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this decade, and that figure rises to more than half a million children alongside other measures in our child poverty strategy. That is a generation less likely to struggle with their mental health, more likely to do well at school and more likely to be in work as young adults and to thrive in their future working lives. That is a generation with the capacity to thrive. That is the future we are choosing to build.
Siân Berry
The Government narrowed the scope of the last benefits Bill, and it could widen this Bill to take in the wider benefit cap, too. The Chancellor who could find the money for that is right next to the Minister. Can the Minister explain why, despite the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in the Chamber today, according to the impact assessment the only options assessed were doing nothing or this very narrow measure?
Sir Stephen Timms
The change for which I think the hon. Lady is arguing would make a relatively modest alteration to the figures. There is a real advantage in the benefit cap, in terms of the incentive to work. We are not proposing to change that, and in the changes that we are making we are maintaining that incentive very robustly. This is a change from the choices of the last Government, which left us with a third of primary schools running food banks.
I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) to the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) rightly referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, and others mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, successfully, for the change that we are making.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said in her opening speech that her party did not accept the relative poverty definition. As we were reminded during the debate, her party embraced that definition in 2010—it was part of the change that was made at the time—but between 2010-11 and 2023-24, even absolute poverty rose. It was higher at the end of that period than it had been at the beginning. That was an extraordinary feature of her party’s record in government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her contribution to the debate and for the work of her Work and Pensions Committee, alongside that of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in scrutinising our child poverty strategy. The points that she made were absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was, I think, the first to draw attention to the struggle that teachers are having in supporting children in classes. According to survey evidence, in 38% of schools staff are currently paying out of their own pockets to provide essentials for their pupils because their parents cannot afford to buy them. They have full-time roles tackling hardship, taking away funds that ought to be spent on education.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made a thoughtful speech, as he often does, but he was wrong. He said that the extra money would be for people because they were not working. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—in a spirited contribution—and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) that the great majority of the beneficiaries of this measure are people in work, and as a result the hon. Gentleman’s argument crumbled away.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not be giving way.
It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). Her party is looking more and more like a cut-price Boris Johnson reunion party, with all the old faces turning up on the Reform Benches. Now they are even starting to sing some of the old songs. The leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two-child limit, and just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) wrote an article in which she said that she opposed it. Today they are voting with the Tories in favour of the cap. Those old policies would cause the same damage if they were brought in again in the future.
I remember a time when there seemed to be at least some degree of consensus in the House on the importance of tackling child poverty. Well, there was not much sign of that among Conservative Members this afternoon, and I am sorry that we have lost it. Scrapping the two-child limit on universal credit is the single most effective lever that we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor, and in pulling that lever we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We are supporting their families, the majority of whom are working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential we are investing in our country’s success in the years to come.
The Bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty in any Parliament on record, and in doing so it will make a very big contribution to the missions of this Government. Our manifesto was summed up in one word—“change”—and this is what change looks like: ambition for families, and for the country.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Business without Debate
Fish and Chip Sector
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is good to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in their plaice as we skate through the choppy waters that are the fish and chip sector. The chips are down for fish suppers. While the word “iconic” is overused, surely fish and chips warrant that label. At Heathrow airport, visitors are greeted with signs extolling the virtues of what is, or was, our national dish. Welcome to Britain: land of drizzle, warm beer, warm welcomes and fabulous fish suppers.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Fish and chips is a great British food, but fish and chips first came to Britain with Jewish immigrants from Spain in the 16th century. Cold fried fish was a staple of many Shabbat lunches, including my own grandma’s. The first chippy is credited to Joseph Malin, who added chips in about 1860, in London. What a great idea and what a great immigration story!
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—a fascinating history lesson.
Staying with history, during the war fish and chips were deemed so vital to the nation’s morale that Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted they be exempt from rationing. If the ingredients were available, fish suppers were on the menu and chip shops got extra cooking fat to keep the home friers burning.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman. I am mindful that the best chips come from Comber spuds and the best fish comes from Portavogie—that is just me talking up my own area. Does he agree that the new fisheries management plans have resulted in reduced total allowable catches, affecting local supply? It means that in Northern Ireland a cod supper, which was £6 or £7, is now £10 to £11.50. Does he agree that, without intervention, the fish and chip shop days will be as few as the fishermen’s days at sea?
John Cooper
I thank my near neighbour for his intervention. He presages some of what I am going to touch on now.
Today all is not well. Romano Petrucci, proprietor of the Central Café in my home town of Stranraer, is just one of many business people warning that this staple is fast becoming an unaffordable luxury. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that the average price of a portion of takeaway fish and chips was £10.96 in December, up from £9.99 the year before—an increase of 10%. That was higher than average price increases for other takeaway meals or carry-outs, as we call them in Scotland.
Over the same period, the average price of a Chinese takeaway main course increased by 4% and an Indian takeaway main course by 3%, while a takeaway pizza increased by just 2%. That £10 barrier is hugely significant, for customers generally have a ceiling on what they regard as reasonable—perhaps £6 for a coffee or £7 for a pint of beer. Above that, sales dip, and no wonder at £40 or more for a fish dinner for a family of four, and so, sadly, it has proved: the ONS says that sales of fish and chips fell by 21% in 2024 compared with the previous year.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
If the hon. Member is paying £6 for a coffee, he should come to Darlington where it definitely is not £6. We also have the best places for fish and chips, with Yarm Road Fish and Chips and Cockerton Fisheries both winning awards. Please do consider a visit to Darlington to try some really pukka fish and chips.
John Cooper
I certainly would not pay £6 myself for a coffee. If I can find a pint cheaper than £7, I think I will be there.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
As we are talking about the best chips, the first fish and chip shop was actually in east London, where I was born. I have a chip shop challenge; I am going around London trying chips—any excuse. Chip shops are an important part of London’s economy, so the hon. Gentleman’s debate is vital. This week, my chip shop challenge went viral because I got some abuse—but it was absolute pollocks!
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting intervention. Her chip challenge sounds like a lot of fun, and I defer to Madam Deputy Speaker about the question of proper parliamentary language—I am sure what she said is perfectly acceptable.
Fish and chip shops accounted for 60% of the fall in sales, with 36 million fewer portions of fish and chips sold in fish and chip shops in 2024 compared with 2023. Something has gone drastically wrong. Worse, it is not just one thing but a series of issues. I have some sympathy with the Minister because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not directly responsible for all these matters, but of all Departments, it should realise that government must not work in silos and instead should work across Whitehall.
John Cooper
I feel like I am swimming upstream here, but I am happy to give way.
James Asser
I recently had a conversation with a chip shop in my constituency. One of the issues it raised was getting younger people interested in going into the business because there are other opportunities elsewhere. Indeed, the person I spoke to—it was a family business—had moved on to other opportunities. The hon. Member is coming on to the many issues that face the sector. Does he agree that we need to look at opportunities for education in catering colleges to encourage people that fish and chip shops still present a viable business opportunity? Like many other long-standing businesses, if interest is lost, that is how they die out. That is one issue we need to look at.
John Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I will touch on the question of skills in a few moments.
A key reason for prices leaping like a salmon is an increase in the price of fish itself. Incredibly for an island nation, we are a net importer of fish. Previously, a high proportion of fish used in the UK was imported from Russia, though in March 2022 the Government rightly imposed a 35% tariff on Russian seafood imports following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That invasion also hit the price of flour and sunflower oil—both major Ukrainian exports. There was also a reduction in the North sea cod quota, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out really well the challenges that fish and chip shops are facing in this difficult international climate, but there are domestic issues too. North East Lincolnshire council, in my constituency, plans to pedestrianise Cleethorpes marketplace, which the famous Steels Cornerhouse fish and chip restaurant says could amount to a £150,000 loss in click-and-collect orders alone. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities should be doing all that they can to support our favourite fish and chip shops?
John Cooper
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should of course support businesses of all kinds, and pedestrianisation can be a double-edged sword. One of the difficulties is the weather in this country, and there is nothing better than pulling up right outside the shop that you want to go to, so decisions have to be balanced.
The reduction in the North sea cod quota for 2025 reduced supply, and, of course, increased prices. I am more a haddock man myself, but cod is one of the top five imported and consumed species in the UK. Labour’s failed “mackerel for missiles” deal gave the EU further rights in our waters, but did not give us access to Europe’s multibillion-pound Security Action for Europe defence fund. The EU now takes seven times more fish, by value, from our waters than we take from its waters.
Fish and chip shops have also faced challenges from increased electricity prices due to the use of energy-intensive cooking appliances. Increased energy costs have also contributed to higher potato prices, with more to come as the carbon border adjustment mechanism is effectively a fertiliser tax, adding perhaps an extra £100 per tonne. Even changes to reliefs on double-cab pick-ups—the farmers’ workhorse—have increased potato prices.
Let us hear no nonsense about the people behind the counter being low-skilled; today’s fish-frier could be tomorrow’s FTSE 100 chief executive officer, or the founder of a €1 billion unicorn start-up. They work with cash and high-value stock, and, crucially, learn communication skills through dealing with the public.
Increases to the minimum wage, which is paid not by the Government—although Labour likes to pretend that it is—but by hard-pressed businesses, are also an issue. Add the increase in employer national insurance, which puts a bounty of about £900 on the head of each employee: no wonder youth unemployment is rising.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining some of the economic challenges that the sector is facing. One of my constituents is heavily involved in the National Federation of Fish Friers. He told me that he often feels that the Government are very good at listening to UK hospitality and other big sectors, but they do not necessarily understand the specific local issues of this sector. Does he agree that we would welcome more communication and better collaboration between them?
John Cooper
The hon. Member makes a very good point. Many industries are not actually treated as an industry. For example, agriculture is treated as a series of small individual businesses, and its totality is not taken into account. That is a very fair point.
The truth is that Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is about the clipboard class—the trade union apparatchiks —and not really about actual hard-working people. What is the point of workers’ rights if that all-important first job eludes people?
Will the fish supper go the way of the red telephone box—much loved, but a relic of the past? Will the Labour party’s indifference turn a British staple into a luxury for the elite? Whether you call it a fish supper, a one-and-one, or just regular fish and chips, this Government risk frittering away a classic.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I am yet again condemned to talk a lot about food while kept from tea, dinner, or whatever we want to call it. I also responded to a Backbench Business debate on farming and fishing, and did not get to have lunch, while everyone happily talked about food. It is a sort of torture from being in this particular job, but perhaps it will do well for my diet.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on raising this issue. I think this has been one of the more popular Adjournment debates, given the interventions that we have heard from both sides of the House. That demonstrates what a place heart fish and chip suppers hold in everybody’s heart. I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate, which I am happy to answer. He is right to point out that not all the issues he has raised are directly for DEFRA, but I will do my best to answer some of them.
I know the hon. Gentleman raised this issue in January, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether the fish supper had had its chips—something that he has done again today. I note the various puns that people have come up with, and the somewhat dubious use of fish species to give the impression that other, unparliamentary words may have been said. Perhaps it is worth noting that the pollock fishery is doing quite well and has recently been reopened to commercial fishing after some good measures were taken, which have managed to revive that fishery, but I will not go into detail.
Dame Angela Eagle
We agree about the revival of pollock fishing. Obviously, I hope Hansard is listening extremely carefully—otherwise, we are all going to get into serious trouble.
The sector was left to cope with rising costs and global shocks on its own for years, but this Government are taking a different approach. We understand that if we want these businesses to survive and thrive, we have to get involved. We need to support the fishers who land the catch, the farmers who grow the potatoes, and the high street traders who keep their doors open and deliver the final product millions upon millions of times every year, so maintaining a secure and affordable supply of fish is of key importance.
Melanie Onn
The supply of fish is an international business, and it is really complicated. One issue that has been problematic is that, post Brexit, some of our supertrawlers, such as the Kirkella, are no longer able to supply to the UK, which has elevated the cost of this food.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is unique in England because she has the Kirkella deep sea trawler, which she has just mentioned. It can be out trawling and processing for months, and it brings back absolutely processed products. There are some issues with where the Kirkella can fish, given what is happening with fish supplies. I am happy to talk to her about this matter, and I hope to visit her constituency at some stage so that I can have a look at that incredible vessel.
We are supporting the UK fleet to ensure that it has access to opportunities to catch cod and haddock. They are migrating north, which is one of the problems, as is the fact that they have been overfished. In 2026, the Government secured approximately £115 million-worth of fishing opportunities for these stocks. We are also taking steps to restore stocks to sustainable levels, so that we can continue harvesting them over the long term. For example, we have recently agreed measures such as seasonal closures with the EU and Norway to protect Northern Shelf cod, which is in a particularly parlous state.
However, fish and chip shops are particularly reliant on imports of fish, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said. Maintaining sustainable stocks of white fish in UK waters means that we have to import large volumes of white fish to meet demand. Relationships with trading partners such as Norway and Iceland, where these stocks can be fished, are therefore critical. Industries used to depend heavily on Russian frozen-at-sea fillets, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but costs have risen sharply following the war in Ukraine, because businesses have had to find alternative supplies to stay competitive. We are supporting the sector to seek alternative species and sources of fish in order to move away from any remaining Russian-caught fish in the supply chain, and we are working with the National Federation of Fish Friers and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation to reintroduce British-caught rock salmon to the menu.
Of course, I do not need to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you cannot have a fish and chip supper without potatoes. From our seed and ware potato farms to our fresh and processing sectors, potatoes continue to play an important role in UK farming and food production. I was pleased to see that the Scottish planted area rose for the second year in a row, despite the challenges of the weather and the global disruptions faced by the whole arable community this year. The Government remain committed to working with the farming sector to deliver stability, confidence and growth. The Secretary of State set out at the Oxford farming conference that the new sustainable farming incentive offer for 2026 will be more focused, more transparent and fairer so that more people can benefit.
We continue to invest in our farming sectors. The farming collaboration fund will provide up to £30 million over the next three years, delivering a new approach to farm collaboration and advice, and will back existing and new farmer groups, link them with expert support and help to create strong partnerships that drive growth and deliver environmental outcomes. We are putting partnership with the sector on a firmer footing. Farmers and food businesses will have a stronger voice at the heart of government.
A new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State and me, will drive growth, productivity and long-term profitability. It will remove barriers to investment and improve how the supply chain works, complementing our work to develop a 25-year farming road map—a single long-term plan to bring together regulation, innovation, skills investment and environmental recovery. I certainly hope that we can make our farming sector as profitable and nimble as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned cooking oil, another important aspect of the production of fish and chip suppers. The price and supply of cooking oil is important. As he pointed out, Ukraine is a major supplier of sunflower oil, but supply chains were severely disrupted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a result, the UK suspended tariffs on sunflower oil imports from 1 January 2023. Last year, we extended the tariff suspension until 31 December 2026, so that importers will continue to have tariff-free access to sunflower oil. We are currently seeking views on whether the suspension should be extended for another two years. Clearly, anyone listening to the debate, be they in the fish and chip sector or elsewhere, should get in touch with us if they have a view about that important issue.
Tom Gordon
I will not make any fish puns; it is not my plaice to do so. We have fantastic fish-and-chipperies in Harrogate and Knaresborough, including Oatlands Mount. Local chippy owners tell me that a cut in VAT for hospitality and restaurants would deliver a meaningful boost for them. Will the Minister pass that on to her Treasury colleagues?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will skate over the hon. Member’s attempt at a fish pun. I am happy to pass on his comments, which are not a matter for DEFRA, as he will know. As an ex-Treasury Minister, however, I can tell him that VAT is a large source of revenue, and fiddling around to make the system more complex is not often the best way of achieving an aim, but it is something that the Lib Dems do with rather a lot of things. His proposal would give away the simplicity of a sales tax, but I am happy to pass it on.
We recognise that small hospitality businesses, including fish and chip shops, are under real pressure, which is why we have started to reform the business rates system to better support the high street. The Government are producing a new permanently lower tax for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including fish and chip shops. As we announced in the Budget, those new tax rates are worth nearly £1 billion a year in forgone tax revenue for the Treasury, and will benefit 75,000 properties. Fish and chip shops benefit from a £4.3 billion support package, protecting businesses from steep bill increases. Meanwhile, the smallest businesses will be protected by increases in the employment allowance from the effective national insurance contribution changes. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy to reinvigorate our communities, and we will work with businesses and representative bodies to pull it together. That cross-Government strategy will consider what more we can do to support our high streets.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the minimum wage. The Government accepted in full the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations on the minimum wage, to support the lowest-paid workers. As he knows, although that represents a cost for business, there is a balance here in terms of what the lowest-paid workers can get in exchange for their labour. When they get reasonable pay, they put that money into the local economy, so there is a balance—it is not all on one side. I am sure that he would not want the fish and chip sector to rely on very low wages in order to sustain itself. The balance that the Government have decided to strike is to accept the Low Pay Commission’s independently made recommendations on national minimum wage levels in full.
We recognise that the sector is under pressure as a result of energy prices and are taking action to support it, such as through the permanent cut to business rates for hospitality announced in the recent Budget. The Government are concerned about the challenges that hospitality businesses can face in securing appropriate, fair and competitively priced energy contracts. To address that, the Government and Ofgem work closely together to identify and implement policy changes that can improve energy costs in the non-domestic market. Two years ago, Ofgem concluded an extensive non-domestic market review. Interventions to support businesses since that have included expanding the overarching standards of conduct for suppliers to all non-domestic customers, clearer rules on deemed rates and required standards for managing changes of occupancy.
The Government have also recently announced a decision to directly regulate energy brokers and other third-party intermediaries where there is some evidence of abuse. Although third-party intermediaries can support businesses to secure more tailored and better value energy contracts, some rogue brokers exploit customers through excessive commissions or predatory sales tactics, which could prevent businesses from accessing competitive energy prices. Regulation will help to ensure that businesses can trust that brokers are acting in their best interests. If parliamentary time allows, the Government are working to have Ofgem ready to implement regulation in this area in the second half of 2027.
In addition to new regulation, the Government have published a consultation with proposals to strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman to ensure that consumers receive fairer and faster redress when things go wrong. Both those measures will improve competition in the energy market and ensure that non-domestic customers, such as those heating sunflower oil to fry chips in, are able to access free dispute resolution support.
More than 600 hospitality small and medium-sized enterprises across England will receive free energy usage and carbon reduction assessments, and advice and guidance to help them cut carbon, cut costs and support increased productivity and growth. That project is expected to save the businesses an average of £5,000 a year, and it is already identifying key behavioural changes that can have a significant impact on energy bills. I hope the fish and chip sector can be made aware of that and exploit it. Fish and chip shops, along with all small and medium-sized enterprises, can access advice on reducing their energy bills and the business benefits of decarbonisation through the UK Business Climate Hub and the business growth service.
Fish and chip shops may be small in size, but they embody something much bigger: the value of work, community and pride in British produce. While the last Government looked the other way as costs piled up, we are taking responsibility. We are backing the fishers and farmers who supply this great British staple, and we are backing the traders who serve it to millions. This Government will always be on the side of the workers who keep our plates full and keep the high streets alive. With the right support, these businesses can thrive, and this iconic part of our national life will be there for generations of Friday night fish and chip suppers in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026.
I am grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, and to the Committee for its consideration of the draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 13 January 2026. The UK ETS was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme was established to increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy, while protecting the competitiveness of UK businesses.
The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body involving the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Under the scheme, a cap is set on the amount of certain greenhouse gases that may be emitted by the sectors it covers, and the cap is reduced over time so that total emissions must fall. Under the UK ETS, operators participating in the scheme are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions.
The scope of the UK ETS is being expanded to maritime activities as part of the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net zero target by 2050. The draft order is an effective lever to reduce emissions and delivers on a key commitment in the UK’s maritime decarbonisation strategy. We expect it to help to overcome key barriers to maritime decarbonisation by incentivising low-carbon fuels, fuel-efficient technologies and fuel-efficient operating practices.
The statutory instrument amends the legislation that gives effect to the UK ETS. It expands the scheme to cover carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from domestic voyages and in-port activities in the UK. Effective from 1 July 2026, maritime operators are required to participate in the scheme and allowed to bid at auction for UK allowances. The instrument will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, but a small number of exemptions apply, such as for Government ships, including military and law enforcement ships, and ferries operating services to Scotland’s islands and peninsulas.
The provisions set out in the instrument require the maritime operator of a ship—either its registered owner or the company responsible for its compliance with the international safety management code—first to obtain an emissions monitoring plan in which it will document the processes used to ascertain their ships’ emissions. For each scheme year, maritime operators will be expected to monitor, independently verify and report their maritime emissions to the relevant regulator, and surrender an equivalent level of allowances.
The instrument also introduces the concept of surrender deductions, reducing by 50% the number of allowances for surrender in respect of voyages between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to deliver equivalence in carbon pricing on routes across the Irish sea. Operators will be assigned to a UK ETS regulator based on the location of their registered office or place of residence. This is the same approach as for aircraft operators. One emissions monitoring plan will cover all the ships for which the maritime operator is responsible, and emissions must be monitored using one of the four methods prescribed in the instrument.
Maritime operators will be required to report emissions from all ships for which they are responsible through an annual emissions report, which must be submitted to the regulator on or before 31 March in the year following the scheme year to which it relates. Maritime operators have an obligation to verify their annual emissions report. The verification must be carried out by an impartial and accredited verifier, independent from the maritime operator. If satisfied, the verifier will draft a verification report, which will be submitted to the regulator alongside the annual emissions report.
Maritime operators will also be required to surrender a level of allowances equivalent to their emissions by 30 April in the year following the scheme year. However, the instrument introduces the concept of double surrender, whereby the date by which allowances must be surrendered in relation to the first scheme year, 2026, is 30 April 2028 and not 30 April 2027, as would otherwise be the case.
These changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out a consultation in 2022 on the development of the UK ETS, including whether to include maritime activities in the scheme. A second consultation ran between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025, seeking views on the details of how maritime would be incorporated in the UK ETS from 2026. The relevant responses to those consultations were summarised in the interim and main authority responses published in July and November 2025, respectively.
The expansion of the UK ETS to cover maritime activities will support its role as a fundamental pillar of the UK’s climate policy. It plays a key part in the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net zero target by 2050. It also delivers on a key commitment within our maritime decarbonisation strategy, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Jeremy. The draft order affects the implementation of the UK emissions trading scheme, which replaced our participation in the EU ETS from 2021. As the Minister set out, the scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020.
In the draft order, the Department seeks to expand the scope of the UK ETS in line with the Secretary of State’s net zero agenda. We saw just last week an instrument brought with the effect of reducing the free allowances under the scheme, increasing the carbon tax on industry from 2027 onward. The increasing cost on industry per tonne of greenhouse gas emitted is a burden that weighs on the UK’s industrial competitiveness. Food manufacturers, oil refineries, power stations and more are all subject to this framework. As the levy on emissions increases, naturally prices paid by end consumers are also driven up. That is why we have said that when we are re-elected to Government in three years’ time, we will repeal the ETS framework and begin to undo the great damage to Britain’s industrial base being done by the actions of this Government. We only hope that it will not be too late.
The draft order requires maritime operators to participate in the scheme, enacting a requirement on ship operators to produce an emissions monitoring plan. The nominal purpose of this extension is to encourage decarbonisation in the maritime sector, which is a laudable aim—not that it will have any impact on global maritime emissions, given the fact that the USA, China, India and others have no plans to curb their emissions in the maritime sector. As a result, this mechanism will actually function purely as a carbon tax. To pretend otherwise would be this Government at their absolute abject worst. This is not a mechanism to decarbonise; it is a pernicious tax being levied on one of our most successful industries.
Access to alternative fuels is not sufficient to decarbonise at the level required by the scheme. The infrastructure that the UK maritime industry requires to transition to low carbon simply does not exist at the scale that will be required. Worse, the industry is expected to comply in three months’ time, while still awaiting guidance to be published on how they can implement it. Even for this Government, that is either incompetence of the highest order, a deliberate attempt to squeeze a hard-pressed industry even more to make up for the shortfall in Treasury receipts as businesses and individuals up sticks and get out of the United Kingdom.
The Department’s own impact assessment quotes an £85 million cost to British business as a result of this mechanism and we have not even turned to the burden that this mechanism is going to place on operators. This emissions monitoring plan represents a ridiculously onerous administrative burden on maritime businesses. Article 18 of the order details the facts to be logged on each voyage for ships completing fewer than 300 voyages per year, including:
“(a) port of departure;
(b) date and hour of departure;
(c) port of arrival;
(d) date and hour of arrival;
(e) total amount of each type of fuel consumed;
(f) emission factor for each type of fuel consumed;
(g) amount of each greenhouse gas emitted.”
The burden then falls on the maritime operator to produce a risk assessment to identify potential sources of error in data flows. I recite that content only to illustrate the extent of the burden that this regulation imposes on the sector.
This instrument extends the ETS burden to the UK shipping industry to the tune of £175 million in administrative costs alone. That is utterly absurd. This is without doubt one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen come before us in three Parliaments and nine years on Government Front and Back Benches and now in opposition. For every £1 spent on decarbonisation as a result of the framework, £8 will be spent on bureaucracy. That is insane. That does not support businesses or growth. The only thing growing here is the burden of red tape—the Government’s favourite colour—on UK industry.
I take this opportunity to put on record my support for the specific exemptions made for fishing vessels and ferry services providing essential connectivity for Scottish islands. It is vital that they are exempt from the burden of the restrictions, albeit it is to be for only one year. One questions why the Isles of Wight and Man and the Scilly Isles are not afforded the same level of concern. 1 would argue, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will argue, that the connections to those islands are just as vital as connections to the Scottish isles.
Believe it or not, Sir Jeremy, it gets worse. Although the extension is a major blow to the maritime industry and UK shipping competitiveness overall, it is another death knell for the oil and gas industry, which is yet again being totally shafted by this Government. This instrument includes in its definition of offshore vessels those that support the oil and gas industry, which are not protected by the 5,000 GT threshold. The Government estimate that more than 145 oil and gas support vessels will be impacted by this instrument, but we know they do not care, because most of the vessels sail out of the port of Aberdeen, which is already suffering job losses as a direct result of the Government’s policies on oil and gas. Aberdeen city and shire have no Labour MPs or MSPs, so we know the party does not care about the fate of that city, its industry, economy or people. Those of us who live there feel that every day.
What impact does the Minister think the extension will have on the north-east of Scotland and the UK oil and gas sector—a sector already suffering blow after blow from the Labour Government? What impact will that have on energy security? May I also ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the risk of carbon leakage in the maritime sector and whether he believes the safeguards under this instrument are sufficient? We do not simply oppose this instrument; we will vote against it. We oppose the UK ETS and carbon taxes that are crippling UK manufacturing and businesses and deindustrialising Britain at a criminal rate. On behalf of all those who this Government are harming by their reckless actions, we ultimately oppose this Government.
The Chair
There are Members standing who are not members of this Committee. It is perfectly in order for them to speak, and in due course I will call them to do so, but just to give them advance warning, as and when the matter is pressed to a vote, they will not be able to participate. I call Joe Robertson.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I associate myself with all the wide-ranging arguments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about this piece of legislation, but I wish to focus on something more specific: the impact on ferries and the cost of travelling to UK islands.
The Government know that this legislation will increase the cost of travel to islands. They know it will have an adverse impact on UK islands, which is why they exempted travel to Scottish islands from this punitive levy. What they have not done is extend that exemption to all UK islands, which means my constituents on the Isle of Wight now face additional cost in getting to and from home. There is no way to travel to the Isle of Wight other than by ferry. There is no other way of getting goods to the Isle of Wight, and when I say goods, I do not just mean things like building materials. I mean bread, butter, eggs—our supermarkets are stocked with produce that comes across only by ferry because there is noother way to get anything to or from the Isle of Wight.
Just last year, in response to a question from me, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that he knows that Isle of Wight ferries have not been good enough—that is in the context of price and frequency. Indeed, the maritime Minister has set up a series of meetings, led by an independent chair, to explore ways to improve travel to the Isle of Wight, including its cost. Yet at the same time the Government are increasing the cost of travel to the island.
We start from a position of disadvantage compared with Scottish islands. Our ferries are already more expensive than those that serve the Scottish islands. Our ferries do not have public subsidy, unlike those to the Scottish islands, and they are not ultimately publicly owned. In fact, they are owned by private equity interests, which fill the coffers of pension funds overseas. They are entirely unregulated, and Isle of Wight residents are entirely at their mercy, but while we seek support from the Government to ensure that the companies give us a fairer deal, the Government make our travel more expensive. I am not asking for anything special, or a special Isle of Wight exemption; I am asking for the exemption that the Government already give dozens of islands to include the island of which I represent a part.
No impact assessment had been done on the effects on the economy of my constituency, or of other islands that are not covered by the exemption, but the Government do accept that this measure will increase costs. They have access to a report by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, which is general and not in direct relation to this order, and which ranked my constituency the second in England for having the most people in left-behind neighbourhoods—that is, second bottom on the pile.
That ICON report is not some unusual or niche interest piece that has been put together; the Government themselves said they would base the delivery of their five missions on it. How has the ETS legislation fallen out of their five missions? Surely, the entire delivery of the Government’s programme is based on their five missions, yet they have set aside and ignored the report that they said they would rely on. Again, I am not making a parochial argument, representing some small, faraway place in the United Kingdom. I am basing my argument on the Independent Commission on Neighbour-hoods report that the Government say they are using and relying on to deliver a fair programme of government.
The UK Chamber of Shipping has said that, given what has happened in Europe, the cost of tickets could go up by around 15%. Ultimately, global warming will not be solved by making it more expensive to travel to the Isle of Wight, or to any other island in the United Kingdom. I urge the Government to think again, and extend their exemption to all UK islands.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The impact of the measure will have a disproportionate cost, especially in Northern Ireland, which relies on sea transport for the import of goods from GB, and for the export of goods from Northern Ireland to GB. Although the order is regarded as a domestic measure, it nevertheless affects an important part of our economic infrastructure, all to deal with an issue that results in about 1% of the UK’s total emissions. The order does not deal with a huge amount of carbon emissions, but it will have a disproportionate cost for Northern Ireland. That is on top of the costs that Northern Ireland already experiences as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, which has already added significantly to the cost of bringing goods in from GB and taking goods from Northern Ireland to GB.
The order’s impact on emissions will not be all that great anyway. It is not as if the measure will be an incentive for operators to change their behaviour, as they cannot: there are no alternatives other than sea transport. Therefore, whatever additional costs are imposed will have to be borne by consumers. I know the Minister talked about the reduction in emissions and working towards net zero and everything else. Given the nature of sea transport and its importance for transport between Northern Ireland and GB, as well as the lack of alternatives, this policy cannot lead to transport providers changing how they behave. They cannot go for alternative fuels; near-net zero fuels would simply price them out of the market because they are four to five times dearer than the fuels they use. They cannot opt for the electrification of ships; first of all, it is quite expensive, and secondly, the port infrastructure facilities are not even available.
It is also significant that there is no support package either. There was no talk anywhere in the Minister’s comments of the revenues raised being used to help the transition to different ways of transporting goods. The administrative costs that will be imposed through this order have already been mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. The assessment gives us a range of between £103 million and £287 million. I think that shows that it is just a guess, and it indicates that the Government do not have a clue what the administrative costs will be. That is only the direct administrative costs for the operators, by the way. On top of that are the regulatory costs, which, again, the impact assessment says will be passed on to the operators anyhow. That is before any mitigation measures; those are just the administrative costs. What will the total cost of this be?
Those costs are bound to have an impact in many ways. The one thing Members can be sure of is that they will be passed on in higher freight rates, including in the freight rates between Northern Ireland and GB. Some may argue, “Well, that simply means that Northern Ireland producers will look elsewhere. They may look to the Irish Republic, for example, for supplies instead of bringing them from GB, if the routes are more costly”, but the fact remains that we are dependent on GB, our main supply route is from GB to Northern Ireland and most of our goods are going from Northern Ireland to GB, so there is not even an alternative to switching, even if that were desirable, and it is not desirable because firms choose the GB market because it is profitable for them and they choose GB suppliers because they are the best suppliers that they can use for their businesses.
The Government will probably say, “Well, yes, but we have made a 50% allowance for Northern Ireland”. I suppose the Minister will argue that that is a recognition that there is a special case for Northern Ireland. My argument is this: if the 50% allowance has been put in place, it is only because the Government recognise the disproportionate impact that the measure will have on Northern Ireland. According to the operators, that 50% allowance will go nowhere near to wiping out the costs.
It has not even been mentioned that this measure will have to be in place by July. There is not even any clear guidance available yet to the operators about what they will be required to do, and the EU is reviewing its emissions trading scheme simply because it recognises that there are technical details that need to be ironed out, yet the Government will load their scheme on to operators in three months’ time.
I have already mentioned the fact that this policy will first of all not reduce emissions because there are no alternatives, and secondly, the revenue that we raise from it will not be used to help operators transition from the methods that they use at present. There is nothing in this order about making money available for retrofitting, fuel experimentation and development, or putting power facilities on port sites to enable ships to use an alternative means of propulsion. This is simply a tax. It will not even achieve what the Government want—namely, to reduce emissions. It will have an impact on an economy—on a part of the United Kingdom —already burdened by actions that the previous Government took with the Windsor framework, which has been continued by this Government. This will be yet another cost on top of that. There is a case for saying that this measure should not be applied to domestic transport; we have heard about the impact on ferries to the islands. There is certainly a case for looking at the speed with which it is being implemented. I urge the Committee to consider those points.
I know that I will not have a vote on this measure. I suspect that even if I did have a vote and we tried to pack the place, it would not make any difference. I just ask that these serious issues are considered. This is not just a whinge and saying, “We don’t like this applying to Northern Ireland.” The measure will have serious impacts on our main trade routes with GB. The freight rates for those routes will not achieve the result that the Minister outlined. I ask that the issue be reconsidered with two solutions in mind. First, I am asking for a delay to allow further review and assessment of the impact. Secondly, given the likely impact on Northern Ireland and other isolated parts of the United Kingdom, I ask that the domestic application of the measure be dropped.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is one of those parts of the United Kingdom that, far in excess of elsewhere, depends on maritime transport for its economic survival. The Scottish islands is another, and there arises the first glaring unfairness of this proposal. As ferries are their critical economic infrastructure, the Scottish islands will rightly be exempt, but Northern Ireland, which equally relies on its ferries as its essential economic infrastructure, will not be exempt. Where is the fairness? Where is the justification for that? I respectfully suggest that there is not and cannot be any.
When one puts upon the essential economic infra- structure —namely, maritime transport—this additional tax burden, the inevitable result is that Northern Ireland consumers will pay for this carbon tax. My constituents will have this extra levy passed on to them via their goods, which have already been made more expensive by the iniquity of the Irish sea border and the costs of checks. On top of that, they now have this maritime carbon tax. That point cries out so forcefully about the patent and inherent unfairness of the measure that, if the Government cared about the whole United Kingdom, they would not just listen to it, but act on it. Sadly, I fear they will not, as they took the convenient approach of slipping the ETS into the Finance Bill. Instead of separate legislation that we could have debated and drilled into in the House, we get an unamendable regulation slipped through this Committee. It is part of the Government’s indifference to what they are doing to a part of their own United Kingdom.
Let us never forget that maritime transport is already the most carbon-efficient mode of mass freight transport. Our domestic maritime emissions are 1% of total UK emissions, and yet we will selectively—in particular in respect of Northern Ireland—put this extra cost on the consumers of Northern Ireland. We will also do that in a context where the maritime operators have no alternative: “Six months, get your house in order”—how do they do it?
Net zero fuel is four to five times more expensive. Shoreside electricity infrastructure just does not exist, and will not exist within six months. There is no support whatever for the transition. The coffers of Government will be expanded by this carbon tax, but will they spend that money by putting it back into the sector? No, they will greedily hold on to it, and force the sector and thus the consumers to pay for the carbon tax, with all that it means.
I mentioned the Scottish islands. I represent a constituency that also includes an inhabited island, Rathlin island. As for the Isle of Wight East, there is no concession for Rathlin island. Why are my constituents who live in Rathlin island less important to this Government than those who live in the Scottish islands?
Jim Allister
No votes—probably. That is probably the same answer in respect of the whole of Northern Ireland. When the Minister gets a chance to listen, I say to him: I do not accept lesser service for my constituents than he obtains for his or any other Member of this House. If we are a United Kingdom, then we need to be a United Kingdom of equals, not with those who are taxed while others are not, and not with consumers who pay more while others do not—but that is the product of what this Government are doing to Northern Ireland and the Rathlin islanders as well.
It is not enough for the impact assessment to recognise that consumers in Northern Ireland are more exposed—but if they are, what will the Government do about it? The impact assessment recognises that Northern Ireland consumers are more exposed, but the Government turn their face away and will not do anything about it. That is neither tenable nor tolerable.
Furthermore, the Government say, “You must do this in six months.” What planet of unreality are they living on? They like to ape so much of what the EU does, but even the EU with its ETS has a three-year transition. Indeed, the EU is also reviewing what it is doing. Impossibly, however, we are saying to the maritime sector in the United Kingdom, “You have five months to get this sorted out, and then your consumers start to pay for our indulgence and for our self-congratulation that we are dealing with carbon emissions.” That is not an acceptable way to go. Because there is no investment and no transition, it is inescapable that this is but a tax, a carbon tax on my constituents, on the people of Northern Ireland, on the people of Rathlin island and on all those who have not been given the equality of treatment of exemption that has been accorded to others.
Chris McDonald
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I hope to be able to respond to them.
We heard, from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the Opposition’s clear objections to the emissions trading scheme. We also heard them last week, in a statutory instrument debate about the emissions trading scheme and the future introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. This is clearly a significant change in policy from the Opposition, as they line themselves up with the climate deniers in the hope that they might scrounge some votes back from Reform, but—[Interruption.] It absolutely is a desperate measure.
The shadow Minister talks about protection for industry. We discussed that extensively in this Committee Room last week. Of course, the carbon border adjustment mechanism is precisely there to protect British industry from unfair competition from imports from more polluting industries in countries without such regulations. The Opposition’s objections to the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which we heard in this room last week, actually put British industry on the block. I do wonder whether they have fully thought through their policy, because when the statutory instrument went to the Lords, their spokesperson was not clear about whether the Opposition opposed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Perhaps the shadow Minister might want to say whether that is Opposition policy.
Chris McDonald
No, the shadow Minister does not. Well, perhaps he needs to think about it a bit longer.
The shadow Minister talked about the administrative burden placed on maritime companies, which is of course something of which the Government are very conscious. He mentioned some of the information that would need to be recorded, such as port of departure, fuel use and so on. I do not know when he last spoke to somebody who actually operates a vessel, but a lot of this information is routinely recorded. Perhaps his ignorance of maritime operations is second only to his ignorance of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Bowie
As somebody who served in the Royal Navy for four years after I left school, I have full awareness of maritime operations and of the importance of our United Kingdom. I was talking about the gross unfairness of this legislation and the impact it is having on some communities around this kingdom, whether on the Isle of Wight or in Northern Ireland. The Minister has the audacity to claim that CBAM is protecting British industry, when his Government’s policies are doing more to undermine British industry than any policy of any Government in recent history. The deindustrialisation we are seeing in this country is something of which his party, which still laughably calls itself the Labour party, should be utterly ashamed. I ask him to withdraw his remark about the ignorance of maritime affairs.
Chris McDonald
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his service in the Royal Navy, and I am happy to withdraw that remark. Perhaps there was an oversight on his part in relation to that particular issue. I absolutely do withdraw that remark.
On the shadow Minister’s comment about the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency, as I am sure he knows, so it is not covered by the scheme. He mentioned the Isles of Scilly. The vessels to the Isles of Scilly are not covered by the scheme either, because they are below 5,000 gross tonnage.
The shadow Minister also mentioned the Isle of Wight, and I want to respond to the comments from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. I looked very carefully at the issues around the Isle of Wight before we tabled this statutory instrument, because those were a significant concern for me as well, and I am happy to offer some additional information now. I am grateful to my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who requested a meeting with me before this statutory instrument was laid. I was happy to have that conversation with him, and I offer that courtesy to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East as well, if he would like to have such a meeting after this debate.
Perhaps I can in some way put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. First, regarding the situation on the Isle of Wight versus the ferry operators in Scotland, one of the key considerations for us was that the population on the islands in Scotland is considerably lower than that of the Isle of Wight. There is also no competition generally between the ferry operators, but there are there are a number of routes operating to the Isle of Wight, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well. The scheme will affect only two vessels, from one operator, on the Isle of Wight: one is a diesel vessel and one is a hybrid vessel. Clearly, the impact of the scheme will be felt more on the diesel vessel than the hybrid vessel, and that is because of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit. I am sure that I am not telling the hon. Gentleman anything that he does not know, but I want to be clear that we have thought very carefully about this.
The hon. Gentleman and a number of Members mentioned the opportunity for decarbonisation. In my opening remarks, I mentioned a number of ways that that could be done, including more fuel-efficient operating practices and various other things. We have set aside £448 million of Government funding to support that, which was announced previously. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet with me to go through more of that in detail and represent the views of his constituents, I would be happy to do that.
Joe Robertson
I welcome the offer to meet, and I wish to take the Minister up on it. As he will know, the hybrid vessel he refers to that travels across the Solent has electric capability, but it cannot be used because there is no grid capacity at Portsmouth. The Solent is one of the busiest shipping areas in Europe and the vast majority of pollution will be from large container ships going in and out of Southampton—and, of course, the Royal Navy operates out of Portsmouth. Putting any cost on a boat travelling to the Isle of Wight to allow to people to go to and from home fails to meet any sort of reasonableness test, but I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting.
Chris McDonald
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Perhaps we can go through some of the assessments of the impact of cost inflation in more detail when we meet. Our modelling shows that that could largely be eaten up by normal inflation and normal operating practices, but there are decisions there for the operators to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points about the operators, and we can discuss those in more detail. He also mentioned international shipping through the Solent. Clearly, international shipping is not covered currently by this measure, but it is covered in the EU ETS.
Finally, I come to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim might be surprised to know that there are actually quite a number of things on which we agree, and one of them, for certain, is that the United Kingdom must be the United Kingdom of equals. I am quite clear about that.
I wanted to clear up a couple of points about the situation with Northern Ireland. The 50% reduction that applies to Northern Ireland is there to create parity between vessels that operate between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those that operate between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. If we had not offered the 50% reduction, Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged in that way, and I want to be clear about why that is.
Jim Allister
The Minister is telling the Committee that parity with the Republic of Ireland is more important to him than parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Really?
Chris McDonald
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that it was important to us that Northern Ireland was not in any way disadvantaged, which is why the 50% reduction was offered. The hon. and learned Member mentioned Rathlin island in his constituency; I remind him of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit and how that applies.
The hon. and learned Member, the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the shadow Minister all made a general point about the cost associated with the changes. There is a cost to not tackling climate change. If operators of vessels were spilling oil into the Solent or the Irish sea, then I am quite sure that the hon. and right hon. Members’ constituents would be clamouring for the Government to introduce regulations to do something about it. The fact that this pollution is not observable to the naked eye does not make it any less important to tackle it. These environmental regulations—and the Government’s policy on net zero—are about tackling that pollution and providing a stable and predictable regime so that industry can invest.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify what the Northern Ireland Office’s submission in the write-round said about the impact of the measure on Northern Ireland, or give a sense of those discussions? Baroness Foster runs Intertrade UK, a committee that was designed during the Windsor framework negotiations to look at the very issue of trade. Has he had conversations with Baroness Foster? Having listened to Northern Ireland colleagues, will he look again at how this will impact the Union? On top of the Windsor framework—which I would argue was the best deal we could get—this measure is an additional burden.
Chris McDonald
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this measure will need the support of the Governments of all four parts of the United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Northern Ireland is and will be disadvantaged if we proceed down this track. What engagement has the Minister had with the individuals concerned, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon outlined? Will he extend the invitation he gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East to the Members for Northern Ireland who feel very deeply about this and are very aggrieved, to discuss the real impact—not just the impact in his brief?
Chris McDonald
Yes, I am very happy to extend that invitation for a further meeting with any Members of the House who wish to discuss the matter. Of course, there has been extensive consultation on this statutory instrument.
Chris McDonald
I have given way multiple times, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I think it is time I brought the debate to a close.
These changes have the support of all four Governments of the United Kingdom, and consensus in advancing carbon pricing policy to include domestic maritime is key to delivering our decarbonisation goals and driving green investment across the United Kingdom. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put.
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we continue our line-by-line scrutiny, let me remind the Committee of the usual housekeeping arrangements. Please switch all electronic devices to silent mode. No food or drinks, except the water provided, are permitted during sittings of the Committee. Hansard will be grateful if Members can give their speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room or send them by email. Please do bob; the Chairs do not have second sight, so it helps to know who wants to speak.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; it shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. I hope that by now you are beginning to get used to the process by which that is done, but, as always, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask them.
Clause 112
Excise duty: charge
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is good to be back, Sir Roger.
The vaping products duty is a new excise duty on vaping products manufactured or imported into the UK from 1 October 2026. The changes made by clause 112 will create a new charge to excise duty and set out the rate, which is £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. The changes made by clauses 113 and 114 will define a vaping product and what constitutes production for the purposes of the vaping products duty. The changes made by clause 115 make clear the powers under which regulations on the vaping products duty will be made, in anticipation of its entry into force on 1 October 2026. Finally, the changes made by clause 116 will allow HM Revenue and Customs to manage and collect the vaping products duty and provide administrative powers around the storage of vaping products before duty has been paid, as well as penalties.
Together, clauses 112 to 116 will establish a coherent and enforceable framework for the vaping products duty and will ensure that vaping products are taxed appropriately. I commend them to the Committee.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Good morning, Sir Roger and members of the Committee. As the Minister says, clauses 112 to 116 will introduce the UK’s excise duty on vaping products and set out the legal and administrative framework for its operation.
Clause 112 will establish the new vaping products duty, setting a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, rounded down to the nearest penny. Clause 113 sets out what counts as a vaping product; the definition is drawn deliberately widely to encompass any liquid that contains nicotine and the solvents used with it, and even liquids without nicotine if they are intended for vaporisation. That means that the apparently popular zero-nicotine shortfills used by smokers who are trying to quit or taper down will be taxed, too. I am advised that shortfills will be the hardest hit by the new duty; Vape 360 reports a 203% price increase. That raises an interesting public health question about the rationale for taxing zero-nicotine liquids in the same way as addictive nicotine-containing liquids. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concern that by adopting this taxation approach we might be discouraging people from switching to less harmful or nicotine-free alternatives.
Clause 114 defines when a product is regarded as produced for duty purposes, not just when liquids are mixed but when they are packaged, labelled or marketed as suitable for vapes. Clause 115 leaves it to future regulations to set out when duty becomes payable and who is liable. Clause 116, the final clause in this group, gives HMRC new powers to control vaping products before duty has been paid. The Opposition will not oppose the clauses, but we do want to probe the Government’s thinking.
Vaping has become increasingly common across the UK. According to the Government’s own tax information and impact note, approximately 5 million people in the UK vape. For the first time, according to the Office for National Statistics, more over-16s in Great Britain are using vapes or e-cigarettes than are smoking cigarettes: 5.4 million adults vape, compared with 4.9 million who still smoke.
The duty was first announced by the then Conservative Government in the spring Budget of March 2024. Alongside the announcement, a consultation was launched on how the duty should work in practice. The Government have since opted for a flat-rate duty rather than the three-tiered structure originally proposed, which would have varied the rate according to nicotine strength. Having read the responses to the consultation, I know that that decision clearly reflects the bulk of the evidence provided and will create a system that is simpler to administer. As the Exchequer Secretary might say, that is evidence of consultation working and the Government listening, which we are becoming very used to.
The tax will raise significant amounts: £400 million in 2027-28 and £465 million in 2028-29, with revenue then increasing further. When introducing a new tax, implementation matters. The Government’s own impact note shows that HMRC expects to spend £140 million just to deliver this measure, of which £20 million will be spent on IT systems, while the other £120 million will be for staffing and compliance costs. I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether the headline figure includes the £32 million contract that HMRC is currently advertising to deliver the vaping duty supply contract for five years.
As Border Force will also receive up to £10 million to prepare, delivering the new duty will cost about £150 million, all in. That is a pretty significant sum, so we need to be sure that it will provide proper value for money. Can the Minister give a little more clarity and break down the costs, particularly the £120 million on staffing and compliance? How many people will that involve bringing into HMRC? What exactly will they be doing? Why is the figure seemingly so high in comparison with the take?
Some consultation respondents have questioned whether the new duty will actually shift behaviour. If producers simply absorb the cost, as tobacco firms once did, prices may barely change, which will undermine the public health rationale behind the policy. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? Will the duty rate remain under review if outcomes fall short of the expected impact?
We can also look at the experiences of other countries such as Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% when a similar duty was introduced—not because consumers quit, but because purchases moved to the black market or unregulated online sellers. That takes us back to one of this Committee’s themes, which is about how raising taxes to a certain level drives people into the black market, and about where the sweet spot is for raising revenue without driving illegal behaviour. We will come on to the enforcement powers in some detail shortly, so I will not get into them now.
This measure will play a useful role in regulating a growing sector, but the Government need to strike a balance between discouraging youth vaping, supporting smokers to quit and maintaining a workable, enforceable tax regime that does not cost the taxpayer a lot of money. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised, and particularly the point about zero-nicotine vapes being treated in the same way as nicotine vapes.
Lucy Rigby
It is good to hear that the shadow Exchequer Secretary will not oppose the clauses. He is right about the policy impetus behind what we are doing. For the first time in the UK, more people vape than smoke. The chief medical officer has been clear that vaping is not risk-free, and those who do not smoke should not vape.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Vaping is a difficult issue, particularly when it comes to recycling. I understand that vape shops are expected to take them back, but local authorities have real problems with the disposal of used vape canister things—I do not know what they are called—with batteries in them. Will the Minister consider helping local authorities with vape recycling, and providing funds to give them more facilities and a way to dispose of them?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which I will come to in a second.
On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s central point about the definition of vaping and the inclusion of nicotine-free liquids, the definition is deliberately broad to reflect how the market operates and to support what we hope will be effective enforcement. Most liquids used in vapes contain nicotine and either glycerine or glycol. The clause therefore focuses on those ingredients and on whether the liquid is intended to be vaped. Bringing into scope liquids that need to be mixed before use closes a potential loophole in a manner that I am sure we all want, because products could otherwise be sold in separate components to avoid their duty. Nicotine-free liquids are included because it would be easy to misdescribe or mislabel liquids and, in doing so, evade the duty.
The approach that we are taking will give Border Force and HMRC clear rules to work with, enabling quick decisions at the border. That is in line with how other excise regimes define products to minimise avoidance.
As to the cost of implementation, the cost of the duty stamps contract was considered in the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s beloved TIINs, but the industry will pay for it through the stamps.
Finally, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot raised a fair point about recycling. We are considering the impact of recycling and existing Government contracts, so this will be considered in the round.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Stamping of vaping products
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Rigby
As I stated in our debate on the previous group, the vaping products duty is a new excise duty on vaping products manufactured or imported into the UK from 1 October 2026. Clause 117 is important in setting out what a duty stamp is for the purposes of the vaping products duty and the conditions under which a vaping product is considered sufficiently stamped and compliant with the vaping duty stamps scheme.
The changes made by clause 118 will allow HMRC commissioners to appoint an approved supplier to produce and distribute vaping duty stamps. In addition, the clause allows a fee to be charged for the duty stamp, separately from the liability of vaping products duty, and explains that that charge may not be offset against duty liability.
The changes introduced by clause 119 will establish a formal approval requirement for UK businesses to purchase duty stamps under the vaping duty stamps scheme, which will allow HMRC commissioners to maintain control over the scheme and ensure compliance.
Clause 120 will ensure that overseas vaping manufacturers have a representative in the UK who is legally and financially responsible for their compliance with the vaping duty stamps scheme, to ensure robust oversight. We are safeguarding compliance by requiring overseas manufacturers to operate within the framework of UK law, strengthening control and accountability across the supply chain. There will be impacts on all overseas importers and manufacturers of vaping products, who will be required to appoint a UK representative in the manner that I have described.
Together, the clauses will ensure that the vaping products duty is robustly enforced through a secure duty stamps regime and that all manufacturers, whether they are based in the UK or overseas, are subject to clear accountability. I commend clauses 117 to 120 to the Committee.
James Wild
Clauses 117 to 120 will introduce the new vaping duty stamp scheme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to move forward with a duty stamps regime for vaping products: it is, after all, a measure that can help our enforcement agencies and responsible businesses alike to distinguish legitimate duty-paid products from those that are illegitimate and being traded illicitly and illegally. We know that there is a substantial illicit market for vapes across the country; without a credible system of verification and traceability, it will continue to undercut legitimate producers, harm public health and cost the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue, so we need to address it.
Clause 117 will establish the legal framework for the duty stamps system. It defines when a vaping product is considered to be stamped, and it sets out that the duty stamp, whether affixed to the product or to its retail packaging, must comply with regulations made under the Bill. Importantly, the clause will enable each stamp to be digitally linked to the product that it marks, and will allow HMRC to collect specified information about those goods, marrying the physical and digital trails of compliance. That is a positive step, and I am pleased that the Government have adopted at least some of the approach for which the Opposition argued during the passage of last year’s Finance Bill when we considered the introduction of the duty stamp regime.
In essence, these measures will bring to the vaping market a track and trace model that is similar to what already exists in the alcohol and tobacco sectors. Clearly, when used properly, such tools can be an effective enforcement system. They allow officers, retailers and consumers alike to verify legitimacy at a glance, building confidence in compliant businesses and exposing those who seek to cheat the system and the taxpayer.
We should be clear, however, about the scale of the challenge that could be created for smaller manufacturers and importers. In implementing this approach, we should ensure that the practical burden of stamping, activating, tracking and reporting, alongside new IT infrastructure, is proportionate for the many businesses that may not previously have had to operate at such a level of compliance. We cannot allow a regime that is intended to fight the black market to end up driving responsible producers to consider joining it.
Clause 118 will give HMRC the authority to issue and manage the duty stamps and to charge administrative fees. It also allows a third-party issuer to be appointed, as I referred to in my comments on the previous group of clauses. I hope that the Minister can confirm how those fees will be set. Will HMRC consult on the level of those fees? What safeguards will exist to ensure that the fees are proportionate and transparent so that businesses do not find themselves paying unpredictable charges that bear little relation to the cost of the compliance regime?
Clause 119 will establish who can hold and use duty stamps: only approved stamp holders may do so, and they must operate from a fixed location within the United Kingdom. That makes sense in principle—it limits the opportunity for diversion or counterfeiting—but the practical implementation will matter greatly. Subsection (5) grants HMRC wide powers to restrict transfers, to define what counts as a fixed place and to cap the number of stamps issued to a business. If the system becomes too bureaucratic or opaque, small UK producers could find themselves struggling in the market while larger incumbents consolidate their position.
The Minister referred to the logic behind clause 120 and the concept of a UK representative for overseas businesses that lack a domestic base. Clearly, there needs to be someone within UK jurisdiction who can be held responsible for compliance and any penalties that may be applied.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury back from her visit to China, which I am sure was slightly more exciting than the Thursday we had in Committee in her absence—although obviously we will never be short on excitement.
Duty stamps are proven anti-illicit trading measures. Digital tracking can enable supply chain monitoring, support enforcement and ensure that black market products are easier to identify, which makes it easier for trading standards officers and consumers to catch illegal products. However, as we have seen with duty stamps on spirits, there is significant counterfeiting within the market, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister and the Government have learned from duty stamps on spirits that they have been able to apply to duty stamps on vaping products.
It is interesting to see, in clause 118, the potential cost that will be associated with these duty stamps. We have already debated the additional duty that would be applied to vapes and the closing of the gap between the price of vape liquid and the price of cigarettes in our discussion on previous clauses. How much further does the Minister think that gap will close?
Additionally, on duty stamps and being able to track sales from a specific product or potentially even from specific stores, many people in this House and among the wider public believe that quite a lot of vaping shops have links with money laundering scams. Does the Treasury have an understanding of how tracking could be used to compare the money going through on the duty stamps with the store data to see if any money laundering is going on? That may be able to help trading standards in future.
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, for their comments. I think we are all aiming for the same thing: a robust and tight enforcement of all the measures. On the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s point about moving towards a purely digital system, the reality is that that would be harder for consumers and for trading standards officers to use on shop floors, and consultation responses highlighted that it could impose greater burdens on small retailers than a visible stamp.
The scheme is designed to have a physical label with embedded digital features, and that two-factor design is central to the compliance strategy. A visible, secure stamp gives retailers, consumers and enforcement officers an immediate way to spot non-compliant products at a glance, without the need for specialist equipment. As I said, however, the digital element is very important; it is similar to a secure QR code, allowing stamps and products to be scanned and verified in real time. That two-factor design is central to the compliance strategy.
On the question of fees, they have been set to cover the cost of operating the scheme. The Government conducted a competitive tender process for the broader scheme. The shadow Exchequer Secretary is absolutely right that HMRC has promised clear guidance in this area, and that will be published in due course.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson fairly raised a comparison with alcohol duty stamps. HMRC consulted the alcohol industry and enforcement authorities and determined that alcohol duty stamps now play a minimal role in tackling alcohol duty evasion and that more effective controls now exist. HMRC is introducing duty stamps alongside the vaping products duty because of the distinct and significant non-compliance risk associated with the vaping market; it is about the utilisation of modern technology and digitalisation to support the delivery of the vaping products duty. I hope I have explained to him that we have examined the alcohol duty comparison and do not see a direct read across.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also raised an important point about money laundering and anti-money laundering, which the Government take extremely seriously—in fact, we are reforming the supervisory function and compliance on AML.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 118 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Forfeiture
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Rigby
Anyone selling illicit vapes puts the public at risk and undermines legitimate businesses. One million illegal vapes were seized by trading standards in the last full year for which statistics are available, so we know that this is a significant enforcement challenge.
Clause 121 introduces enforcement powers to protect the integrity of the vaping duty stamps scheme. The changes made by clause 122 support robust compliance efforts under the vaping products duty and the stamps scheme, ensuring that only legitimate vaping products are supplied in the UK and penalising those who do not comply with the law. The changes made by clause 123 penalise those who lose stamps or attempt to use invalid stamps on illegitimate products to circumvent the rules. Clause 124 ensures that those who do not comply with the relevant regulations for the duty and stamps scheme are liable to penalties. Finally, clause 125 provides for the forfeiture of legitimate vaping products to complement the penalties imposed under the previous clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clauses 121 to 125, which set out the framework on forfeiture and civil penalties for the new vaping duty regime. As the Minister said, this is a very important part of the new regime, given the impact that illicit vapes could have.
Clause 121 establishes a general liability to forfeiture for three categories of non-compliant goods, namely: an unstamped vaping product that should bear a duty stamp, any invalid duty stamp along with the product that it is attached to, or any unused duty stamp not affixed or returned within 12 months of issue. In plain terms, it gives HMRC the power to seize non-compliant vaping products. An invalid stamp is defined broadly, and includes any stamp that has been altered, forged or voided by HMRC. Other forfeiture triggers are linked to the wider civil and criminal offences contained elsewhere in this part of the Bill, which I am sure we will come on to. These powers are designed to allow both HMRC and local enforcement bodies to remove illicit or suspect products and counterfeit stamps from circulation. That is clearly an important deterrent against the black market in vaping products.
Can the Minister assess the risk of the 12-month rule on unused stamps, and the broad definition of invalid stamps, inadvertently capturing legitimate business activity? For example, operators may over-order stamps as a contingency or make administrative errors. How will the Government ensure that, in those circumstances, genuine stock is not caught up and lost alongside contraband products? Once forfeited, what will happen to those goods? Will they simply be destroyed? It would be helpful to get clarification on that point. Crucially, what safeguards will ensure that forfeiture powers are used proportionately, and that any minor administrative mistakes by otherwise compliant firms do not result in legitimate products being seized and destroyed at the first opportunity?
Clause 122 introduces a civil penalty regime for those who sell, offer for sale or deal in unstamped vaping products packaged for retail sale. The penalties set out are banded according to scale and repeat behaviour, rising to a maximum of £10,000 for 500 or more units, with escalating amounts for repeated contraventions within a rolling two-year period. It provides a strong financial penalty and a disincentive for retailers and wholesalers to stock unstamped products, and it complements the criminal provisions that follow later in this part of the Bill.
Clause 123 creates penalties for approved stamp holders who lose stamps or fail to use, return or destroy them within 12 months of issue, unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent loss. In those circumstances, the penalty is set at five times the monetary value of duty per lost stamp, equating to £11 per stamp when the scheme goes live. That comes alongside the existing Finance Act 1994 penalties for altering or misusing stamps. The intention is clear: to encourage tight control of duty stamps, treating them almost as cash equivalents, and to discourage casual or insecure handling that might enable diversion or counterfeiting, which is welcome.
Clause 124 introduces a broad, catch-all civil penalty for failure to comply with the vaping products duty regime using section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 as its legal framework. That is intended to ensure that HMRC can act where non-compliance occurs, but no specific penalty is written into the legislation, reinforcing the need for accurate record keeping and full compliance with operational rules. I can see why a general power may be convenient for HMRC, but for smaller businesses it could increase the risk of innocent mistakes attracting financial penalties. How will HMRC ensure that this general power is used proportionately? Will education and guidance be issued to firms?
Mr Reynolds
I have few points to make about clause 122, which refers to a
“person who sells…unstamped vaping products”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that person is the shop owner, the shop manager or the shop worker who is physically behind the till on that day. Could an 18-year-old shop assistant be charged the £10,000 fine? The phrase “a person” needs a definition. If that person leaves the business in which they serve, will the fine stay with the individual, or will it be on the business? Could somebody get around this clause by closing down their limited company and opening a new one tomorrow, so the offence would then be their first?
Lucy Rigby
The comments of the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, refer to the deliberately tough nature of the enforcement regime; there is a real emphasis on deterrence, and there are penalties that apply. It includes the forfeiture powers, which are targeted at serious non-compliance. Where retailers are found selling unstamped products outside duty suspense or breaching key obligations under the scheme, HMRC and Border Force will have the power to seize associated vaping products, including legitimate duty-paid stock. As I said, that is part of a deliberately tough enforcement regime and is a strong deterrent aimed at those who choose to mix illegal products with legitimate ones on the same premises. I am sure we all understand that without such powers, rogue traders can treat penalties as simply a cost of doing business while continuing to profit from illicit trade, and I am sure we all want to avoid that.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary made a number of points about ensuring that the use of powers is proportionate. Given the judicial or criminal processes associated with the use of these powers, it is entirely fair to say that all the usual processes around charging, in a criminal sense or otherwise, will apply. Inherent within those processes are balance and fairness, including taking into account the rights of the accused.
It is good to mention the draft guidance, which will be shared with HMRC-run industry groups well ahead of the go-live date on 1 April, which I hope is sufficiently specific for the shadow Exchequer Secretary. He will be pleased to know—he may already know—that the interim guidance is already on gov.uk, if he is stuck for things to do this evening. I think I am right in saying that the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, as to liability under these offences will be made explicitly clear in the guidance, such that there is no doubt in those circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 122 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 126
Dealing in duty stamps
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Rigby
Clause 126 introduces two new criminal offences, to which we have already alluded, for possessing or transferring duty stamps in contravention of the scheme rules. Clause 127 introduces the two new criminal offences that I have just described, and sets out a defence for the purposes of those offences. Clause 128 introduces the power for a court to ban the sales of vaping products, along with an associated criminal offence for non-compliance with the order. Clause 129 sets the level of the penalty associated with the offences, according to the respective legal systems of the devolved nations. Clause 130 introduces additional powers to allow HMRC to enforce the new rules around vaping products by taking illicit products off shelves.
In summary, the clauses represent a comprehensive suite of enforcement tools that support the Government to address the illegal trade and support the legitimate industry. I therefore urge that clauses 126 to 130 stand part of the Bill.
James Wild
Clause 126 creates new criminal offences relating to the possession and transfer of unstuck duty stamps. In plain terms, it becomes an offence for anyone who is not an approved stamp holder to possess a duty stamp that has not been affixed to a vaping product, or to transfer such a stamp to someone else. As the Minister says, the Bill allows a defence where the person did not know or have reason to suspect that they were handling an unstuck stamp, and carves out sensible exemptions, such as transfers between UK representatives and overseas principals, or during commercial delivery and returns.
I would be interested to know what assessment the Treasury has made of the level of abuse that it expects under this regime. HMRC and trading standards are being given a budget for enforcement. Underlying that, there is presumably some assumption about the level of abuse of this system, so it would be interesting to have a flavour of that, given that all of us will be familiar with vape shops and associated issues from our constituencies.
Clause 127 creates criminal offences for possessing, transporting, displaying, selling or otherwise dealing in unstamped vaping products. It also criminalises managers of premises who “cause or permit” the sale of unstamped goods. Under the definition in subsection (4), a manager of premises
“is a person who…is entitled to control their use…is entrusted with their management, or…is in charge of them.”
To pick up the example raised by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, if an 18-year-old is in charge of the premises such that they are unlocking on the day and will be locking up, are they the person, the individual, who could get the fine for dealing in the product, even though they may have had no role whatever in securing the stock and are simply there, getting their minimum wage payment to look after the shop? I would be grateful if the Minister could unpack what subsection (4) means in that sense.
It is right that deliberate participation in the illicit vape trade is met with serious, fierce sanctions. We must also make sure that any junior staff who are wholly innocent—who do not know anything about the matter and could not reasonably have been expected to—are not prosecuted for the actions of others. We need some clarity from the Minister on how responsibility in those cases would be apportioned, and we must again ensure that enforcement authorities are operating with clear guidance.
Clause 128 will enable courts, when convicting under clause 127, to make an order prohibiting the use of premises for the sale of vaping products for up to 12 months, and will create a further offence for managers who breach such an order. The power is of course intended to shut down problem premises that are repeatedly used for illicit trading. That is a tool that local authorities and trading standards officers—and, I suspect, Members of this place and our constituents—will very much welcome. There are many examples in constituencies across the country of illegal vapes being sold, and the communities near them suffer the impact of those criminal enterprises.
We support action to deter such enterprises, but we are also familiar with examples in which trading standards, HMRC or others go in and seize the illegal vapes—the police may be involved as well—and in a matter of hours, that same premises will reopen, selling more illegal vapes. It is great to have a power to shut down such premises, but how will it be enforced? Will the resources be in place to do that? Will there be clear criteria on when the powers will be used, and how a change of ownership of a premises could affect a ban? We may effectively see fake transfers of ownership to try to get around it, so it is important that HMRC and trading standards have robust systems in place.
Clause 129 sets out the penalty framework. On summary conviction, in England and Wales the maximum is the general magistrates limit—imprisonment, a fine or both; in Scotland, the maximum is 12 months and a statutory fine; and in Northern Ireland, it is six months and a statutory fine. So there is a little discrepancy there. On conviction on indictment, the maximum is two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. That clearly allows for flexibility to distinguish between serious organised criminal offending and smaller scale non-compliance with the law.
Of course, in the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government are effectively legislating to abolish sentences of up to 12 months, with a presumption that those will become suspended sentences. That is still a penalty, but it will mean that people are in the community rather than in jail serving their punishment, as they should be. The reality is that most people breaking this law are unlikely to actually go to prison; they may simply get a fine. Will the sentencing guidance make clear distinctions between organised criminality and smaller-scale offenders?
The final clause in the group, clause 130, deals with the issue of forfeiture. It goes beyond the general rules in clause 121 by allowing all unstuck stamps or unstamped products linked to offences under clauses 126 to 128 to be seized. In some cases, all the stock on the premises—the Minister made this point—may be forfeited if HMRC believes that it is used in a business connected with the offence. That could be a welcome measure, but we need to have some clarity about how unnecessarily broad powers could potentially be used. Will there be a clear route for traders to challenge such forfeiture of legitimate products where they consider that they have inadvertently breached the rules?
Taken together, the clauses introduce serious new powers, which is why it has been worth spending a few moments considering them and how they will actually be used. I think particularly of the power to shut down a premises for 12 months; we must ensure that that is effective, and that people are prevented from seeking to get around it by pretending to sell the business or list a new owner of the business. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points that I have raised.
Martin Wrigley
I am afraid that my training was as an engineer, rather than as a lawyer, so I apologise if I get points of standard law wrong. However, it is fascinating to read the Bill in such detail. In clause 126(3), it says,
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they did not know”
I am interested to hear how the Minister thinks that somebody might prove that they did not know something. It strikes me that it is something that a person cannot actually prove.
Secondly, in relation to clause 128, when a premises has been banned for 12 months, is there anything that prevents someone opening up the next-door premises and continuing exactly as before?
Lucy Rigby
The shadow Exchequer Secretary raised a point about the strong penalties associated with the regime. I have already set out the Government’s aim: that the enforcement mechanisms in the Bill are deliberately tough and are aimed at being a strong deterrent. We believe that the strong penalties, including custodial sentences, are justified due to the size of the illicit vaping market in the UK. Indeed, that goes to the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s point about our assessment of the illicit market and the assessment of abuse. We understand that there is a large illicit market in this area. The powers are deliberately tough, with the aim of ensuring that there is no circumvention.
I will now address the fair points that were made previously by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot and raised again in the context of these clauses. All prosecutions, as hon. Members will know, must meet the public interest test. The test that the Crown Prosecution Service must meet has two limbs: the evidential and public interest elements. Both limbs must be met for prosecutions to be brought. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot referred, fairly, to clause 126(3) and 127(3), which outline the defence that is applicable to both offences. As he helpfully mentioned, it is a defence for a person charged with offences under sections 126 and 127 to
“prove that they did not know, suspect or have reason to suspect”
that they were possessing or transferring a duty stamp that had not been affixed to a vaping product. In that regard, on the question about proof of knowledge, I return to the CPS’s test and to the burden of proof that applies in proceedings in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 127 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Publication of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 132 to 136 stand part.
Schedule 14.
Clause 137 stand part.
Government amendments 13 and 14.
Clause 138 stand part.
Lucy Rigby
Clauses 131 to 138 and Schedule 14 set out general provisions to ensure the effective implementation of the duty and the scheme.
Clause 131 allows for the publication of information to ensure effective enforcement of the duty and the scheme. Clause 132 details the instances in which information may be shared between the commissioners and any persons with functions relating to the duty. It will allow information to be transferred in both directions, ensuring successful implementation and the proper joining up of compliance efforts. For any unauthorised disclosure, the clause includes an offence under section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
The changes made by clause 133 provide a definition for local enforcement authorities and allow them to investigate whether businesses in their local areas are compliant with the duty. Clause 134 ensures that HMRC can make regulations and publish notices to make further provisions in relation to both the duty and the scheme. Clause 135 provides that regulations must be made by statutory instrument and sets out circumstances in which the made-affirmative procedure must be followed, including any provision that extends the cases in which vaping products are required to be stamped.
Clause 136 allows for schedule 14 to the Finance Act 2020 to make changes to the Finance Acts of 1994, 2007, 2008, 2017 and 2021. Clause 137 does not make changes to legislation but merely ensures that the Bill is interpreted correctly. Clause 138 provides that the duty and the scheme will commence on 1 October 2026, and that vaping products manufactured or imported before that date will be liable if a duty stamp is affixed to that
product.
Two technical amendments are proposed to clause 138. Amendment 13 clarifies the drafting to ensure elements of the regulations can come into force at the proper time. Amendment 14 puts beyond doubt that the criminal offences under these schemes can apply to vaping products, regardless of the date that they were produced or imported. The amendments ensure that the duty can be successfully administered, and neither one reflects any change in Government policy.
James Wild
We come to the final group of provisions on the important issue of the new vaping duty. I speak to clauses 131 to 138, which concern the general provisions underpinning the new vaping products duty regime. Clause 131 authorises HMRC to publish information about stamped vaping products, for the purposes of enabling retailers, consumers and other persons to assess whether a duty stamp has been activated in respect of a duty product. That is clearly a sane, sound aim, which gives retailers a way to distinguish between legal stamped products and illicit ones. However, that will only work if the data HMRC publishes is accurate and accessible. Mislabelling would harm legitimate firms, and if the system is cumbersome it will put people off using it.
Can the Minister tell us when HMRC will make available a practical, user-friendly checking mechanism—whether that is a public database, an app or some other technology—so that retailers and consumers can verify stamps quickly and easily? What safeguards will exist to correct errors swiftly where inaccurate data risks unfairly damaging a compliant business?
Clause 132 sets out a new information-sharing framework specific to the duty, letting HMRC exchange data with other bodies involved in enforcement. This is a legitimate and useful tool, but can the Minister give assurances about how the data will be logged, audited, and subject to clear internal controls?
Clause 133 delegates day-to-day enforcement to local authorities and trading standards teams, which makes sense. Last year trading standards seized over a million illegal vapes inland and detained 1.2 million at ports in England. Those powers need to be properly resourced if they are going to be effective in stamping out illegal trade, as we know that trading standards is already under considerable pressure to deliver on its various legislative requirements. It is fair to say that there is patchy implementation across the country.
What support will Government provide to local authorities to ensure consistent enforcement and genuine deterrence everywhere, not just in well-resourced areas? Counties, such as my county of Norfolk, have suffered as a result of the revised local government funding formula that the Government have put in place. I want to see them able to deal with the threat of illicit vapes in the same way as the metropolitan areas that benefit from the new formula that the Labour Government put in place.
Clause 134 gives the Treasury wide discretion to make supplementary transitional regulations under the regime. In practice, it is a broad power to fill in the blanks. Can the Minister give some confidence that it will not lead to a complex, rapidly changing rulebook? The Minister referred to the parliamentary procedure for such regulations under clause 135. To be clear, those regulations include the ability to amend an Act of Parliament, which is a considerable power. If such measures came forward, it would clearly be right to properly consult and debate them before they took effect. Will the Minister commit to formal consultation in such cases?
Clause 136 simply implements consequential amendments so that vaping products are recognised across the existing excise framework. Clause 137 deals with the definitions that determine which products fall within scope—clearly, they need to be kept up to date.
Finally, clause 138 sets the commencement and transitional arrangements. As we have discussed, businesses are expected to register from 1 April, with liability beginning from October. That is an ambitious timetable, but I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the interim guidance is available on gov.uk. I was not aware of that, so I will look it up later this evening, as she suggested.
We do not oppose any of these clauses, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether there will be formal consultation, particularly where Acts of Parliament will be changed by regulations. That is something every member of the Committee should expect.
Lucy Rigby
The shadow Exchequer Secretary asked about HMRC making compliance-checking methods available. There will be an app for access based on scans of products. It will be available before 1 October, and no scanning will be required before that date. He, fairly, asked a question about the flow of information. That is covered by subsections (3) and (4) of clause 132, which ensure that information can be used only for the purposes for which it was disclosed. Indeed, any other purpose would require further permission from the commissioners. Subsection (4) sets out the penalties that would apply for contravening the preceding provisions.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary also asked about the resources available to trading standards and local authorities. He mentioned Norfolk, is that right?
Lucy Rigby
Beautiful Norfolk—I know it very well. He compared Norfolk with more metropolitan areas. Local enforcement authorities, particularly trading standards, play a central role in tackling illicit vapes on the high street, and as has been mentioned, over 1 million illegal vapes have been seized in a single year under existing powers. Clause 133 gives local authorities the powers they need to conduct inspections and checks relating to both the duty and the scheme, to ensure that compliance work can be carried out effectively at retail level. That will complement the work of HMRC, which happens upstream.
We have already announced additional funding for trading standards in the context of wider tobacco and vaping measures, alongside £10 million for Border Force and the recruitment of over 300 HMRC compliance officers focused on this area. Giving these powers to local authorities, backed by additional resource, will help to ensure that the new regime is enforced on the ground and that compliant retailers are protected from what would otherwise be unfair competition.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 131 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 132 to 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 138
Commencement and transitional provision
Amendments made: 13, in clause 138, page 146, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) Sections 114(4) (production only in accordance with regulations) and 117(1) (duty to stamp in accordance with regulations) come into force on such day as the Treasury may by regulations appoint.”
This amendment would allow the requirements to produce and stamp vaping products in accordance with regulations to be brought into force at the same time as the regulations.
Amendment 14: in clause 138, page 146, line 27, after “2027” insert
“, and have effect in relation to vaping products irrespective of when they were produced or imported”—(Lucy Rigby.)
This amendment would clarify (in light of the fact that stamping requirements are to be set out in regulations) that the criminal offences can apply to vaping products produced or imported before the Act is passed or the regulations are made.
Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139
Introduction to CBAM
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 140 stand part.
Schedule 15.
Clauses 141 to 145 stand part.
Government amendment 15.
Clauses 146 and 147 stand part.
Dan Tomlinson
The shadow Exchequer Secretary invited the Economic Secretary to his constituency. Last week, he invited me to come on Valentine’s day to enjoy the bumper cars. I know the Economic Secretary is glad for the invite, but I am particularly glad for the one I received.
Turning to the matter at hand, clauses 139 to 147 and schedule 15 establish the core framework of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, otherwise known as the CBAM—[Interruption.]
Oliver Ryan
If the Minister is not otherwise engaged on Valentine’s day, he is always welcome in Burnley for the bumper cars.
Dan Tomlinson
Thank you. Burnley is a fantastic place to visit, and I hope to come before too long.
These clauses create the charge to CBAM, define the goods and emissions in scope, identify who is liable, and set out how the tax rate is calculated and how the relief operates. Together they form the substantive charging provisions that will underpin the operation of CBAM from 1 January 2027.
Clause 139 introduces CBAM as a new tax and signposts the structure of part 5 of the Bill. Clause 140 establishes the charge to CBAM, which applies to the emissions embodied in specified CBAM goods when they are imported into the UK. Schedule 15 defines the goods in scope, initially covering the aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron and steel sectors. Clauses 141 to 143 set out when goods are treated as imported for CBAM purposes, and who is liable for the charge. In line with established customs principles, liability rests with the importer, with detailed provisions to ensure that the correct person is identified across different importation scenarios, including goods entering via Northern Ireland or subject to special customs procedures.
Clause 144 provides relevant exemptions from the charge. Clause 145 defines “emissions embodied in a CBAM good” and provides powers for the Treasury to specify, in regulations, how those emissions are determined and evidenced. Clause 146 sets out how the CBAM rate is calculated, and clause 147 provides for carbon price relief, allowing the CBAM charge to be reduced where a relevant carbon price has been incurred overseas in relation to the same emissions. That avoids double taxation while maintaining the integrity of the mechanism. Amendment 15 will ensure that the CBAM rate functions as intended, and that CBAM goods face a carbon price comparable to what would apply if the goods were produced in the UK.
The clauses are central to mitigating carbon leakage, and supporting the UK’s path to net zero.
James Wild
I am not clear from the Minister’s comments whether he has accepted the Valentine’s invitation, but I am sure I am not alone in not expecting a member of the Committee to corpse on CBAM, which some might say is a rather dry topic.
While CBAM can play a role in ensuring a level playing field for UK manufacturers and producers, it also highlights the levies and taxes applied by the Government on energy, which means that our energy prices are much higher than our competitors. I think we all want to see that burden reduced.
At the 2024 Budget, the Government confirmed the UK will introduce this new CBAM from January 2027, covering broadly the same types of highly traded carbon-intensive basic materials, and putting a carbon price on emissions embodied in certain imported goods, so that they face a comparable cost to that paid by domestic producers. Different countries clearly regulate industrial emissions to very different standards.
UK manufacturers already have to follow obligations to measure, reduce and pay for their emissions, which are costs that we think need to be ameliorated. Extending that principle to imports should, in theory, help to prevent carbon leakage and ensure it results in real global emissions cuts, rather than simply offshoring production and pollution.
As the Minister said, the new charge will initially apply to five sectors: aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen, and iron and steel. Fertilisers, which are one of the sectors brought within the scope of CBAM, are clearly a critical input for British agricultural producers, particularly for arable farms, where fertilisers already account for around 40% of crop-specific spending and around 12% of total farm costs.
The National Farmers Union has warned about what it calls a fertiliser tax, and has said that using domestic production as the baseline for CBAM levies, despite the UK no longer producing ammonium nitrate at scale, risks a wholesale increase in fertiliser prices at a time when farm confidence, as we all know, is at rock bottom.
The direction of travel is clear. Over time, both the EU and UK will raise the cost of high-carbon fertilisers, making lower-carbon alternatives more competitive as carbon prices tighten. Applying higher taxes where the UK is not a significant producer increases input costs for our British farmers. There is a risk of downstream leakage where UK farmers pay more for fertiliser due to CBAM, while competing with imported food from non-CBAM regimes that are still benefiting from cheaper, higher-carbon inputs, again undermining British producers and our food security.
This all lands on top of the other provisions within the Bill, namely the family farm and family business tax, as well as the cuts and delays we have seen in the sustainable farming incentive and the land management payment schemes and, of course, the additional pressures that are coming through in the cost of employment.
Will the Minister set out what specific assessment the Treasury has made of the impact of CBAM on fertiliser prices, on different farm sectors and on UK food security? How does he intend to prevent downstream carbon leakage, which simply shifts emissions from factories to fields?
Some industry groups, as recently reported in the Financial Times, warn that they think the Government’s current design has flaws and could accelerate de-industrialisation rather than prevent it. A major concern is that the Government plan to apply a single sector-wide rate, based on average emissions, instead of differentiating by product type and country of origin, as I understand the EU scheme does. UK Steel, the Mineral Products Association and the Chemical Industries Association have warned that, without changes, the mechanism will leave domestic producers worse off than their overseas competitors and undermine planned investment and decarbonisation. Has the Minister modelled the impact of using a single sector-wide rate rather than a more granular approach, as well as the impact on investment, jobs and emissions in each of the covered industries?
The Chartered Institute of Taxation, which has provided considerable help and input on all the provisions of the Bill, has flagged that further uncertainty will be caused by questions about the UK and EU emissions trading schemes being linked before the implementation date. The Government and the EU announced last May that they intend to link their ETSs, with mutual exemption from CBAM as part of the package, but I understand that formal negotiations have yet to begin. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update. There are also ongoing political discussions with the EU on the interaction of the two schemes, and the EU’s CBAM is undergoing some delays. That impacts on certainty for some transactions involving Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on where those discussions have got to.
Clause 139 establishes CBAM as the new UK tax on emissions, where a broadly equivalent price has not already been paid overseas. That is the foundation of the new charge. Clause 140 defines CBAM as
“charged on the emissions embodied in a CBAM good”
when it
“is imported into the United Kingdom.”
Those goods are defined by reference to the detailed tariff codes set out in schedule 15.
Schedule 15 focuses on the initial regime for aluminium, cement, fertiliser, iron and steel products, and hydrogen, and it gives HMRC powers to keep the schedule updated in line with tariff changes. Could the Minister elaborate on why those five sectors were chosen for inclusion from 2027, and on when the Government will set out a clear timetable and test for extending CBAM to other sectors, such as glass or ceramics?
Will there be a competitive disadvantage for high-carbon sectors left outside the first tranche, as they will still be exposed to cheaper, higher-emissions imports without any corresponding border adjustment? That point has been made to me privately by some of the Minister’s colleagues who would like to see a wider scope. Has the Treasury modelled how many businesses fall just above the £50,000 annual import threshold, and is it confident that it is capturing those that have substantial business and not imposing a burden on others?
Clause 141 sets out when a good is treated as imported into the UK for CBAM. It covers standard imports and goods under special customs procedures, such as warehousing and movements between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. The clause intends to dovetail CBAM with existing customs laws. In Committee, I have repeatedly highlighted the importance of practical guidance: the hands-on support that HMRC will give to smaller and medium-sized importers —I suggest that the £50,000 limit is fairly low.
Clause 142 ensures that where
“a CBAM good has been declared for a special customs procedure,”
processed into a non-CBAM good and then imported, CBAM is still charged on those emissions. This anti-avoidance provision aims to prevent companies from avoiding CBAM by doing limited processing to move a good out of the product list before releasing it into free circulation. The provision is welcome, as it would prevent people from dodging the rules.
Clause 143 places the liability for CBAM on the importer, broadly mirroring customs law by tying liability to the person in whose name the customs declaration is made, or on whose behalf it is made. That is intended to provide certainty, which is important, by aligning CBAM with established customs concepts and practices. Will HMRC give simple template wording or clear guidance so that businesses know how to declare who is responsible for CBAM and for sharing information throughout the supply chain?
The Chartered Institute of Taxation has also raised an important question. As the Minister will know, some businesses operate within VAT groups. If they import goods, they hold an EORI—economic operators registration and identification—number, which anyone who lived through the Brexit negotiations and debates will be familiar with. Under HMRC guidance, one VAT group member with an EORI number can make a customs declaration on behalf of another member. However, this group of clauses does not appear to allow for the formation of a CBAM group similar to a VAT or plastic packaging tax group.
It is unclear how the measures affect those liable under the clause where one VAT group member uses another’s EORI number. If the current easement does not apply to CBAM goods, each member may need its own EORI number, which would add some complexity and administrative burden. Will the Minister clarify the position and understanding on that? If an issue needs to be addressed, will the Government introduce legislation to allow for CBAM grouping to maintain the existing simplifications, as I am sure is their intention?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and engagement. This is one of the largest parts of the Bill, and sets out a significant change to taxation and the treatment of imports in order, as he says, to support domestic businesses that may face higher prices than companies seeking to export to the UK that have cheaper prices and higher emissions.
To go through some of the questions that were asked, the criteria that were looked at internally—over many years and starting under the previous Government; it has taken five years of work to determine which sectors will be in scope—were whether sectors were already in scope of the UK emissions trading scheme, because it is important that those are aligned; whether there was real risk of carbon leakage; and whether it was feasible to implement in 2027. That is why these five sectors were chosen, after significant engagement across Government and with stakeholders. The sectoral scope will be kept under review, and there are some sectors that the Government will continue to have conversations with in the coming weeks to understand their concerns and the benefits that there may be to widening the scope in future. We will keep it under review because, at the moment, the focus is on making sure that we can implement this significant change. It is a long piece of legislation and there are lots of good questions, but we want to get this in as drafted first.
The shadow Minister made several points regarding the sectors that are already in and the extent to which, in his words, they might be made “worse off”. It is important to note that they will be better off than without a CBAM in terms of competition and fairness in imports. At the moment, there is no CBAM, so the imports that come to the UK in these five sectors are, in a sense, undercutting domestic production if we have higher costs. With the introduction of CBAM, that undercutting will be significantly reduced. The prices faced by importers will be brought into line with those faced by those companies in the UK. There is a valid point to make about the detail and specificity with which the carbon prices that are used within CBAM are set, and that is something that I certainly want to keep under review, but it is good and it is right that we make progress with CBAM as set out in the legislation.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister talks about people being better off, but my farmers are very concerned about the fertiliser impact. Four or five years ago, fertiliser was around £180 a tonne; today it is about £400 a tonne, and the introduction of CBAM might put another £100 on top of that. Farmers’ margins are so narrow that they simply have to pass that on, which will have a direct effect on food prices in this country. The Minister says that there will be talks about that. Farmers should be front and centre of those talks, because this is really worrying.
Dan Tomlinson
We will engage, and have engaged, with the industries that are directly affected by this change, including the fertiliser industry, and those for whom there will be knock-on effects from higher import prices. With fertiliser in particular, it is worth noting that UK-based fertiliser manufacturers have received more free allowances in recent years than they needed to surrender to be able to cover their emissions. As such, they are not, in practice, paying a carbon price at the moment. The CBAM rate will therefore be set at a low level to reflect that. It is something that I have been looking at as Minster because of these issues, and we expect the initial impact of CBAM on the fertiliser sector to be very modest. None the less I take the point that the hon. Member raises, and the Government will continue to look at it.
On the point around groupings and EORI numbers, that is not a phrase that I have come across before, but I am glad that I have heard it. I will make sure to remind myself of the torturous Brexit process and will, I am sure, understand the context there in more detail. We engaged with businesses in advance of making the proposal and feedback indicated that group treatment would confer relatively minimal benefits, so we chose not to implement it at this time. We will, of course, keep that under review though.
CBAM is a significant change that has been welcomed by many of the industries in the UK and should go a long way to levelling the playing field for those firms that are producing in these five sectors.
The Chair
The Minister courteously indicated to me that he has another assignation in Westminster Hall. Exceptionally, I will allow him to leave now, although that is unusual in the middle of a series of decisions. The Minister may make his way out quietly.
While I am on my feet, the cold is getting to my brain, but we all know that the heating system is lamentable at the moment. I shall be in the Chair for the first part of this afternoon as well, so if hon. Members feel the need to wear something warmer, I regard personal comfort as more important than sartorial elegance. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is not an invitation to be outrageous—but please ensure that your personal comfort is given attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 139 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 140 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clauses 141 to 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 146
Rate
Amendment made: 15, in clause 146, page 154, line 17, at end insert—
“(4A) In determining the ‘baseline free allocation percentage’ in relation to a CBAM sector, ignore any scheme year in which there were no sectoral emissions.”—(Lucy Rigby.)
This amendment clarifies that scheme years in which there were no sectoral emissions should be ignored when determining the baseline free allocation percentage in relation to a CBAM sector.
Clause 146, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 148
Administration and enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 16.
Clause 149 stand part.
Schedule 17.
Lucy Rigby
I appreciate your accommodation of the cold in the room, Sir Roger. I hope this afternoon proves that we can be both sartorially elegant and warm. Committee members may take their own view, but I look forward to this afternoon.
Clauses 148 and 149 and schedules 16 and 17 provide the administrative and enforcement framework necessary to ensure the effective operation of CBAM. They ensure that CBAM can be administered properly by HMRC, complied with by businesses, and enforced where necessary.
The clause introduces schedule 16, which makes detailed provision for the administration and enforcement of CBAM, including requirements for registration, accounting periods, CBAM returns, record keeping, payment deadlines, assessments, penalties and appeals. The schedule aligns CBAM administration with established HMRC processes where possible, helping to minimise additional burdens on businesses while ensuring robust compliance.
Clause 149 introduces schedule 17, which provides for criminal offences relating to CBAM. Those offences apply in serious cases, such as deliberate evasion or fraudulent behaviour, and mirror existing approaches taken elsewhere in the tax system. The inclusion of criminal offences ensures that appropriate deterrents are in place, protecting the integrity of the regime and ensuring a level playing field for compliant businesses.
Together, clauses 148 and 149 provide the necessary administrative and enforcement backbone for CBAM. They ensure that the regime is credible, enforceable and fair, while giving HMRC the tools it needs to administer CBAM effectively. I commend the clauses and schedules 16 and 17 to the Committee.
James Wild
We are sorry to see the Exchequer Secretary disappear. I hope that he comes back this afternoon for our further deliberations.
The clause introduces schedule 16, providing for the administration and enforcement of CBAM. They hand responsibility for managing this new carbon import charge to HMRC, and set out detailed compliance rules, including registration, accounting periods, returns, assessments and appeals. The schedule runs to 27 pages of text. Under these measures, any business importing CBAM goods worth more than £50,000 in a 12-month period, or expecting to reach that threshold within 30 days, must register, report each quarter and keep detailed records potentially for up to six years. HMRC will have wide discretion to make “best judgment” assessments and to counteract any artificial separation of business activities.
Mr Reynolds
The £50,000 threshold imposed as part of schedule 16 is incredibly low. It catches small construction firms importing tonnes of cement or steel, materials that could be consumed in one single medium-sized building project. The businesses importing such volumes will lack the resource of dedicated compliance teams and environmental consultants for quarterly emission verification. Meanwhile, large industrial importers, responsible for the vast majority of imported carbon emissions, face identical per unit compliance obligations, giving them a competitive advantage through their economies of scale.
CBAM introduces entirely new foreign concepts to normal commercial activities, such as calculating the emissions across international supply chains, determining whether carbon prices were paid in origin countries and applying complex fee allocation formulas. A family-run metalworking shop that has successfully filed VAT for 20 years must suddenly become an expert in lifetime emission methodologies and international carbon-pricing verifications. I do not believe that the Government have published any analysis comparing the £50,000 threshold to alternatives such £100,000 or £250,000 thresholds. I am interested to hear from the Minister what verification and changes have been made, and what assessment has been made of the compliance costs for various businesses.
Schedule 16 also introduces a £500 fixed penalty plus a £40 daily charge for failure to notify a change of circumstances, and a £500 penalty for record-keeping failures. While paragraph 40 of schedule 16 includes a reasonable excuse defence, HMRC interprets that quite narrowly as applying to circumstances such as illness, postal strikes or computer failures. The idea that the system or methodology was confusing or, “My supplier could not provide the data,” typically do not fall within the reasonable excuse defence.
The problem here is timings: the comprehensive penalties for CBAM take effect on 1 January 2027, so businesses navigating entirely unprecedented requirements are going to have a challenge. I note that the EU’s CBAM began with a transitional reporting period before enforcement ramped up, whereas the UK’s has no such mechanism.
These are not familiar tax concepts for lots of businesses. They involve new software, new tracking and international verification. These things have not been done in British business before, and I believe that small importers will face penalties while genuinely trying to comply with the regulations. The Liberal Democrats are not against the concept of a CBAM, but we take issue with the way that it has been put together.
Has the Minister considered a 12-month transitional period during which full penalties for deliberate avoidance are maintained but an allowance is given for honest compliance?
James Wild
I share the hon. Member’s concerns about the £50,000 threshold. Has he considered what might be a more appropriate level, in order to reduce the impact on smaller producers?
Mr Reynolds
The EU, for its CBAM, has not set a specific number in that way; it has set a number of tonnes of product. I would be interested to hear from the Government what work has been done to analyse the different impacts of £50,000, £100,000 and £250,000. The Treasury must have done some work on this, but I could not see any. We need the answer to that in order to find out where we stand.
Let me finish by saying that a transitional period may be quite beneficial. It would make sure that we are not setting our small and medium-sized enterprises up to fail and penalising them when they try to do the right thing but unfortunately, because of the complications in the system, they are unable to.
Lucy Rigby
The shadow Exchequer Secretary’s points about the criminal offences are similar to some of the points that were raised earlier in relation to other criminal offences set out in the Bill. I made the point in relation to those other offences, and I make it again here, about the standards that the CPS, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, has to meet in satisfying both the evidential test and the public interest test. I am not sure that I need to take up the invitation to liaise with the Law Officers in that regard.
Questions were fairly raised about proportionality and the burden on businesses. The UK CBAM will operate like a conventional tax, in order to simplify the administrative and compliance burden for those who need to comply without, we think, undermining the environmental integrity of CBAM. However, the Government recognise that alignment with existing regimes—the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, referred to the EU CBAM and, indeed, to the ETS—can reduce administrative burdens, so where possible we will align with and build upon existing methodologies for calculating embodied emissions, as well as rules for monitoring reporting and verification under the ETS.
As hon. Members know, CBAM is not expected to have significant macroeconomic impacts or a significant impact on prices for individuals, households and families. CBAM imports make up only around 1% of average UK industry input costs. Therefore, as the Exchequer Secretary said, the Government do not expect CBAM to have a material impact on food prices, and the impact on farmers would be modest.
On the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s point about thresholds, the threshold will retain over 99% of CBAM imports while removing 80% of otherwise registrable businesses, and over 70% of those removed from CBAM altogether by the threshold will be micro, small and medium-sized businesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 148 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clause 150
Supplementary amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 18.
Clauses 151 to 155 stand part.
Lucy Rigby
Clauses 150 to 155 and schedule 18 make the general, supplementary and commencement provisions for CBAM. They are designed to ensure that CBAM integrates properly with the wider statute book, operates coherently over time and comes into force as intended from 1 January 2027.
More specifically, clause 150 introduces schedule 18, which makes supplementary amendments to other legislation to ensure that CBAM operates consistently alongside existing customs and tax law.
Clauses 151 and 152 provide key definitions and interpretation provisions, including the meaning of “emissions”, “carbon dioxide equivalent”, “importer” and “CBAM good”. These clauses are designed to ensure clarity and legal certainty across the regime.
Clause 153 provides a power to make provision in relation to linked emissions trading schemes. This allows imported goods originating in countries with linked emissions trading scheme arrangements to be excluded from CBAM, reflecting international co-operation and avoiding unnecessary duplication.
Clause 154 sets out how regulations and notices under CBAM are to be made, including the applicable parliamentary procedures, to ensure appropriate scrutiny, with affirmative or made affirmative procedures applying where regulations have a significant impact.
Clause 155 provides for commencement and transitional arrangements. CBAM will apply to goods imported on or after 1 January 2027, with powers to smooth the transition during the initial years of operation.
In summary, clauses 150 to 155 and schedule 18 provide the essential supporting framework that allows for the effective functioning of CBAM, and I commend them to the Committee.
James Wild
We come to the final group on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Clause 150, along with schedule 18, makes the technical but critical changes needed to fit CBAM into the UK’s existing tax and enforcement framework. These measures ensure that the new tax uses the same information gathering powers, collection mechanisms and penalties already in place. It is sensible to integrate CBAM in this way without creating a new process.
Clause 151 defines what we mean by “emissions” for CBAM purposes and firmly anchors the tax in the existing climate policy framework by adopting the definition in the Climate Change Act 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions will be measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is sensible.
Clause 152 sets out the interpretive rules for part 5 of the Bill, working alongside clause 151 and schedule 16 to ensure that terminology throughout CBAM is coherent.
Clause 153 gives the Treasury the power to adjust CBAM if the UK’s emissions trading scheme is linked to another country’s carbon pricing system. The Minister touched on this briefly, but as I mentioned in the debate on an earlier group, in May the Government and the EU formally agreed to work towards linking their emissions trading systems to align carbon markets. I do not think the Exchequer Secretary responded to me on that point before he left the Committee. I am conscious that this is not the Minister’s portfolio, but can she give an update on where the EU-UK negotiations on the linkage have got to? This is a broad delegated power that could have real implications for competitiveness, trade and treatment of foreign carbon prices. We have expressed concerns previously about the linkage with the EU ETS and the higher charges that might hit UK businesses as a result. I would be grateful for an update on where the negotiations have got to—if they have actually started—and how the Treasury will ensure that there is proper consultation and debate before using the powers.
Lucy Rigby
The shadow Exchequer Secretary referred to some of the points agreed at the EU-UK summit last May. As he knows, the EU and the UK agreed to work towards linking our respective ETSs. He will not expect me to comment on ongoing negotiations, so I will not do that, but I will say that we are committed to working closely with all interested stakeholders, including international partners, through the CBAM policy design process and, of course, we consulted extensively on the design and implementation of this measure.
We have conducted information sessions at the World Trade Organisation and had extensive bilateral engagement with over 30 jurisdictions since announcing our intention to introduce a CBAM in December 2023. The UK will also engage through the UK CBAM international group, which serves as a forum through which the UK Government can understand the views of international partners and share updates.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary will forgive me for reiterating what I know he already knows, which is that all tax policy is kept under review. He rightly refers to our desire to smooth the transition—that is absolutely key. We will ensure that there is sufficient time built in to facilitate that smooth transition, and time to test systems as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 150 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clauses 151 to 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 156
Prohibition of promotion of certain tax avoidance arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lucy Rigby
Clauses 156 to 162 introduce a new statutory prohibition on the promotion of tax avoidance arrangements. If you will forgive me, Sir Roger, I will set out a little more background on these clauses than I have on others, which I think is important.
HMRC already can and regularly does stop people promoting marketed avoidance schemes, where it can identify the person or company doing the promotion. However, the controlling minds behind avoidance schemes often simply close down the company they use to promote the scheme before promoting a very similar scheme from a new company with different directors—everyone will be familiar with that concept of phoenixing. HMRC needs to identify and issue a new stop notice to each new entity and, during that time, promoters continue to sell the scheme and cause harm to taxpayers and the UK tax system. This measure will prohibit certain tax avoidance schemes from being promoted without HMRC first having to notify promoters, and will put a stop to promoters playing a game of cat and mouse with HMRC.
These clauses are about targeting those who continue to promote tax avoidance. They are not intended to be directed against legitimate tax advisers who are operating to a high professional standard but, while acting in good faith, make genuine mistakes. Furthermore, the Exchequer Secretary has asked HMRC officials to work with stakeholders in developing published guidance to address the fine detail of exactly how the prohibition will work in practice.
I turn to the individual clauses. Clause 156 will prohibit the promotion of avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success, as well as enabling HMRC commissioners to prohibit further arrangements in regulations. Any arrangements specified must have been, or be likely to be, marketed to seek a particular tax advantage, unlikely to result in that tax advantage, and likely to cause harm to taxpayers.
Clause 157 provides for the definition of “promotion” of arrangements. It includes important exemptions, such as where goods and services are provided on commercial terms without the knowledge that they are being used to promote tax avoidance, or where legally privileged advice or information is provided.
Clause 158 requires regulations implementing this policy change to be subject to the made affirmative procedure. That will ensure that the regulations take effect immediately, protecting the Revenue and taxpayers, while also ensuring proper oversight by this House.
For anyone breaching the prohibition or the regulations, civil penalties may apply under clause 159, or a criminal offence under clause 160. Under clause 161, where a responsible person has led an entity or partnership to commit a criminal offence through their consent, connivance or neglect, that criminal offence will also apply to them. Clause 162 contains relevant definitions and commencement provisions.
In summary, this measure will allow HMRC to stop the promotion of tax avoidance and tackle the persistent group of promoters. It will ensure that taxpayers and the UK tax system are protected from the harm caused by these promoters.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members, please, to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill. Time Witness Until no later than 10.00 am Royal United Services Institute; DLA Piper Until no later than 10.40 am techUK; Nine23; ISC2 Until no later than 11.25 am Cisco; Darktrace; NCC Group; Amazon Until no later than 2.40 pm Information Commissioner's Office; Ofcom; Ofgem Until no later than 3.00 pm Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China Until no later than 3.20 pm Professor John Child, Professor of Criminal Law, University of Birmingham Until no later than 3.40 pm National Police Chiefs’ Council Until no later than 4.00 pm The Worshipful Company of Information Technologists Until no later than 4.20 pm NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Until no later than 4.50 pm Fortinet; Palo Alto Networks Until no later than 5.10 pm Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 3 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 February;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 February;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 February;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 March;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 March;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 3 February in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 22; Schedule 1; Clause 23; Schedule 2; Clauses 24 to 61; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 5 March.—(Kanishka Narayan.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kanishka Narayan.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Kanishka Narayan.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again. We have heard declarations of interest. If there are any other others, please say. We will now hear oral evidence from Jen Ellis, associate fellow for cyber and tech at the Royal United Services Institute, who is joining us online, and David Cook, who is a partner at DLA Piper. Thank you for coming.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed to. For this session, we have until 10 am. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Q
Jen Ellis: There is a thing that you always hear people say in the cyber-security industry which is, “There are no silver bullets”. There is no quick fix or one easy thing, and that definitely applies when looking at policy as well. I cannot give you a nice, easy, pat answer to how we solve the problem of attacks like the ones we saw last year. What I can say is that, looking at the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill specifically, I think it could include companies above a certain size or impact to the UK economy. The Bill currently goes sector by sector— which makes lots of sense, to focus on essential services—but I think we could say there is another bucket where organisations beyond a certain level of impact on the economy would also be covered. That could be something like the FTSE350. Including those might be one way to go about it, but it is worth noting that it would not simply solve the problem because the problem is complex and multi-faceted, and this is just one piece of legislation.
David Cook: With respect to NIS2, that is an example of a whole suite of laws that have come in across the European Union—the Digital Decade law; I think there is something like 10 or 15 of these new laws. They do all sorts of different things, and NIS2 sits within that. NIS2 is the reform of the NIS directive, which is the current state of play in UK law. NIS2 gives certainty and definition, by way of the legislation itself and then the implementing legislation, which means that organisations have had a run-up at the issue and a wholesale governance programme, which takes a number of years, but they know where they are headed, because it is a fixed point in the distance, on the horizon.
The Bill we are talking about today has the same framework as a base. The plan then is that secondary legislation can be used in a much more agile way to introduce changes quickly, in the light of the moving parts within the geopolitical ecosystem outside the walls. For global organisations with governance that spans jurisdictions, a lack of certainty is unhelpful. Understanding where they need to get to often requires a multi-year programme of reform. I can see the benefits of having an agile, flexible system, but organisations—especially global ones, which are the sort within the scope of this Bill—need time to prepare, recruit people, get the skillset in place, and understand where they need to get to. That fixed future point needs to be defined.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
David Cook: There is reform all over the world. At its core, we have got a European law that is transposed in UK national legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation. That talks about personal data and has been seen as the gold standard all over the world. Different jurisdictions have implemented, not quite a copycat law, but one that looks a lot like the GDPR, so organisations have something that they can target, and then within their territory they are often going to hit a compliance threshold as well. Because of changes in the geopolitical environment, we are seeing—for example in Europe, but also in Australia and the United States—specific laws coming in that look at the supply chain in different sectors and provide for more onerous obligations. We are seeing that in the environment. NIS2 is being transposed into national laws. Organisations take a long time to get to the point of compliance. We are probably behind the curve, but this is not a new concept. Adapting to change within tech and change within how organisations themselves are relying on a supply chain that is more vulnerable and fragile is common.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q
Jen Ellis: For sure, it should not come down to whether you are public or private; it should be about impact. Figuring out how to measure that is challenging. I will leave that problem with policymakers—you’re welcome. I do not think it is about the number of employees. We have to think about impact in a much more pragmatic way. In the tech sector, relatively small companies can have a very profound impact because they happen to be the thing that is used by everybody. Part of the problem with security is that you have small teams running things that are used ubiquitously.
We have to think a little differently about this. We have seen outages in recent years that are not necessarily maliciously driven, but have demonstrated to us how reliant we are on technology and how widespread the impact can be, even of something like a local managed service provider. One that happened to provide managed services for a whole region’s local government went down in Germany and it knocked out all local services for some time. You are absolutely right: we should be looking at privately held companies as well. We should be thinking about impact, but measuring impact and figuring out who is in scope and who is not will be really challenging. We will have to start looking down the supply chain, where it gets a lot more complex.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Q
Jen Ellis: As a starting point, I will clarify that I am a fellow at RUSI. I work closely with Jamie, but I do not work for RUSI. I also take no responsibility for Jamie’s comments.
On the comparisons, David alluded to the fact that Europe is a little bit ahead of us. NIS2, its update to NIS1, came into force three years ago with a dangling timeline: nations had until October 2024 to implement it. My understanding is that not everybody has implemented it amazingly effectively as yet. There is some lag across the member states. I do not think we are too out of scope of what NIS2 includes. However, we are talking about primary legislation now; a lot of the detail will be in the secondary legislation. We do not necessarily know exactly how those two things will line up against each other.
The UK seems to be taking a bit of a different approach. The EU has very specifically tried to make the detail as clearly mandated as possible, because it wants all the member states to adopt the same basis of requirements, which is different from NIS1, whereas it seems as though the UK wants to provide a little bit of flexibility for the regulators to “choose their own adventure”. I am not sure that is the best approach. We might end up with a pretty disparate set of experiences. That might be really confusing for organisations that are covered by more than one competent authority.
The main things that NIS2 and CSRB are looking at are pretty aligned. There is a lot of focus on the same things. It is about expanding scope to make sure that we keep up with what we believe “essential” now looks at, and there is a lot of focus on increased incident reporting and information sharing. Again, the devil will be in the detail in the secondary legislation.
The other thing I would say goes back to the earlier question about what is happening internationally. The nations that David mentioned, like Australia or the jurisdiction around the EU, are really proactive on cyber policy—as is the UK. They are taking a really holistic view, which David alluded to in his introduction, and are really looking at how all the pieces fit together. I am not sure that it is always super clear that the UK is doing the same. I think there is an effort to do so, and UK policymakers are very proactive on cyber policy and are looking at different areas to work on, but the view of how it all goes together may not be as clear. One area where we are definitely behind is legislating around vendor behaviour and what we expect from the people who are making and selling technology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Q
Jen Ellis: Again, that is a hugely complex question to cover in a short amount of the time. One of the challenges that we face in UK is that we are a 99% small and mediums economy. It is hard to think about how to place more burdens on small and medium businesses, what they can reasonably get done and what resources are available. That said, that is the problem that we have to deal with; we have to figure out how to make progress.
There is also a challenge here, in that we tend to focus a lot on the behaviour of the victim. It is understandable why—that is the side that we can control—but we are missing the middle piece. There are the bad guys, who we cannot control but who we can try to prosecute and bring to task; and there are the victims, who we can control, and we focus a lot on that—CSRB focuses on that side. Then there is the middle ground of enablers. They are not intending to be enablers, but they are the people who are creating the platforms, mediums and technology. I am not sure that we are where we could be in thinking about how to set a baseline for them. We have a lot of voluntary codes, which is fantastic—that is a really good starting point—but it is about the value of the voluntary and how much it requires behavioural change. What you see is that the organisations that are already doing well and taking security seriously are following the voluntary codes because they were already investing, but there is a really long tail of organisations that are not.
Any policy approach, legislation or otherwise, comes down to the fact that you can build the best thing in the world, but you need a plan for adoption or the engagement piece—what it looks like to go into communities and see how people are wrestling with this stuff and the challenges that are blocking adoption. You also need to think about how to address and remove those challenges, and, where necessary, how to ensure appropriate enforcement, accountability and transparency. That is critical, and I am not sure that we see a huge amount of that at the moment. That is an area where there is potential for growth.
With CSRB, the piece around enforcement is going to be critical, and not just for the covered entities. We are also giving new authorities to the regulators, so what are we doing to say to them, “We expect you to use them, to be accountable for using them and to demonstrate that your sector is improving”? There needs to be stronger conversations about what it looks like to not meet the requirements. We should be looking more broadly, beyond just telling small companies to do more. If we are going to tell small companies to do more, how do we make it something that they can prioritise, care about and take seriously, in the same way that health and safety is taken seriously?
David Cook: To achieve the outcome in question, which is about the practicalities of a supply chain where smaller entities are relying on it, I can see the benefit of bringing those small entities in scope, but there could be something rather more forthright in the legislation on how the supply chain is dealt with on a contractual basis. In reality, we see that when a smaller entity tries to contract with a much larger entity—an IT outsourced provider, for example—it may find pushback if the contractual terms that it asks for would help it but are not required under legislation.
Where an organisation can rely on the GDPR, which has very specific requirements as to what contracts should contain, or the Digital Operational Resilience Act, which is a European financial services law and is very prescriptive as to what a contract must contain, any kind of entity doing deals and entering into a contract cannot really push back, because the requirements are set out in stone. The Bill does not have a similar requirement as to what a contract with providers might look like.
Pushing that requirement into the negotiation between, for example, a massive global IT outsourced provider and a much smaller entity means either that we will see piecemeal clauses that do not always achieve the outcomes you are after, or that we will not see those clauses in place at all because of the commercial reality. Having a similarly prescriptive set of requirements for what that contract would contain means that anybody negotiating could point to the law and say, “We have to have this in place, and there’s no wriggle room.” That would achieve the outcome you are after: those small entities would all have identical contracts, at least as a baseline.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Q
David Cook: The original NIS regulations came out of a directive from 2016, so this is 10 years old now, and the world changes quickly, especially when it comes to technology. Not only is this supply chain vulnerability systemic, but it causes a significant risk to UK and global businesses. Ransomware groups, threat actors or cyber-criminals—however you want to badge that—are looking for a one-to-many model. Rather than going after each organisation piecemeal, if they can find a route through one organisation that leads to millions, they will always follow it. At the moment, they are out of scope.
The reality is that those organisations, which are global in nature, often do not pay due regard to UK law because they are acting all over the world and we are one of many jurisdictions. They are the threat vector that is allowing an attack into an organisation, but it then sits with the organisations that are attacked to deal with the fallout. Often, although they do not get away scot-free, they are outside legislative scrutiny and can carry on operating as they did before. That causes a vulnerability. The one-to-many attack route is a vulnerability, and at the moment the law is lacking in how it is equipped to deal with the fallout.
Jen Ellis: In terms of what the landscape looks like, our dialogue often has a huge focus on cyber-crime and we look a lot at data protection and that kind of thing. Last year, we saw the impact of disruptive attacks, but in the past few years we have also heard a lot more about state-sponsored attacks.
I do not know how familiar everyone in the room is with Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon; they were widespread nation-state attacks that were uncovered in the US. We are not immune to such attacks; we could just as easily fall victim to them. We should take the discovery of Volt Typhoon as a massive wake-up call to the fact that although we are aware of the challenge, we are not moving fast enough to address it. Volt Typhoon particularly targeted US critical infrastructure, with a view to being able to massively disrupt it at scale should a reason to do so arise. We cannot have that level of disruption across our society; the impacts would be catastrophic.
Part of what NIS is doing and what the CSRB is looking to do is to take NIS and update it to make sure that it is covering the relevant things, but I also hope that we will see a new level of urgency and an understanding that the risks are very prevalent and are coming from different sources with all sorts of different motivations. There is huge complexity, which David has spoken to, around the supply chain. We really need to see the critical infrastructure and the core service providers becoming hugely more vigilant and taking their role as providers of a critical service very seriously when it comes to security. They need to think about what they are doing to be part of the solution and to harden and protect the UK against outside interference.
David Cook: By way of example, NIS1 talks about reporting to the regulator if there is a significant impact. What we are seeing with some of the attacks that Jen has spoken about is pre-positioning, whereby a criminal or a threat actor sits on the network and the environment and waits for the day when they are going to push the big red button and cause an attack. That is outside NIS1: if that sort of issue were identified, it would not be reportable to the regulator. The regulator would therefore not have any visibility of it.
NIS2 and the Bill talk about something being identified that is caused by or is capable of causing severe operational disruption. It widens the ambit of visibility and allows the UK state, as well as regulators, to understand what is going in the environment more broadly, because if there are trends—if a number of organisations report to a regulator that they have found that pre-positioning—they know that a malicious actor is planning something. The footprints are there.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Q
Jen Ellis: You have covered a lot of territory there; I will try to break it down. If you look at the attacks last year, all the companies you mentioned were investing in cyber-security. There is a difficulty here, because there is no such thing as being bullet-proof or secure. You are always trying to raise the barriers as high as you can and make it harder for attackers to be successful. The three attacks you mentioned were highly targeted attacks. The example of Volt Typhoon in the US was also highly targeted. These are attackers who are highly motivated to go after specific entities and who will keep going until they get somewhere. It is really hard to defend against stuff like that. What you are trying to do is remove the chances of all the opportunistic stuff happening.
So, first, we are not going to become secure as such, but we are trying to minimise the risk as much as possible. Secondly, it is really complex to do it; we saw last year the examples of companies that, even though they had invested, still missed some things. Even in the discussions that they had had around cyber-insurance, they had massively underestimated the cost of the level of disruption that they experienced. Part of it is that we are still trying to figure out how things will happen, what the impacts will be and what that will look like in the long term.
There is also a long tail of companies that are not investing, or not investing enough. Hopefully, this legislation will help with that, but more importantly, you want to see regulators engaging on the issue, talking to the entities they cover and going on a journey with them to understand what the risks are and where they need to get to. If you are talking about critical providers and essential services, it is really hard for an organisation—in its own mind or in being answerable to its board or investors—to justify spend on cyber-security. If you are a hospital saying that you are putting money towards security programmes rather than beds or diagnostics, that is an incredibly difficult conversation to have. One of the good things about CSRB, hopefully, is that it will legitimise choices and conversations in which people say, “Investing time and resources into cyber-security is investing time and resources into providing a critical, essential service, and it is okay to make those pay-off choices—they have to be made.”
Part of it is that when you are running an organisation, it is so hard to think about all the different elements. The problem with cyber-security—we need to be clear about this—is that with a lot of things that we ask organisations to do, you say, “You have to make this investment to get to this point,” and then you move on. So they might take a loan, the Government might help them in some way, or they might deprioritise other spending for a set period so that they can go and invest in something, get up to date on something or build out something; then they are done, and they can move back to a normal operating state.
Security is not that. It is expensive, complex and multifaceted. We are asking organisations of all sizes in the UK, many of which are not large, to invest in perpetuity. We are asking them to increase investment over time and build maturity. That is not a small ask, so we need to understand that there are very reasonable dynamics at play here that mean that we are not where we need to be. At the same time, we need a lot more urgency and focus. It is really important to get the regulators engaged; get them to prioritise this; have them work with their sectors, bring their sectors along and build that maturity; and legitimise the investment of time and resources for critical infrastructure.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Q
David Cook: The legislation talks about secondary legislation, so it allows for an agile, flexible programme whereby organisations can be brought within scope very quickly if concerns make that necessary. What that leaves us with, though, is that although legislation can be changed quickly, organisations often cannot. Where there is a definition, as we see with NIS2, as to which entities are in scope, organisations can embark on a multi-year programme to get into a compliant position. They can throw money at it, effectively.
What this legislation talks about, through the secondary legislation, is bringing organisations into scope and mandating specific security controls or specific requirements on those organisations in terms of security, but while the law might come in over a weekend, organisational change will not necessarily follow. There is a potential issue there. I can see the benefit and attractiveness of secondary legislation being used to achieve that aim, but having a clearer baseline as to what that sort of scope might look like—it could be ramped up or down, and the volume could be turned up or down, depending on need—would be more helpful. Reducing scope while diverging from NIS2 might be a benefit in terms of the commercial reality, but it might be a misstep in terms of security and the long tail that it takes to get more secure.
The Chair
Thank you. I am going to bring Allison Gardner in, because she has been waiting. You have two minutes, Allison.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Q
Jen Ellis: That is a great question, and a tricky one. We talk a lot about training and security awareness, and unfortunately I think it becomes yet another tick box: you start a job and watch your little sexual harassment training video, then you watch your cyber-security training video, and probably the former sticks with you better than the latter. I think we have to change that. We have to change that dynamic.
I go back to my last answer, which was that I think one of the strengths of the Bill is that, hopefully, it will enable the regulators to engage much more on this topic and therefore to engage their covered entities much more. That is what we need to see. We need to see the leadership in organisations engage with the topic of cyber-security, not as a chore, as a tick-box exercise or as that headline they read about JLR, but actually as something that matters to their organisation—as something they are going to engage with at a board and executive team level, all the way down through the organisation. Cultural change comes from the top, typically, and we need to see that level of change.
I do not think that there is anything specific in the legislation, as it is currently written, that says, “And this,” in flashing lights, “is going to change the human factors piece.” I think that the devil will be in the detail of the secondary legislation, and then in what the regulators specifically ask for. But there does need to be a general shift in the culture, whereby as sectors generally we start to talk more about this as a requirement. The financial services sector has talked about security for a long time—it has been a reality for it—but I am not sure how true that is, at breadth, in something like the water industry.
I hope that that will change. I hope that we will start to see having those conversations at the top levels, and then all the way down, becoming more of a cultural norm. Unfortunately, you cannot create culture change quickly. When it comes to talking about human factors, it is about people becoming much more aware of it and thinking more about it. That will take time—
The Chair
Order. Thank you very much, but I have to cut you off there.
Jen Ellis: Sorry for taking too long.
The Chair
No, you have been brilliant.
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, may I thank you both for sparing time from your busy schedules to give evidence this morning?
Examination of Witnesses
Jill Broom, Stuart McKean and Dr Sanjana Mehta gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone, and welcome. We will now hear oral evidence from Jill Broom, head of cyber-resilience at techUK, from Stuart McKean, chairman of Nine23, and from Dr Sanjana Mehta, senior director for advocacy at ISC2. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed for this session; we have until 10.40 am. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Dr Sanjana Mehta: Good morning. My name is Sanjana; I work as senior director, advocacy, at ISC2.
Jill Broom: Good morning. My name is Jill Broom; I am head of cyber-resilience at techUK, the trade association for the technology industry in the UK.
Stuart McKean: Good morning. I am Stuart McKean; I am the founder and chairman of Nine23. We are a small MSP, based in the UK.
Dr Spencer
Q
My second question is a bit more technical. Do you consider that the definition in the Bill of a managed service provider is sufficiently clear and certain for businesses to understand whether they are in scope or out of scope of the Bill?
Dr Sanjana Mehta: I appear before the Committee today on behalf of ISC2, which is the world’s largest not-for-profit membership association for cyber-security professionals. We have 265,000 members around the world and 10,000-plus members in the UK.
On your question about sectoral scope, our central message is that we welcome the introduction of the Bill and we believe that it will go a long way towards improving the cyber-resilience of UK plc. Yes, there are certain sectors that are outside the scope of the Bill, and we believe that there are a number of non-legislative measures that could be used to enhance the cyber-security of other industries and parts of the sector. In particular, the forthcoming national cyber action plan should be used as a delivery vehicle for improving the resilience of UK plc as a whole.
On the previous panel, I think Jen mentioned that there are voluntary codes of practice. As an organisation, we have piloted the code of practice for cyber governance, and we have signed up to the ambassadors scheme for the code of practice for secure software development. We think that the upcoming national cyber action plan can further encourage the uptake of such schemes and frameworks. Most importantly, we call upon Government to focus on skills development as a non-legislative measure, because ultimately that will be the key enabler of success, whether it is for organisations that are within or outside the scope of the Bill.
The Chair
The witnesses need not feel obliged to answer every question; if colleagues could direct their questions to individual witnesses, we will get through quicker.
Stuart McKean: I think that the MSP definition is quite broad at the moment, so adding some clarity to it will help. At the moment, the key definition of an MSP is based on size, and whether you are a small, medium, large or even microenterprise. The reality is that only11%, I think, of MSPs are the large and medium-sized enterprises that are going to fall in scope of the Bill as a managed service provider. Although the definition might be quite broad, the clarity on the size of MSP is actually quite particular, and you will lose a lot of MSPs that will not be in scope.
Jill Broom: Although some of our members are content with the definition of managed service provider, others feel that, as Stuart said, it is too broad. It continues to cause a little bit of confusion, since it is likely to encompass virtually any IT service. Probably some further work needs to be done and further consultation. There will be some further detail in the secondary legislation around that definition. I wanted to highlight that a lot of detail is coming in secondary legislation, which can make it quite difficult to scrutinise the primary legislation. A broad call-out for ensuring mandatory and meaningful consultation on that secondary legislation and associated guidance would be really welcome.
We are already working with the Bill team to put some of the pre-consultation engagement sessions in place, but we would call for the consultation to be brought forward to help us to understand some of the detail. The consultation period on the secondary legislation is currently estimated to happen towards the end of the summer, but we would like that to be brought forward, where possible. That consultation is going to cover a lot of detail, so it needs to be a substantial amount of time to allow us to comment. We are keen to be involved in that process as much as possible.
Kanishka Narayan
Q
Stuart McKean: You are going to hear the word “complex” a lot in this session. It is hugely complex. I would almost say that everyone likes to dabble. Everyone has little bits of expertise. Certain companies might be cloud-focused, or focused on toolsets; there are a whole range of skillsets. Of course, the larger organisations have multiple teams, multiple scopes and much more credibility in operating in different areas. As that flows down the supply chain, in many cases it becomes more difficult to really unpick the supply chain.
For example, if I am a managed service provider delivering a cloud service from a US hyperscaler, who is responsible? Am I, as the managed service provider, ultimately on the hook, even though I might be using a US-based hyperscaler? That is not just to pick on the hyperscalers, by the way—it could be a US software-based system or a set of tools that I am using. There are a whole range of parts that need to become clearer, because otherwise the managed service community will be saying, “Well, is that my responsibility? Do I have to deliver that?”.
You are then into the legislation side with procurement, because procurement will flow down. Although I might not be in scope directly as a small business, the reality is that the primes and Government Departments that are funding work will flow those requirements down on to the smaller MSPs. Although we might not be in scope directly, when it comes to implementing and meeting the legislation, we will have to follow those rules.
Dr Gardner
Q
Jill Broom: With the board, historically, cyber has not been viewed as a business risk, but as a technical problem to be addressed by the technical teams, instead of being a valuable, fundamental enabler of your business and a commercial advantage as well, because you are secure and resilient. That has been a problem, historically. It is about changing that culture and thinking about how we get the boards to think about this.
I think a fair amount of work is happening; I know the Government have written to the FTSE 350 companies to ask them to put the cyber governance code of practice into play. That is just to make cyber a board-level responsibility, and also to take account of things such as what they need to do in their supply chain.
Dr Gardner
Q
Jill Broom: Some of our members have pointed out that the number of organisations under cyber-regulations is very small, and it is only going to increase a small amount with the advent of this particular Bill. Similarly, in the different jurisdictions there are duties at the board level. There is an argument for it. The key thing is that we need to be mindful of it being risk-based, and also that there are organisations that could be disproportionately affected by this. I think it needs a little more testing, particularly with our members, as to whether a statutory requirement is needed.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Dr Sanjana Mehta: May I weigh in on the second question first? It is good to note that the definition of reportable incident has expanded in the current legislation. One of the concerns that the post-implementation reviews had from the previous regulatory regime was that the regulated entities were under-reporting. We note that the Bill has now expanded the definition to include incidents that could have an adverse impact on the security and operations of network and information systems, in addition to those incidents that are having or have had a negative impact.
While that is clear on the one hand—some factors have been provided, such as the number of customers affected, the geographical reach and the duration of the incident—what is not clear at the moment is the thresholds linked with those factors. In the absence of those thresholds, our concern is that regulated entities may be tempted to over-report rather than under-report, thereby creating more demand on the efforts of the regulators.
We must think about regulatory capacity to deal with all the reports that come through to them, and to understand what might be the trade-offs on the regulated entities, particularly if an entity is regulated by more than one competent authority. For those entities, it would mean reporting to multiple authorities. For organisations that are small or medium-sized enterprises, there is a real concern that the trade-offs may result in procedural compliance over genuine cyber-security and resilience. We call on the Government for immediate clarification of the thresholds linked to those factors.
Jill Broom: I would like to come in on that point. Our members would agree with it. Companies need to be clear about what needs to be reported, when it needs to be reported and where they need to report it. A bit of clarity is required on that, certainly around definitions. As Sanjana said, it is good to see that the definition is expanding, but definitions such as “capable of having” a significant impact remain unclear for industry. Therefore, we need a bit more clarity, because again, it means that we could risk capturing absolutely everything that is out there, and we really want to focus on: what is most important that we need to be aware of? Determining materiality is essential before making any report.
In terms of the where and the how, we are also in favour of a single reporting platform, because that reduces friction around the process, and it allows businesses, ultimately, to know exactly where they are going. They do not need to report here for one regulator and there for another. It is a streamlined process, and it makes the regime as easy as possible to deal with, so it helps incentivise people to act upon it.
I have another point to add about the sequencing of alignment with other potential regulation. We know that, for example, the Government’s ransomware proposals include incident-reporting requirements, and they are expected to come via a different legislative vehicle. We need to be careful not to add any additional layers of complexity or other user journeys into an already complex landscape.
Freddie van Mierlo
Q
Secondly, Dr Mehta, you spoke earlier about what is not in scope in this legislation. I am particularly interested in the fact that local government is not included in it, because it has a critical role in electoral services and in local and national democracy. What do you think are the threats from leaving local government out of scope?
Jill Broom: I think that generally, our members would always call for alignment, where possible, in any kind of legislation that spans the geographies. But we understand that the Bill focuses on a particular sector—the critical national infrastructure in the UK—and we welcome the intent of it.
Dr Sanjana Mehta: On sectoral scope, with the way that the Bill is currently drafted, there is obviously flexibility to introduce new sectors, and to bring in more provisions and guidance through secondary legislation and additional guidance. That being said, our recommendation is certainly to expand the sectoral scope at this stage by bringing in public administration.
There are a number of key reasons for that. First, public administration needs to be role model of good cyber-security to the rest of the economy. I think it was the 2025 state of digital government review that pointed out that the risk of cyber-attacks on Government is critical. You mentioned local government, but there are also central Government Departments that hold and process vast amounts of personal and sensitive information; I think, for example, DWP administered £288 billion of benefits over the past year. More than 23 million people claimed some sort of benefits from DWP and, in responding to those claims, DWP must have processed huge amounts of very sensitive medical and financial information on individuals. We think it is an omission to leave it out, and we recommend that the Government consider bringing it into scope.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Q
Stuart McKean: I do not think the cyber-criminal really cares, to be blunt. They will attack anywhere. You can, of course—
Alison Griffiths
I am so sorry. Could you possibly speak into the microphone? I cannot hear you.
Stuart McKean: Sorry. I was saying that the cyber-criminal does not care about lines, geographies or standards. They do not care whether you have an international standard or you follow the legislation of a certain country. They will attack where they see the weak link.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Stuart McKean: It is probably across all three, to be quite honest with you. It is very dependent on what they want to achieve, whether it be an economic attack or a targeted attack on a corporate entity. I do not think it has those boundaries—I genuinely think it is across the whole industry and the whole globe. The reality is that cyber-attacks everybody. We are being attacked every day. I do not see it as an international boundary, or a UK thing or a US thing. It is generally across the globe.
Lincoln Jopp
Do either of the other witnesses have anything to say on that?
Jill Broom indicated dissent.
Dr Sanjana Mehta indicated dissent.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Q
Jill Broom: I think, again, there is something to be said about the devil being in the detail. A lot is coming with the secondary legislation, so we will learn more about the specifics on incident reporting and penalties that will come into play. There needs to be a balance between those in terms of the risk and the impact. In the Bill itself, there probably need to be some greater safeguards or references to frameworks about how those types of decisions will be made.
Andrew Cooper
Q
Stuart McKean: It is an interesting cultural challenge. You want people to be open and to report incidents that are having an impact, but at the same time, if they report those incidents they might get fined, which could be economically challenging, particularly for a small business. Yes, we want to open and to report incidents, but—and this is where the detail comes in—what is the level of detail that needs to be reported and what is the impact of reporting it? When you report it to the regulators, what are they going to do with it? How will they share it and how will it benefit everybody else? The devil is definitely in the detail, and it is a cultural change that is required.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Q
Jill Broom: We can assume that it will, because if you are in the supply chain or come within scope, you will have certain responsibilities and you will have to invest, not just in technology but in the skills space as well. How easy it is to do that is probably overestimated a bit; it is quite difficult to find the right skilled people, and that applies across regulators as well as business.
Generally speaking, yes, I think it will be costly, but there are things that could probably help smaller organisations: techUK has called for things such as financial incentives, or potentially tax credits, to help SMEs. That could be applied on a priority basis, with those working within the critical national infrastructure supply chain looked at first.
Dr Sanjana Mehta: If I may expand on that, we have been consulting our members and the wider community, and 58% of our respondents in the UK say that they still have critical and significant skills needs in their organisations. Nearly half of the respondents—47%—say that skills shortages are going to be one of the greatest hurdles in regulatory compliance. That is corroborated by evidence, even in the impact assessment that has been done on the previous regulatory regime, where I think nearly half of the operators of essential services said that they do not have access to skills in-house to support the regulatory requirements. Continuing to have sustained investment in skills development is definitely going to require funding. Taking it a step back, we need first of all to understand what sort of skills and expertise we have to develop to ensure that implementation of the Bill is successful.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Stuart McKean: I am not an expert on the detail, but I would say that there is currently very little detail in the Bill regarding IT and OT.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Stuart McKean: The devil is always in the detail, so any more clarity that can be put in the Bill is always going to be a good thing.
Alison Griffiths
Does anyone have anything else?
Jill Broom: I think that I will need to come back to you in writing on the specifics of operational technology.
The Chair
Feel free to write in, secondary to this session, if you feel that you want to expand on any answers.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Q
It is very easy to write a piece of legislation, but if we do not have the professionals needed to deliver the level of compliance at the thresholds we are setting in this place, that raises other potential issues. Do you have a view about whether the 11% you mentioned is in the right ballpark for the number of professionals we have, or whether it needs to move either way?
Stuart McKean: I am referring to the Government’s report on MSPs that was done a couple of years ago. There are some 12,500 MSPs in the UK. Of those that are in scope of the Bill, 11% are medium-sized and large, but they account for something like 85% of the revenue that MSPs generate in the UK. Proportionally, the larger and medium-sized organisations will have the skillsets needed to deliver the requirements set out in the Bill. As it comes down the supply chain, most managed service providers are suitably qualified to deliver, but they will not be in scope of the Bill. Certainly the critical national infrastructure will not be in that sort of space. We have a good industry, and I think most of the MSPs are in that space, but I would highlight that MSPs are generally IT companies, and cyber-security is not an IT problem. It is much bigger than IT.
Although MSPs can be at one end, this goes back to a question that was asked before about why companies do not just do this anyway, and so be more secure. The reality is that they do not generally understand it; they do not understand the risk and they do not have the qualified people, and it goes on in a sort of vicious circle. A lot of those companies will just go, “Yeah, I’ve got an MSP. They deal with that.” It is an interesting challenge, but, to your question directly, I think medium-sized and large MSPs will not have an issue.
Dr Sanjana Mehta: If I may weigh in on this, I just want to take a step back and comment on the state of the profession in the UK. I appreciate that we are having this discussion specifically in relation to the regulated entities, but there is a broader picture. Parts of the industry are not in scope, but they need to have the right skills as well. We are starting off on a good foundation. The work done by industry, academia and professional associations over the past few years has helped to grow the profession steadily. The report by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology mentions that the number of cyber-security professionals directly employed in the sector has increased by 11% over the past year.
That said, there is more to be done. I urge the Government to think about the skills piece, not only in relation to the Bill but as a wider challenge. We are very proud of our 10,000-plus members in the UK, who work very hard day and night to secure their organisations despite all the challenges and pressures, but the Bill does give Government a pivotal opportunity to elevate the status of the profession and to professionalise the sector.
Andrew Cooper
Q
Stuart McKean: It is about understanding what your service is delivering. Again, one of the key terms in the Bill is resilience. Needing resilience is a key part of the Bill. Whether you need a service that has international boundaries and you need to fail over to another country will be down to the organisations defining where they want their services to be. If they are happy that they are failed over into the US or another country, that is fine; but the reality is that it will be down to the organisation that has a requirement for a resilient service understanding where its data is. As long as it understands where its data is and what it is asking of the MSP, I am not sure the Bill will cover that as such. It is talking about resilience in general. I do not think it goes into the detail of where your data is.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Stuart McKean: Under the designation of a critical supplier, the Bill says:
“any such disruption is likely to have a significant impact on the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society in the whole or any part of the United Kingdom”.
That is a pretty big statement. As a small business owner, how do I know whether what I do is going to have an economic effect on the UK? It will have an economic effect on my business, but whether it has a wider impact is a big statement. I am not sure that it is clear enough.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Stuart McKean: It needs more detail, even if that is about providing some boundaries so that we have something to say, “If it is going to do the following, what is a ‘significant economic impact’?”. I would like to think that none of our services would have a significant economic impact, but they may well affect a person, so I would bring it more on to the citizen and the impact on people. We heard this a number of times in relation to the JLR incident: the impact on the supply chain was huge, it was economically very costly and directly impacted people’s lives. Anything that can provide more clarity in the definition of an impact at that level can only help.
Jill Broom: I agree. More clarity is needed. The Bill should be tighter in terms of defining that sort of systemic risk.
Dr Sanjana Mehta: The Bill as it stands requires competent authorities and regulators to designate an organisation as a critical supplier rather than the regulated entity. Organisations work with complex multi-tier supply chains, and the concern is that competent authorities that are one step further removed from those complex supply chains, and have even less visibility, transparency and control over those supply chains, might find it difficult to determine true criticality and risk within the supply chains. We ask for greater collaboration and co-ordination between the regulated entities and the competent authorities in designating an organisation as a critical supplier.
Dr Spencer
Q
Jill Broom: There is probably a broader point around legal certainty, which is not given on the face of the Bill. Some of our members have highlighted language that could create some pretty significant legal jeopardy for regulated entities. The Bill needs to go a bit further. It could and should do more to provide some legal certainty, because the cost to companies could be quite significant. To the point on consistency across regulators and things like that, we need more frameworks around how that is going to work. Leaving all the detail to secondary legislation is what makes it slightly difficult to examine what is on the face of the Bill, so making sure that everything is consulted on in a mandatory and meaningful way will be important.
The Chair
I am looking around the table, and it seems to me that everybody is satisfied. Thank you very much indeed, Sanjana, Jill and Stuart, for giving your time so freely this morning—I know you are very busy people.
Examination of Witnesses
Matt Houlihan, Ben Lyons, Chris Anley and Dr Ian Levy gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Ian Levy: Good morning. I am Ian Levy, and I am a vice-president and distinguished engineer at Amazon. That job allows me to look across everything that Amazon does, including Amazon Web Services, the bookshop, our new satellite system and everything in between. Prior to that, I spent 23 years in GCHQ, and I was the founding technical director and designer of the National Cyber Security Centre.
Chris Anley: I am Chris Anley, chief scientist at NCC Group. We are a multinational cyber-security company, listed on the London Stock Exchange and headquartered in Manchester.
Matt Houlihan: Hi everyone. I am Matt Houlihan, and I am the vice-president for government affairs in Europe for Cisco, which is a technology company specialising in networking, security and collaboration technologies.
Ben Lyons: Good morning. I am Ben Lyons, and I am senior director for policy and public affairs at Darktrace. We are a company that uses AI for cyber-security, headquartered up in Cambridge.
Dr Spencer
Q
Starting with Ben from Darktrace, how are developing and emerging technologies such as AI and post-quantum crypto changing the nature of cyber-security threats? Do you think the Bill responds adequately to that changing threat landscape?
Moving on to Matt from Cisco, what further guidance and consultation from the Government and the Information Commissioner is needed for MSPs to comply effectively with their obligations under the Bill?
Chris from NCC Group, the National Audit Office report last year highlighted lots of serious deficiencies in Government cyber-resilience. Do you think the cyber action plan goes far enough? How can Government Departments be overseen and held to account in a way that will deliver meaningful improvements in cyber-resilience?
Finally, Ian from Amazon, a core feature of your business model is extensive exposure to supply chain partners. Do you think that the designation of critical suppliers by regulators under the Bill is the correct approach? What further consultation is needed to make sure that that is proportionate, prioritises the most critical suppliers and, crucially, gives a degree of certainty, whether legal or financial?
Ben Lyons: AI is significantly changing cyber-security. You can think about it at three levels: first, the way in which attackers are using AI to mount cyber-attacks; secondly, the need to secure AI systems and AI within companies and organisations; and thirdly, the question of how AI is changing cyber-security on the defensive side.
In brief, we see significant use of AI by attackers. Today, we are releasing the results of a survey in which 73% of surveyed security professionals say that AI-powered threats are having a significant impact on their organisation. These are things like phishing, reconnaissance, and lowering the barriers to being able to launch attacks and review more targets more effectively. Last month, the chief executive officer of Anthropic, which is one of the main frontier AI labs, warned that he sees AI-led cyber-attacks as potentially being the main way in which cyber-attacks are conducted in the future.
At the level of the enterprise, you have a challenge of how you secure the enterprise, in terms of not only developing and deploying AI, but visibility of AI used in an organisation. We are certainly seeing AI transform how cyber-security vendors and organisations manage the threat: they have greater visibility, can detect threats more quickly and the like. On how the Bill responds to that, one positive in its approach is that it is setting out an agile, outcomes-based approach that means that the regulatory regime can be capable of evolving as the threat evolves. It is sensible not to talk about AI in depth on the face of the Bill, but through mechanisms such as the code of practice, it will be possible for expectations to evolve over time as the threat and the technology mature.
The Chair
I should say to the witnesses: do not feel obliged to answer each question if you do not feel that you have anything material to add.
Matt Houlihan: It is very tempting to answer the question on AI, but thank you for the question on managed service providers. It is right that managed service providers are looked at in this Bill. An increasing amount of the work of managing IT services is clearly now outsourced to managed service providers. There needs to be some scrutiny and some baseline of cyber-security with those. I would say a couple of things on what guidance is needed. We broadly support the definition in the Bill. I appreciate the comments in the previous session that suggested that the definition was a little too broad and could be refined, which I think is fair, but when you compare the definition in the CSRB with the definition of managed service providers used in the NIS2 legislation, a couple of bits of clarity are provided in the CSRB. First, the managed service provider needs to provide an
“ongoing management of information technology systems”.
We feel that word “ongoing” is quite important. Secondly, it has to involve
“connecting to or…obtaining access to network and information systems relied on by the customer”.
We feel that
“connecting to or…obtaining access to”
the network is an important part of the definition that should be put forward. One area where more tightness can be provided is where, in the Bill, there is a non-exhaustive list of activities that an MSP could be involved in, such as
“support and maintenance, monitoring, active administration”.
The Bill then says, “or other activities”, which adds quite a bit of uncertainty on what is and is not an MSP.
The other area I would like to highlight and link to Ben’s answer on AI is that the “active administration” activity raises a question about the extent to which AI-enabled managed services would come under that definition. I am sure that lots of managed service providers will use AI more and more in the services that they provide to their end customers; to what extent does “active administration” involve an AI-related service?
To end on that specific question, the Information Commissioner’s Office will, I believe, issue guidance for managed service providers once the Bill is passed. That guidance will be the critical thing to get right, so there should be consultation on it, as my colleague from techUK suggested earlier. I would also suggest that that guidance cannot be a simple check-box list of things that have to be done. We should shift our thinking to have more of an ongoing appreciation of what cyber-security involves in practice for MSP or other regulated entities under the Bill. Making sure there is an ongoing process and that there is effective enforcement will be important.
Chris Anley: On the NAO report , the cyber action plan and public sector cyber-security, you are absolutely right to point out that the NAO report identifies serious issues. The Government recently acknowledged that they are likely to miss their 2030 cyber-resilience targets. It is also important to point out that the cyber action plan lays out an approach with many very positive elements such as an additional £210 million in central funding. There are many benefits to that, including a centralised provision of services at scale, a concentration of expertise and a reduction of costs.
Then there are other broader initiatives in the cyber action plan. The UK software security code of practice, which has been mentioned several times in these sessions, is a voluntary code that organisations can use as a tool to secure their supply chain. Cisco and NCC Group are ambassadors for that scheme and voluntarily comply with it, and it improves our own resilience.
Whether the cyber action plan goes far enough is a very difficult question. The NAO report also points out the extreme complexity of the situation. Within the budgetary constraints, I think it is fair to say that the steps in the plan seem reasonable, but there is a broader budgetary conversation to be had in this area. Two of the most significant issues identified in the report are the skills shortage, which has come up in these sessions—almost a third of cyber-security posts in Government are presently unfilled, which is dangerous—and the fact that Departments rely on vulnerable, outdated legacy IT systems, which may be the cause of an incident in their own right and would certainly make an incident much more severe were one to occur. The problem is that those are both largely budgetary issues. Successive Governments have obviously focused on delivering taxpayer value, as they should—we are all taxpayers—but over a period of a decade or more, that has led to a position where Departments find it difficult to replace legacy IT systems and fill these high-skill, high-cost cyber-security positions. There is very much a broader discussion to be had, as has been raised in these sessions, about where we should be in terms of the budget. You are absolutely right to raise the public sector issues. Although the Bill focuses on the private sector, the public sector obviously must lead by example.
Dr Ian Levy: We think the current definitions of critical suppliers are probably overly broad and risk bringing in SMEs, when you really do not want to do that. That said, we need to think about the transitive nature of supply chains. With previous regulations that talk about cyber-security, we have seen a flow-down of requirements through contracting chains. There is a question about how far it is reasonable to go down those contracting chains. In my experience, the value of the contract and the potential impact are not necessarily correlated. We certainly saw that when we were giving evidence for the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021.
There is a real question about how you define what supply chain you mean. You mentioned that AWS has a complex supply chain. We certainly do—it is astoundingly complex—but the important thing is that we control the really important parts of that. For example, we build our own central processing units, graphics processing units, servers, data centres and so on. The question then becomes: how does that translate out to customers? If a customer is using a partner’s service running on AWS, where does the liability accrue? I do not think that is adequately covered in the Bill.
In terms of certainty and foreseeability, the Bill as it stands admits a single entity being regulated multiple times in multiple different ways. We are subject today to at least four different sets of regulations and regulators. Some of them conflict, and some of them are ambiguous. As this expands out, a single reporting regime—a lead regulator model—would take some of that ambiguity away so that you have more foreseeability and certainty about what you are trying to do.
There are things in the current drafting of the Bill that we think need some consultation. There are things in primary legislation, such as the Secretary of State’s powers, that seem to be unbounded—that is probably the best way to describe it—and that seems dangerous. We understand the necessity for powers around national security, but we think there need to be some sort of safeguards and consultation about how they are used in practice. For any multinational company, something that is effected in the UK is likely to affect all our customers, so some real constraint is needed around that.
Kanishka Narayan
Q
Chris Anley: By our calculation, as you say, the number of organisations that fall under the scope of the Bill in terms of the Government’s impact assessment is 0.1% of the private sector, which is one one-hundredth of the tip of the iceberg. We are going to have to adopt a whole-of-economy approach if we are going to secure the UK—we have already talked about the public sector issues.
On the Bill itself, we have three main comments. First, the secondary legislation forms the bulk of the technical measures, so we are calling for early consultation on that. Secondly, the Bill imposes additional reporting obligations, adding to an already complicated situation for reporting cyber-incidents in the UK. The reporting obligations trigger at a time of great complexity for an organisation, so we are calling for a single point of contact for reporting all cyber-security incidents in the UK and a single timeline. That may sound like a big ask—an impossible dream. Australia has already done it, and the EU is in the process of doing it in its digital omnibus streamlining package.
Finally, in terms of cyber professionals, the passage of a cyber-security Bill through Parliament is a golden opportunity to address the serious problems with the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Cyber professionals who are defending the UK cannot currently do so without risking criminal prosecution. We cannot carry out basic identification and verification actions without potentially committing the offence of unauthorised access to computer material, because a ransomware gang, for example, is unlikely to give us authorisation to identify the command and control system they are using to attack the UK.
We support the CyberUp campaign, which is proposing an amendment to the Computer Misuse Act to provide a statutory defence, resting on four strong safeguarding principles. We believe that that would help to protect our defenders while maintaining the integrity of the law. Based on the campaign’s research into the size of the cyber-security industry in the UK, the amendment would not only help to prevent incidents and mitigate incidents in progress, but add 9,500 highly skilled jobs and over £2.5 billion in revenue to the UK economy. Other nations are already benefiting from this type of safeguard, including our oldest ally, Portugal, which has implemented them in its recent amendments to NIS2, which is the exact legislative equivalent of the process we are in today. In summary, please help us to defend the UK by protecting our defenders.
Dr Ian Levy: To follow up on what Chris says, we strongly agree on early consultation on the technical detail of the secondary legislation. Somebody said in the previous session that, in security, the devil is always in the detail. Well-meaning text can be massively misinterpreted. We need to be very careful about that, so wide, early consultation is key.
On incident reporting, I will make two points. Chris made the point that when you are being asked to report, you are at your most desperate, because you have just found out that you have been attacked and you do not know what is going to happen. A lot of legislation accidentally ignores the victim. When we set up the NCSC, one of the primary things was that we were there to support the victims. I urge you not to lose sight of that. Absolutely, go after and find the culprits later, but in the moment, the victims are absolutely key to this.
The second part of that, about a single reporting timeline and a single reporting route, is that it is not just good for the victims but the only way that we generate strategic intelligence. That is one of the things that is missing in the UK—and has been for decades. We have five, six or seven different reporting portals that all characterise things differently and take different types of information, and bringing them together to have a single picture about the actual threat to the UK is incredibly difficult. A single reporting forum could fix that.
Ben Lyons: I might distinguish between what organisations need to do and whether organisations are in scope. In terms of what they need to do, the outcomes-based approach is sensible. If you think about when the Johnson Government were consulting on the measures that would go on to form this Bill, that was a time when ChatGPT had not been invented and the geopolitical environment was very different. The world is moving fast, and I think that the cyber assessment framework is a good starting place for what a code of practice could look like, because it is already understood by industry and is outcomes-driven.
I agree with the previous comments about incident reporting. I think that there is a lot of merit in the suggestion around a shared portal so that it is easier to report incidents in that moment of dealing with a cyber-attack. Within the regime as envisaged, probably the most important bit with reference to reporting is about improving that early clarity and visibility for the NCSC so that they can help. That is probably where I would place the emphasis, more than on regulators having that information within 24 hours. In that context, an approach that recognises best efforts in that first 24 hours but is focused on tackling the problem will be important for dealing with the issue.
On the supply chain, I would say—and we have heard about this before—that there could be more clarity there in terms of who would be in scope for designated suppliers. Thinking a bit around both systemic dependency and the potential for wider disruption would be important factors to give it more clarity.
Matt Houlihan: To round off the responses, on the question about finding the balance between specificity and agility, the Bill does a reasonable job at that. We can totally see the need to keep some of the doors open, because not only is the nature of the threat changing rapidly but the nature of technology—and of our capabilities to defend—is changing as well. We have already talked about AI, and we have lots of quantum research taking place as well that will have a big bearing on cyber-security.
It is right that the Bill has some agility in it, but it is clear from the responses today that there is a need to tighten it up in certain places. We talked about incident reporting, and having a simpler, more co-ordinated system for regulated entities to work with so that that reporting process is easier. The definition of “incident” itself needs to be looked at, we believe. The idea of an instance not only having, but being capable of having, an adverse effect on information systems opens the door very widely to lots of potential incidents that may need to be reported on. Having a tighter definition there would be very useful.
To touch on the point about Secretary of State powers, we feel that the door is a little bit too wide. If you look at legislation such as Australia’s cyber-security legislation from 2018, the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act, that also has some good Secretary of State powers, but there are lots of guardrails contained in it that make it clear that it is a power of last resort, where the entity is unwilling or unable to carry out the remedial action itself. There are also other guardrails contained in that legislation. We urge the Committee and the Government to look at that Act and take inspiration from it to think about where those guardrails could be worked into the UK law.
The Chair
Four colleagues wish to ask questions, and they have only 20 minutes in which to ask them, so I appeal for brevity, both in the questions and, if you do not mind, in the answers.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Dr Ian Levy: I will start with that one.
The Chair
Please, Gentlemen, do not feel obliged to answer each question.
Dr Ian Levy: On the diverse networks and where they are hosted, it is important to be clear that resilience changes as scale changes. When it comes to the statistical model used to talk about resilience for a national system, if you have, say, three physical data centres in the UK connected by a redundant ring, that has a well-understood statistical model, but as you get bigger and bigger and more diverse, the statistics change, so the way you analyse resilience changes. That is not specific to Amazon Web Services; it applies to any large-scale system.
The way that we talk about resilience needs to be thought through carefully. I would urge you to consider outcomes and talk about availability and resilience to particular events. If somebody drives a JCB into a data centre, in a national-scale resilience model that can have a big impact, but in a hyperscale it will not.
We need to be clear about what the regulation is trying to do. If you look at us as a data centre operator, it is very different from someone who is providing co-location services. We provide our data centres for the sole purposes of providing our services, which have a very particular resilience model that is very different from somebody sticking their own racks in a third-party data centre. Some of the terms need to be better defined.
In terms of balancing growth, regulation, oversight and so on, there is a fallacy about putting specific technologies into legislation, except in very specific circumstances. We talked about post-quantum cryptography and AI. They will affect resilience, but probably not in the way we think they will today, so I would caution about putting specific technology definitions on the face of the Bill.
Matt Houlihan: On the cross-border question, very quickly, there are clearly a lot of jurisdictions looking at legislation in this space. There is absolutely an opportunity in the UK to look at things, such as mutual recognition agreements, that would simplify the international regulatory landscape, but there is also the opportunity for the UK to lead in this space as a very well-respected and cyber-capable country.
Touching on getting the balance right on growth and security, we have seen some useful moves recently from the UK Government and previous Governments on looking at codes of practice, which are voluntary in nature but help engage companies, as the recent software security code of practice did with mine and Chris’s. Techniques like that offer a nice balance and engage companies, but get that message around growth absolutely right.
Dr Gardner
Q
My second question is for Ben. In combining AI and cyber, you are combining technologies that come with their own unique risks with cyber-security. I am interested in how you mitigate against that. I am intrigued because, when you talk about AI, I assume you are not talking about straightforward machine learning.
Chris Anley: In terms of what other things we could do, we have talked about voluntary codes. The value of voluntary codes was questioned in an earlier session; but the World Health Organisation best practice guide on handwashing, which is entirely voluntary, saved millions of lives in the recent pandemic. It is important to bear in mind that codes that help you to protect yourself are definitely valuable.
Other actions that are already taking place that we may want to extend on the basis of solid evidence and data are the cyber essentials scheme, for example, and the various codes of practice. The cyber governance code of practice for boards was mentioned earlier, along with the Government outreach and attempting to get boards to recognise that cyber risk is a business risk and an existential threat. We talked about the cyber assessment framework and how that is likely to be the scope within which this Bill is implemented. So, we do not necessarily need to do something new. The scope of the Bill, as we said, is 0.1% of the UK private sector. There is scope to expand the existing things that we are doing, especially cyber essentials, for example, raising the bar for small and medium-sized enterprises across the economy. There is a lot that we are already doing that we could do, that we already have the scope to expand, but obviously that must be done prudently and on the basis of solid evidence.
Dr Gardner
Q
Ben Lyons: That is something we think very deeply about. We see AI as helping to mitigate some of the risks from cyber-security by making it possible to detect attacks more quickly, understand what might be causing them, and to respond at pace. We are an AI native company and we have thought deeply about how to ensure that the technology is both secure and responsible. We are privacy-preserving by design. We take our AI to the organisation’s environment to build an understanding of what normality looks like for them, rather than vast data lakes of customer data. We take a lot of effort to ensure that the information surfaced by AI is interpretable to human beings, so that it is uplifting human professionals and enabling them to do more with the time they have. We are accredited to a range of standards, like ISO 27001 and ISO 42001, which is a standard for AI management. We have released a white paper on how we approach responsible AI in cyber-security, which I would be happy to share with you and give a bit more detail.
Chris Vince
Q
Matt Houlihan: I am very happy to. Two main comparators come to mind. One is the EU, and we have talked quite a bit about NIS2 and the progress that has made. NIS2 does take a slightly different approach to that of the UK Government, in that it outlines, I think, 18 different sectors, up from seven under NIS1. There is that wide scope in terms of NIS2.
Although NIS2 is an effective piece of legislation, the implementation of it remains patchy over the EU. Something like 19 of the 27 EU member states have implemented it to date in their national laws. There is clearly a bit of work still to do there. There is also some variation in how NIS2 is being implemented, which we feel as an international company operating right across the European Union. As has been touched on briefly, there is now a move, through what are called omnibus proposals, to simplify the reporting requirements and other elements of cyber-security and privacy laws across the EU, which is a welcome step.
I mentioned in a previous answer the work that Australia has been doing, and the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018—SOCI—was genuinely a good standard and has set a good bar for expectations around the world. The Act has rigorous reporting requirements and caveats and guardrails for Government step-in powers. It also covers things like ransomware, which we know the UK Home Office is looking at, and Internet of Things security, which the UK Government recently looked at. Those are probably the two comparators. We hope that the CSRB will take the UK a big step towards that, but as a lot of my colleagues have said, there is a lot of work to do in terms of seeing the guidance and ensuring that it is implemented effectively.
Chris Anley: On the point about where we are perhaps falling behind, with streamlining of reporting we have already mentioned Australia and the EU, which is in progress. On protection of their defenders, other territories are already benefiting from those protections—the EU, the US, and I mentioned Portugal especially. As a third and final point, Australia is an interesting one, as it is providing a cyber-safety net to small and medium-sized enterprises, which provides cyber expertise from the Government to enable smaller entities to get up to code and achieve resilience where those entities lack the personnel and funding.
Emily Darlington
Q
Dr Ian Levy: The previous set of witnesses talked about board responsibility around cyber-security. In my experience, whether a board is engaged or not is a proxy indicator for whether they are looking at risk management properly, and you cannot change corporate culture through regulation—not quickly. There is something to be done around incentives to ensure that companies are really looking at their responsibilities across cyber-security. As the previous panellists have said, this is not just a technical thing.
One of the things that is difficult to reconcile in my head—and always has been—is trying to levy national security requirements on companies that are not set up to do that. In this case I am not talking about Amazon Web Services, because AWS invests hugely in security. We have a default design principle around ensuring that the services are secure and private by design. But something to consider for the Bill is not accidentally putting national security requirements on those entities that cannot possibly meet them.
When I was in government, in the past we accidentally required tiny entities, which could not possibly do so, to defend themselves against the Russians in cyber-space. If you translate that to any other domain—for example, saying that a 10-person company should defend itself against Russian missiles—it is insane, yet we do it in cyber-space. Part of the flow-down requirements that we see for contracting, when there is a Bill like this one, ends up putting those national security requirements on inappropriate entities. I really think we need to be careful how we manage that.
Matt Houlihan: Can I make two very quick points?
The Chair
Very briefly—yes.
Matt Houlihan: My first point is on the scale of the challenge. From Cisco’s own research, we released a cyber-security readiness index, which was a survey of 8,000 companies around the world, including in the UK, where we graded companies by their cyber maturity. In the UK, 8% of companies—these are large companies—were in the mature bracket, which shows the scale of the challenge.
The other point I want to make relates to its being a cyber-security and resilience Bill, and the “resilience” bit is really important. We need to focus on what that means in practice. There are a lot of cyber measures that we need to put in place, but resilience is about the robustness of the technology being used, as well as the cyber-security measures, the people and everything else that goes with it. Looking at legacy technology, for example—obsolete technology, which is more at risk—should also be part of the standards and, perhaps, the regulatory guidance that is coming through. I know that the public sector is not part of the Bill, but I mention the following to highlight the challenge: over a year ago, DSIT published a report that showed, I think, that 28% of Government systems were in the legacy, unsupported, obsolete bracket. That highlights the nature of the challenge in this space.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Chris Anley: On the OT versus IT question, we have mentioned specificity versus flexibility. The benefit of the UK sectoral regulator model is that regulators that are in areas where OT is predominant can set specific measures that can reinforce those environments, whereas if you try a one-size-fits-all approach, you run the risk of certain critical OT-based systems becoming subject to successful attacks.
Ben Lyons: The broad approach that the UK is taking is sensible, in that the existing guidance has a range of principles around OT, as well as IT, security. Manufacturing is not in the scope of the Bill, which is probably appropriate, but it is worth looking at what could be done to improve the security of the manufacturing sector, more broadly, probably through non-legislative means. In light of recent attacks, it is important to ensure that guidance and incentives are in place to support that sector.
Freddie van Mierlo
Q
Dr Ian Levy: In October 2025, we had an incident that had quite a widespread impact. We have engaged with regulators around the world, including multiple regulators in the UK, to explain what happened. We published, quite transparently, what had happened during the incident and afterwards. Explaining how the part of the organisation that had built that particular system works is very time-consuming. It is also almost certainly out of date by the time we have finished. In that particular case, it was something called a “race condition”, which is a well understood computer-science hard problem. No amount of regulation or legislation would have made a difference, because it was a race condition, and they are incredibly hard to find in software.
I think that regulating outcomes is the right answer, and making sure that we are doing due diligence, and that our view of appropriate risk management is broadly the same as yours, without making us a national security entity. That is the challenge. How we run our business is not really relevant; it is the outcomes that matter.
Matt Houlihan: It is increasingly important that businesses, parliamentarians and Government officials work together on these issues. As we said earlier, the pace of change in terms of the technology, and indeed the business environment—at both the UK and global levels—is moving very quickly. Having that exchange of information will be important.
It is important—from an international business point of view—that regulation is as aligned as is practicable with the other jurisdictions that a lot of the companies here will be working in. That will not only benefit companies that are headquartered elsewhere and operate in the UK; it will benefit UK-headquartered companies that are looking to expand abroad. It must also be proportionate and targeted. I think that at the nub of your question, there is clearly a need, going forward, for strong co-operation and the sharing of expertise and experiences.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Ian Hulme, the interim executive director of regulatory supervision and director of regulatory assurance for the Information Commissioner’s Office; Natalie Black, group director for infrastructure and connectivity for Ofcom; and Stuart Okin, director of cyber regulation and artificial intelligence for Ofgem. We need to stick to the timings in our programme order, so we have until 2.40 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves briefly before we hand over for questions?
Ian Hulme: Good afternoon. My name is Ian Hulme, and I am interim executive director of regulatory supervision at the ICO.
Natalie Black: Good afternoon. I am Natalie Black, and I am group director for infrastructure and connectivity at Ofcom.
Stuart Okin: My name is Stuart Okin; good afternoon. I am the director for cyber regulation and artificial intelligence at Ofgem.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Q
My second question is jointly for Ian and Stuart, from the ICO and Ofgem. Some industry stakeholders have expressed concern about low levels of incident reporting and enforcement under the NIS1—network and information systems—regs. How will your respective approaches to regulation change as a result of this Bill, to ensure that it is implemented and that cyber-resilience is improved across the sectors you are responsible for regulating?
Natalie Black: I will kick off. We have some additional responsibilities, building on the NIS requirements, but the data centre aspect of the Bill is quite a substantial increase in responsibilities for us. It is worth emphasising that we see that as a natural evolution of our responsibilities in the sector. Communications infrastructure is evolving incredibly quickly, as you will be well aware, and data centres are the next big focus. In terms of preparations, we are spending this time getting to know the sector and making sure we have the right relationships in place, so that we do not have a standing start. I have done a number of visits, for example, to hear at first hand from industry representatives about their concerns and how they want to work with us.
We are also focusing on skills and recruitment. We already have substantial cyber-security responsibilities in the communications infrastructure sector. We are building on the credibility of the team, but we are focused on making sure we continue to invest in them. About 60% of the team already come from the private sector. We want that to continue going forward, but we are not naive to how challenging it is to recruit in the cyber-security sector. For example, we are working with colleagues from the National Cyber Security Centre, and looking at universities it is accrediting, to see how we can recruit directly using those kinds of opportunities.
Ian Hulme: On incident reporting, the thresholds in the existing regulations mean that levels are very low. Certainly, the reports we see from identity service providers do not meet those thresholds. I anticipate that we will see more incidents reported to us. With our enhanced regulatory powers and the expanded scope of organisations we will be responsible for, I anticipate that our oversight will deepen and we will have more ability to undertake enforcement activity. Certainly from our perspective, we welcome the enhanced reporting requirements.
Stuart Okin: To pick up on the incident side of things, I agree with Ian. The thresholds will change. With the new legislation, any type of incident that could potentially cause an issue will obviously be reported, whereas that does not happen today under the NIS requirements.
On enforcement, in seven years we have used all the enforcement regimes available to us, including penalties, and we will continue to do so. We absolutely welcome the changes in the Bill to simplify the levels and to bring them up, similar to the sectorial powers that we have today.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Stuart Okin: In the energy sector, we tend to use operational technology rather than IT systems. That might mean technology without a screen, so an embedded system. It is therefore important to be able to customise our guidance. We do that today. We use the cyber assessment framework as a baseline, and we have a 335-page overlay on our website to explain how that applies to operational technology in our particular space. It is important to be able to customise accordingly; indeed, we have added physical elements to the cyber assessment framework, which is incredibly important. We welcome that flexibility being maintained in the Bill.
Ian Hulme: Just to contrast with colleagues from Ofcom and Ofgem, ICO’s sector is the whole economy, so it is important that we are able to produce guidance that speaks to all the operators in that sector. Because our sector is much bigger, we currently have something like 550 trust service providers registered, and that will grow significantly with the inclusion of managed service providers. So guidance will be really important to set expectations from a regulatory perspective.
Natalie Black: To round this off, at the end of the day we always have to come back to the problem we are trying to solve, which is ensuring cyber-security and resilience. As you will have heard from many others today, cyber is a threat that is always evolving. The idea that we can have a stagnant approach is for the birds. We need to be flexible as regulators. We need to evolve and adapt to the threat, and to the different operators we will engage with over the next couple of years. Collectively, we all appreciate that flexibility.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Q
The ICO is a horizontal regulator working across all sectors. In your experience, would a single cyber regulator be a good idea? What would be the benefits and the challenges? I will allow Ofcom and Ofgem to jump in and defend themselves.
Ian Hulme: I suppose the challenge with having a single regulator is that—like ourselves, as a whole-economy regulator—it will have to prioritise and direct its resources at the issues of highest harm and risk. One benefit of a sectoral approach is that we understand our sectors at a deeper level; we certainly work together quite closely on a whole range of issues, and my teams have been working with Natalie and Stuart’s teams on the Bill over the last 18 months, and thinking about how we can collaborate better and co-ordinate our activities. It is really pleasing to see that that has been recognised in the Bill with the provisions for information sharing. That is going to be key, because the lack of information-sharing provisions in the current regs has been a bit of a hindrance. There are pros and cons, but a single regulator will need to prioritise its resources, so you may not get the coverage you might with a sectoral approach.
Natalie Black: Having worked in this area for quite some time, I would add that the challenge with a single regulator is that you end up with a race to the bottom, and minimum standards you can apply everywhere. However, with a tailored approach, you can recognise the complexity of the cyber risk and the opportunity to target specific issues—for example, prepositioning and ransomware. That said, we absolutely recognise the challenge for operators and companies in having to bounce between regulators. We hear it all the time, and you will see a real commitment from us to do something about it.
Some of that needs to sit with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which is getting a lot of feedback from all of us about how we need it to co-ordinate and make things as easy as possible for companies—many of which are important investors in our economy, and we absolutely recognise that. We are also doing our bit through the UK Regulators Network and the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum to find the low-hanging fruit where we can make a difference. To give a tangible example, we think there should be a way to do single reporting of incidents. We do not have the answer for that yet, but that is something we are exploring to try and make companies’ lives easier. To be honest, it will make our lives easier as well, because it wastes our time having to co-ordinate across multiple operators.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q
Ian Hulme: Again, to contrast the ICO’s position with that of other colleagues, we have a much larger sector, as it currently exists, and we will have a massively larger sector again in the future. We are also funded slightly differently. The ICO is grant in aid funded from Government, so we are dependent on Government support.
To move from a reactive footing, which is our position at the moment—that is the Government’s guidance to competent authorities and to the ICO specifically—to a proactive footing with a much expanded sector, will need significant uplift in our skills and capability, as well as system development in order to register and ingest intelligence from MSPs and relevant digital service providers in the future.
From our perspective at the ICO, we need significant support from DSIT so that we can transition into the new regulatory regime. It will ultimately be self-funding—it is a sustainable model—but we need continued support during the transition period.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Ian Hulme: At the moment, to give you a few broad numbers our teams are around 15 people, and we anticipate doubling that. In the future, with self-funding, we will be a bit more in control of our own destiny. It is a significant uplift from our perspective.
Natalie Black: The challenge is that the devil is in the detail. Until that detail has worked through secondary legislation, we will have to reserve our position, so that we give you accurate numbers in due course. From Ofcom’s point of view, it is about adding 10s rather than significant numbers. I do not think we are that far off the ICO.
But I want to emphasise that this is about quality, not necessarily quantity. Companies want to work with expert regulators who really know what they are doing. Ofcom is building on the work we are already doing under the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. It will be a question of reinforcing that team, rather than setting up a separate one. We want to get the best, high-quality individuals who know how to talk to industry and really know cyber-security, to make sure people have a good experience when engaging with us.
Ian Hulme: To add to that, the one challenge we will face as a group is that we are all fishing in the same pond for skills. MSPs and others will also be fishing in that pond from the sector side. There needs to be recognition that there is going to be a skills challenge in this implementation.
Stuart Okin: To specifically pick up on the numbers, we have a headcount of 43 who are dedicated within cyber regulation. That also includes the investment side. We also have access to the engineering team—the engineering directorate—which is a separate team. There is also our enforcement directorate, as well as the legal side of things. The scope changes proposed in the Bill are just the large load controllers and supply chain, so we are not expecting a major uplift. These will be small numbers in comparison. Unlike my colleagues, we are not expecting a big uplift in resourcing.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Q
Ian Hulme: There are two angles to that. From a purely planning and preparation perspective, it is incredibly difficult, without having seen the detail, to know precisely what is expected of MSPs and IDSPs in the future, and therefore what the regulatory activity will be. That is why, when I am answering questions for colleagues, it is difficult to be precise about those numbers.
Equally, we are hearing from industry that it wants that precision as well. What is the expectation on it regarding incident reporting? What does “significant impact” mean? Similarly, with the designation of critical suppliers, precision is needed around the definitions. From a regulatory perspective, without that precision, we will probably find ourselves in a series of potential cases arguing about the definition of an issue. To give an example, if the definition of MSP is vague, and we are saying to an MSP that we think it is in scope, and it is saying, “No, we are not,” then a lot of our time and attention will be taken up with those types of arguments and disputes. Precision will be key for us.
Tim Roca
Q
Ian Hulme: There is a balance to be struck. When something is written on the face of the Bill and things change—and we know that this is a fast-moving sector—it makes it incredibly difficult to change things. There is a balance to be struck between primary and secondary, but what we are hearing and saying is that more precision around some of the definitions will be critical.
Natalie Black: I strongly agree with Ian. A regulator is only as good as the rules that it enforces. If you want us to hold the companies to account, we need to be absolutely clear on what you are asking us to do. The balance is just about right in terms of primary and secondary, particularly because the secondary vehicle gives us the opportunity to ensure that there is a lot of consultation. The Committee will have heard throughout the day—as we do all the time from industry—that that is what industry is looking for. They are looking for periods of business adjustment—we hear that loud and clear—and they really want to be involved in the consultation period. We also want to be involved in looking at what we need to take from the secondary legislation into codes of practice and guidance.
Dr Spencer
Q
Natalie Black: That is a great question, and I am not at all surprised that you have asked it, given everything that is going on at the moment. As well as being group director for infrastructure and connectivity, I am also the executive member of the board, sitting alongside our chief executive officer, so from first-hand experience I can say that Ofcom really recognises how fast technology is changing. I do not think there is another sector that is really at the forefront of change in this way, apart from the communications sector. There are a lot of benefits to being able to sit across all that, because many of the stakeholders and issues are the same, and our organisation is learning to evolve and adapt very quickly with the pace of change. That is why the Bill feels very much like a natural evolution of our responsibility in the security and resilience space.
We already have substantial responsibilities under NIS and the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. We are taking on these additional responsibilities, particularly over data centres, but we already know some of the actors and issues. We are using our international team to understand the dynamics that are affecting the Online Safety Act, which will potentially materialise in the security and resilience world. As a collective leadership team, we look across these issues together. The real value comes from joining the dots. In the current environment, that is where you can make a real difference.
Dr Spencer
Q
Natalie Black: That is definitely not what I am saying. You can cut the cake in many different ways. From where I sit—from my experience to date—you need specific sector regulators because you need regulators that understand the business dynamics, the commercial dynamics, the people dynamics and the issues on a day-to-day basis.
We have many people who have worked at Ofcom for a very long time, and who know the history and have seen these issues before. When it comes to threats, which is ultimately what we are dealing with—cyber-security is a threat—it is cross-cutting. It adapts, evolves and impacts in different ways. The knack is having a sector regulator that really understands what is going on. That means that when you are dealing with cyber-incidents, you understand the impact on real people and businesses, and ultimately you can do something more quickly about it.
Dr Spencer
Q
Stuart Okin: We have a clear understanding of the responsibilities within Ofgem. We are the joint competent authority with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Department does the designation and instant handling, and we do all the rest of the operations, including monitoring, enforcement and inspections. We understand our remit with NCSC. GCHQ is part of the cyber-security incident response team; it is ultimately responsible there.
Going back to your main concern, we are part of an ecosystem. We have to understand where our lines are drawn, where NCSC’s responsibilities are and what the jobs are. To go back to us specifically, we can talk about engineering aspects, electrical engineering, gas engineering and the cyber elements that affect that, including technology resilience—not cyber. As long as we have clear gateways and communication between each other—and I think that the Bill provides those gateways—that will also assist, but there are clear lines of responsibilities.
Natalie Black: It is clear that there is work to do to get in the same place for the Bill. Exactly as Stuart said, the information gateways will make a massive difference. It is too hard, at the moment, to share information between us and with the National Cyber Security Centre. The fact that companies will have to report within 24 hours not only to us but to the NCSC is very welcome.
To return to my earlier point, we think that there is a bit of work for DSIT to do to help to co-ordinate this quite complicated landscape, and I think that industry would really welcome that.
Ian Hulme: I agree with colleagues. From an ICO perspective, we see our responsibilities as a NIS competent authority as complementary to our role as a data protection regulator. If you want secure data, you have to have secure and resilient networks, which are obviously used to process data. We see it as a complementary set of regulations to our function as a data protection regulator.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Q
It strikes me that, if one of the things that this legislation is to guard against is pre-positioning, and there are 14 parallel reporting systems in place, it could be the case that those pre-positioning attacks are not picked up as co-ordinated attacks from another nation state or organisation, because they are not pulled together in time.
Natalie Black: I point to my earlier remarks about information sharing. You are right: that is one of the great benefits of the Bill. To be able to do more, particularly when it comes to pre-positioning attacks, is really important. You will have heard from the NCSC, among others, that that is certainly a threat that we are seeing more and more of.
At the moment, it is too difficult to share information between us. The requirement to have an annual report to the NCSC is a good mechanism for consolidating what we are all seeing, and then for the NCSC to play the role of drawing conclusions. It is worth emphasising that Ofcom is not an operational organisation; we are a regulator. We look to the NCSC to provide threat leadership for what is going on across the piece. I think that that answers your question about where it all comes together.
Stuart Okin: I fully support that. The NSCS will be the hub for that type of threat intel and communications, in terms of risks such as pre-positioning and other areas. The gateways will help us to communicate.
Ian Hulme: Bringing it back to the practicalities of instant reporting, you said that there are potentially 14 lines of incident reporting because there are 14 competent authorities. How that can be consolidated is something to be explored. Put yourself in a position of an organisation that is having to make a report: there needs to be clarity on where it has to make it to and what it needs to report.
David Chadwick
Q
Ian Hulme: As we have already explained, the current regs do not allow us to share the information, which is a bit of a barrier for us. In the future, certainly, we will be working together to try to figure it out. I think that there is also a role for DSIT in that.
Natalie Black: First, we currently have a real problem in that information sharing is much harder than it should be. The Bill makes a big difference in addressing that point, not only among ourselves but with DSIT and NCSC. Secondly, we think that there is an opportunity to improve information reporting, particularly incident reporting, and we would welcome working with DSIT and others—I have mentioned the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum—to help us find a way to make it easier for industry, because the pace at which we need to move means that we want to ensure that there is no unnecessary rub in the system.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Q
Ian Hulme: We need to think about this as essentially two different regimes. The requirements under data protection legislation to report a data breach are well established, and we have teams, systems and processes that manage all that. There are some notable cases that have been in the public domain in recent months where we have levied fines against organisations for data breaches.
The first thing to realise is that we are still talking about only quite a small sub-sector—digital service providers, including cloud computing service providers, online marketplaces, search engines and, when they are eventually brought into scope, MSPs. A lot of MSPs will provide services for a lot of data controllers so, as I explained, if you have the resilience and security of information networks, that should help to make data more secure in the future.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Q
I have dealt with the ICO before. Maybe it was the company that I worked in and led, but there was a culture there that, if you had a data breach, you told the ICO. There was no question about it. How are you going to develop your reactions and the behaviours you reward in order to encourage a set of behaviours and cultures of openness within the corporate sector, bearing in mind that, as was said this morning, by opening that door, companies could be opening themselves up to a hefty fine?
Stuart Okin: In the energy sector, we have that culture. It is one of safety and security, and the chief executives and the heads of security really lean into it and understand that particular space. There are many different forums where they communicate and share that type of information with each other and with us. Incident response is really the purview of DESNZ rather than us, but they will speak to us about that from a regulatory perspective.
Ian Hulme: From the ICO’s perspective, we receive hundreds of data-breach reports. The vast majority of those are dealt with through information and guidance to the impacted organisation. It is only a very small number that go through to enforcement activity, and it is in only the most egregious cases—where failures are so egregious that, from a regulatory perspective, it would be a failure on our part not to take action.
I anticipate that is the approach we will take in the future when dealing with the instant reporting regime that the Bill sets out. Our first instinct would be to collaborate with organisations. Only in the most egregious cases would I imagine that we would look to exercise the full range of our powers.
Natalie Black: From Ofcom’s point of view, we have a long history, particularly in the telecoms sector, of dealing with a whole range of incidents, but I certainly hear your point about the victim. When I have personally dealt with some of these incidents, often you are dealing with a chief executive who has woken up that morning to the fact that they might lose their job and they have very stressed-out teams around them. It is always hard to trust the initial information that is coming out because no one really knows what is going on, certainly for the first few hours, so it is the maturity and experience that we would want to bring to this expanded role when it comes to data centres.
Ultimately the best regulatory relationships I have seen is where there is a lot of trust and openness that a regulator is not going to overreact. They are really going to understand what is going on and are very purposeful about what they are trying to achieve. From Ofcom’s point of view it is always about protecting consumers and citizens, particularly with one eye on security, resilience and economic growth. The experience we have had over the years means that we can come to those conversations with a lot of history, a lot of perspective, and, to be honest, a bit of sympathy because sometimes those moments are very difficult for everyone involved.
The Chair
We have only five minutes left for this session, so if we can have concise questions and answers we might get everyone in.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Q
Stuart Okin: Essentially, we would not go all the way down the supply chain. First, the operators of essential services are defined very much by the thresholds. Ultimately, they are the first point of responsibility. On the critical third party suppliers that have been brought in by the Bill, there will be a small number of those that, for energy, are for the entire systemic system of the UK, not the smaller entities. So we will hold those to account. On the enforcement side of things, if and when it comes to that, they will be in the same situation as the current operators of essential services are today. We welcome the simplification in the Bill and bringing those into the same sectorial powers and the same types of fines that we see today. It will not go down to those minutiae of detail. Again, the secondary legislation gives you the ability to define that.
Natalie Black: To keep it brief, we welcome the supply chain being brought into scope because we are all well aware that the most high-profile recent incidents often emanated from the supply chain. That said, we should be very honest about the complexity of entering this space, exactly for all the points that you have alluded to in terms of volume and scale and everything. We are already using this time to work through what our methodology will be. Engaging with the operators of essential services who are ultimately the customer of these suppliers has to be a starting point in terms of who they are most worried about in their supply chain. As Stuart says, you will see some commonality across all our sectors, so the numbers might not be as big as we might at first think, but this is what we need to work through over the coming months.
Ian Hulme: From an ICO perspective, one of the big tasks that we are going to have in understanding the MSP market is what their supply chains look like. We are perhaps a little behind colleagues in other regulators because of the difference in the regulatory regime, but that is one of the tasks that we will have to get to grips with.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Q
Ian Hulme: Certainly from an ICO perspective, many IDSPs that we currently regulate are operating across boundaries. From our perspective, the focus is on the outcome. If they have operations in other jurisdictions that are providing services into the UK, our focus is on the outcome and getting to understand the UK side of things more than anything else.
Natalie Black: This is a challenge for us every day. Many of the companies that we regulate have a footprint in the UK or multiple footprints around the world. The issue is in making sure that the UK requirements are as clear as possible to give them no excuse to argue exceptionalism. That is why we really welcome the opportunity to get into the detail through secondary legislation, which will be very important in holding all the companies to account that we think need to be held to account.
The Chair
That brings us the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Chung Ching Kwong gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Chung Ching Kwong, senior analyst for the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. We have until 3 pm for this session.
Chris Vince
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: Just to give some background, I am a senior analyst for the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and a PhD candidate in law at the University of Hamburg, focusing on data protection and data transfer. My expertise is not entirely on critical infrastructure security, but I do a lot of analysis on China’s legal system and also how it works in general. That is how I can contribute to this evidence session.
The threat posed by the CCP to our critical national infrastructure, such as water, energy and transportation, has shifted from espionage—stealing secrets—to pre-positioning, or preparing for sabotage. We cannot understand the threat without understanding the civil-military fusion of the Chinese state. Chinese companies operating in our CNI are not independent per se, in the way we would normally think about that in our country—in other words, private entities that operate on their own and have their own decision-making mechanisms. They are legally obligated under at least article 7 of China’s national intelligence law to co-operate with the state, to provide information, to provide help with decryption and to gather information at the request of the Government.
As highlighted by the NCSC, groups such as Volt Typhoon are pre-positioning within utility networks in the States. They do not use malware; they live off the land, using legitimate administrative credentials to proceed undetected for years. That is not for financial gain; they do it until the time is right for them to pull the trigger and cause a crisis.
In the transportation sector, there are a lot of cellular IOT modules embedded in e-buses and EVs. These devices require constant communication with servers in China to function, so they are constantly feeding data back to China for maintenance, remote access of data and that kind of thing. It could all be innocent and a feature for operational and functional purposes, but if—and only if—Beijing orders that data to be handed over and actions to be taken, it will become a problem.
That is the context of the risk we are facing when it comes to China, especially in terms of state-sponsored attacks. All entities, be they foreign companies in China or local Chinese-founded companies, have an obligation under Chinese law.
Chris Vince
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: Gathering information and data is definitely one of the main goals, but it is not limited to data transfer. Right now, in the UK, they do not need to rely only on access to critical infrastructure; under the Data Protection Act here in the UK, it is legal to transfer personal data through contractual clauses, so they can have access to personal data as long as they have that.
Of course, gathering data gives them insight into what is happening in the UK; if they want transportation data or power grid data, they can gather those data by different means. But it is also very important to understand Xi Jinping’s comprehensive national security concept. I think this is the reason why they are so determined to collect information, not only in the UK but worldwide.
In that kind of comprehensive security concept, political security, defined as the survival of the regime, is paramount. It overrides anything—not economic gain, not whether or not the GDP of China is going to grow in the next year, but any information or action that they see as necessary to make sure that the CCP is in control. That means it is gathering data of dissidents overseas, it is gathering data on the power grid, it is gathering data on transportation—anything they might find useful for a different purpose, which is, ultimately, to serve the goal of the survival of the regime.
Dr Spencer
Q
Secondly, it has been reported recently that communications of senior Government aides were hacked by Chinese state affiliates between 2021 and 2024. In view of that threat to telecoms networks, what are the potential cyber-risks to communications infrastructure that you see arising from the intended location of China’s super-embassy in the City of London?
Chung Ching Kwong: On the first question, about what can be done to help sectors understand the risks, education is paramount. At this point, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of what kind of risks state actors like China pose. We are very used to the idea that private entities are private entities, because that is how the UK system works; we do not see that organisations, entities or companies associated with China or the Chinese state are not independent actors as we would expect, or want to expect.
There is a lot of awareness-raising to be done and guidance to be issued around how to deal with these actors. There is a lot of scholarly work that says that every part of Chinese society—overseas companies and so on—is a node of intelligence collection within the system of the CCP. Those things are very important when it comes to educating.
Also, the burden of identifying what is a national security risk and what is not should not be put on small and medium-sized businesses, or even big companies, because they are not trained to understand what the risks are. If you are not someone specialising in the PLA and a lot of other things academically, it would be very difficult to have to deal with those things on a day-to-day basis and identify, “That’s a threat, and that’s a threat.”
Sorry, what was the second question?
Dr Spencer
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: There is not a lot of publicly available information on the sensitive cabling that is around the area, so I cannot confidently say what is really going to happen if they start to build the embassy and have such close contact with those cables. The limit of this Bill when it comes to the Chinese embassy is that it cannot mitigate the risks that are posed by this mega-embassy in the centre of London, because it regulates operators and not neighbours or any random building in the City. If the embassy uses passive interception technology to harvest data from local wi-fi or cellular networks, no UK water or energy company is breached. There is no breach if they are only pre-positioning there to collect information, instead of actually cutting off the cables, so when they do cut off the cables, it will be too late. There will be no report filed under the Bill, even if it is under the scope of the Bill when it comes to regulation. The threat in this case is environmental and really bypasses the Bill’s regulatory scope.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: I think that to a certain extent they will. For hackers or malicious actors aiming for financial gain with more traditional hacking methods, it will definitely do a job in protecting our national security. But the Bill currently views resilience through an IT lens. It is viewing this kind of regulatory framework as a market regulatory tool, instead of something designed to address threats posed by state-sponsored actors. It works for cyber-criminals, but it does not work for state actors such as China, which possess structural leverage over our infrastructure.
As I said before, we have to understand that Chinese vendors are legally obliged to compromise once they are required to. The fine under the Bill is scary, but not as scary as having your existence threatened in China—whether you still have access to that market or you can still exist as a business there. It is not doing the job to address state-sponsored hackers, but it really does help when it comes to traditional hacking, such as phishing attempts, malware and those kinds of things.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: The US is probably a good example. It passed Executive order 14028 in May 2021, which requires any software vendor selling to the US federal Government to provide something called a software bill of materials—SBOM. That is technically a table of ingredients, but for software, so you can see exactly what components the software is made of. A lot of the time people who code are quite lazy; they will pull in different components that are available on databases online to form a piece of software that we use. By having vendors provide an SBOM, when anything happens, or whenever any kind of vulnerability is detected, you can very easily find out what happened.
That is due to a hack in 2021, in which a tiny, free piece of code called Log4j was found to have a critical vulnerability. It was buried inside thousands of commercial software products. Without that list of ingredients, it would be very difficult for people who had been using the software to find out, because, first, they may not have the technological capabilities and, secondly, they would not even know if their software had that component. This is one of the things the US is doing to mitigate the risks when it comes to software.
Something that is not entirely in the scope of the Bill but is also worth considering is the US’s Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act. That is designed to prevent goods made with forced labour from entering the supply chain. The logic of preventing forced labour is probably something that the UK can consider. Because the US realised that it could not inspect every factory in Xinjiang to prove forced labour, it flipped the script: the law creates a rebuttable presumption that all goods from that region are tainted, so the burden of proof is now on the importer to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that their supply chain is clean.
A similar logic could be considered when it comes to this Bill to protect cyber-security. Any entities that are co-operating with the PLA—the People’s Liberation Army—for example, should be considered as compromised or non-trustworthy until proven otherwise. That way, you are not waiting until problems happen, when you realise, “Oh, this is actually tainted,” but you prevent it before it happens. That is the comparison that I would make.
Tim Roca
Q
Thank you for speaking to us today. May I turn the conversation a little on its head? We have been talking about national security and the threat from China and others. You were an activist in Hong Kong and made a great deal of effort to fight the Chinese Communist party’s invasion of privacy—privacy violations using the national security law—and other things. Do you see any risk in this legislation as regards civil liberties and privacy? We have had a bit of discussion about how much will go into secondary legislation and how broad the Secretary of State’s powers might be.
Chung Ching Kwong: The threat to privacy, especially to my community—the Hong Kong diaspora community in this country—will be in the fact that, under clause 9, we will be allowing remote access for maintenance, patches, updates and so on. If we are dealing with Chinese vendors and Chinese providers, we will have to allow, under the Bill, certain kinds of remote access for those firms to maintain the operation of software of different infrastructures. As a Hongkonger I would be worrying, because I do not know what kind of tier 2 or tier 3 supplier will have access to all those data, and whether or not they will be transmitted back to China or get into the wrong hands. It will be a worry that our data might fall into the wrong hands. Even though we are not talking specifically about personal data, personal data is definitely in scope. Especially for people with bounties on their head, I imagine that it will be a huge worry that there might be more legitimate access to data than there is right now under the Data Protection Act.
Tim Roca
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: It is always a double-edged sword when it comes to regulating against threats. The more that the Secretary of State or the Government are allowed to go into systems and hold powers to turn off, or take over, certain things, the more there is a risk that those powers will be abused, to a certain extent, or cause harm unintentionally. There is always a balance to be struck between giving more protection to privacy for ordinary users and giving power to the Government so that they can act. Obviously, for critical infrastructure like the power grid and water, the Government need control over those things, but for communications and so on, there is, to a certain extent, a question about what the Government can and cannot do. But personally I do not see a lot of concerns in the Bill.
Emily Darlington
Q
Chung Ching Kwong: It should definitely be covered by the Bill, because if we are not regulating to protect hardware as well, we will get hardware that is already embedded with, for example, an opcode attack. Examples in the context of China include the Lenovo Superfish scandal in 2015, in which originally implemented ad software had hijacked the https certificate, which is there to protect your communication with the website, so that nobody sees what activity is happening between you and the website. Having that Superfish injection made that communication transparent. That was done before the product even came out of the factory. This is not a problem that a software solution can fix. If you were sourcing a Lenovo laptop, for example, the laptop, upon arrival, would be a security breach, and a privacy breach in that sense. We should definitely take it a step further and regulate hardware as well, because a lot of the time that is what state-sponsored attacks target as an attack surface.
The Chair
That brings us nicely to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for her evidence.
Examination of Witness
Professor John Child gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Professor John Child, professor of criminal law at the University of Birmingham and co-founding director of the Criminal Law Reform Now Network. For this session, we have until 3.20 pm.
Dr Spencer
Q
Professor John Child: My specialism is in criminal law, so this is a bit of a side-step from a number of the pieces of evidence you have heard so far. Indeed, when it comes to the Bill, I will focus on—and the group I work for focuses on—the potential in complementary pieces of legislation, and particularly the Computer Misuse Act 1990, for criminalisation and the role of criminalisation in this field.
I think that speaks directly to the first question, on effective collaboration. It is important to recognise in this field, where you have hostile actors and threats, that you have a process of potential criminalisation, which is obviously designed to be effective as a barrier. But the reality is that, where you have threats that are difficult to identify and mostly originating overseas, the actual potential for criminalisation and criminal prosecution is slight, and that is borne out in the statistics. The best way of protecting against threats is therefore very much through the use of our cyber-security expertise within the jurisdiction.
When we think about pure numbers, and the 70,000-odd cyber-security private experts, compared with a matter of hundreds in the public sector, police and others, better collaboration is absolutely vital for effective resilience in the system. Yet what you have at the moment is a piece of legislation, the Computer Misuse Act, that—perfectly sensibly for 1990—went with a protective criminalisation across-the-board approach, whereby any unauthorised access becomes a criminal offence, without mechanisms to recognise a role for a private sector, because essentially there was not a private sector doing this kind of work at the time.
When we think about potential collaboration, first and foremost for me—from a criminal law perspective—we should make sure we are not criminalising effective cyber-security. The reality is that, when we look at the current system, if any authorised access of any kind becomes a criminal offence, you are routinely criminalising engagement in legitimate cyber-security, which is a matter of course across the board. If you are encouraging those cyber-security experts to step back from those kinds of practices—which may make good sense—you are also lessening that level of protection and/or outsourcing to other jurisdictions or other cyber-security firms, with which you do not necessarily have that effective co-operation, reporting and so on. That is my perspective. Yes, you are absolutely right, but we now have mechanisms in place that actively disincentivise that close collaboration and professionalisation.
Sarah Russell
Q
Professor John Child: Yes. It is not the easiest criminal law tale, if you like. If there were a problem of overcriminalisation in the sense of prosecutions, penalisation, high sentences and so on, the solution would be to look at a whole range of options, including prosecutorial discretion, sentencing or whatever it might be, to try to solve that problem. That is not the problem under the status quo. The current problem is purely the original point of criminalisation. Think of an industry carrying out potentially criminalised activity. Even if no one is going to be prosecuted, the chilling effect is that either the work is not done or it is done under the veil of potential criminalisation, which leads to pretty obvious problems in terms of insurance for that kind of industry, the professionalisation of the industry and making sure that reporting mechanisms are accurate.
We have sat through many meetings with the CPS and those within the cyber-security industry who say that the channels of communication—that back and forth of reporting—is vital. However, a necessary step before that communication can happen is the decriminalisation of basic practices. No industry can effectively be told on the one hand, “What you are doing is vital,” but on the other, “It is a criminal offence, and we would like you to document it and report it to us in an itemised fashion over a period of time.” It is just not a realistic relationship to engender.
The cyber-security industry has evolved in a fragmented way both nationally and internationally, and the only way to get those professionalisation and cyber-resilience pay-offs is by recognising that the criminal law is a barrier—not because it is prosecuting or sentencing, but because of its very existence. It does not allow individuals to say, “If, heaven forbid, I were prosecuted, I can explain that what I was doing was nationally important. That is the basis on which I should not be convicted, not because of the good will of a prosecutor.”
Dr Gardner
Q
Professor John Child: I think the Bill does a lot of things quite effectively. It modernises in a sensible way and it allows for the recognition of change in type of threat. This goes back to my criminalisation point. Crucially, it also allows modernisation and flexibility to move through into secondary legislation, rather than us relying purely on the maturations of primary legislation.
In terms of board-level responsibility, I cannot speak too authoritatively on the civil law aspects, but drawing on my criminal law background, there is something in that as well. At the moment, the potential for criminalisation applies very much to those making unauthorised access to another person’s system. That is the way the criminal law works. We also have potential for corporate liability that can lead all the way up to board rooms, but only if you have a directing mind—so only if a board member is directing that specific activity, which is unlikely, apart from in very small companies.
You can have a legal regime that says, whether through accreditation or simple public interest offences, that there are certain activities that involve unauthorised access to another person’s system, which may be legitimate or indeed necessary. However, we want a professional culture within that; we do not want that outsourced to individuals around the world. You can then build in sensible corporate liability based on consent or connivance, which goes to individuals in the boardroom, or a failure-to-prevent model of criminalisation, which is more popular when it comes to financial crimes. That is where you say, “If this exists in your sector, as an industry and as a company, you can be potentially liable as an entity if you do not make sure these powers are used responsibly, and if you essentially outsource to individuals in order to avoid personal liabilities”.
Dr Gardner
Q
Professor John Child: Again, I have to draw back to the criminal law aspects. I think the Bill does the things it needs to do well; certainly, from the conversations I have had with those in cyber-security and so on, these are welcome steps in the right direction.
However, when you look at critical national infrastructure, although you can create layers of civil responsibility and regulation—which is entirely sensible—most of that will filter down to individuals doing cyber-security and resilience work. It is about empowering those individuals; within a state apparatus, that is one thing, but even with regulators and in-house cyber-security experts, individuals are working only within the confines of what they are allowed to do under the criminal law, as well as the civil regulatory system.
The reason I have been asked here, and what a lot of my work has focused on, is this: if you filter responsibility down to individuals doing security work for national as well as commercial infrastructure, you need to empower them to do that work effectively. The current law does not do that; it creates the problem of either doing that work under the veil of criminalisation, or not doing it, with work being outsourced to places where you do not have the back-and-forth communication and reporting regime you would need.
Dr Gardner
I think you are touching on the old problem of where liability lies when you have this long supply chain of diffused responsibility, but thank you.
Dave Robertson
Q
Professor John Child: That is a good question. It is certainly fair to say that all jurisdictions are somewhat in flux about how to deal with cyber threats, which are mushrooming in ways people would not have expected—certainly not in 1990, but even many years after.
The various international conventions—the OECD, the Budapest convention and so on—require regulation and criminalisation, but those are not nearly as wide as the blanket approach that was taken in this country. Some comparative civil law jurisdictions in the rest of Europe start from a slightly different place, in that they did not necessarily take the maximalist approach to criminalisation we did.
In a number of jurisdictions, you do not have direct criminalisation of all activities, regardless of the intention of the actor, in the same way that we do. So we are starting from a slightly different position. Having said that, we do see a number of jurisdictions making positive strides in this direction, because they need to; indeed, we see that at European Union level as well, where directives are being created to target this area of concern.
There are a few examples. We wrote a comparative report, incidentally, which is openly available. In terms of some highlights from that, there is a provision in French law, for example, where, despite mandatory prosecution being the general model within French criminal law, there is a carve-out relating to cyber-security and legitimate actors, where there is not the same requirement to prosecute. In the Netherlands, there was a scandal around hacking of keycards for public transport. That was done for responsible reasons, and there was a backlash in relation to prosecution there. There were measures taken in terms of prosecutorial discretion. Most recently, in Portugal, we saw a specific cyber-security defence created within the criminal law just last year.
In the US, it varies between states. In a lot of states, you have quite an unhelpful debate between minimalist and maximalist positions, where they either want to have complete hack-back on the one hand or no action at all on the other, but you have a slightly more tolerant regime in terms of prosecution.
So there are varying degrees, but certainly that is the direction of travel. For sensible, criminal law reasons that I would speak to, as well as the commercial benefits that come with a sector that is allowed to do its work properly, and the security benefits, that is certainly the direction of travel.
Dave Robertson
Q
Professor John Child: Yes. As I understand it, it does. This is part of the reason, incidentally, why my organisation, which focuses very much on criminal law aspects, ended up doing some collaborative work with the CyberUp campaign. That is because, from the industry perspective, they can do that kind of business modelling in a way that we do not. Whereas we can make the case for sensible criminal law reform, they can talk about how that reform translates into both the security environment and the commercial environment. Their perspective on this is, first, that we can see that there is already outsourcing of these kinds of services, particularly to the US, Israel and other more permissive jurisdictions. That is simply because, if you are a cyber-security expert in one of those jurisdictions, you are freer to do the work companies would like you to do to make sure their systems are safe here.
There are also the sectoral surveys and so on, and the predictions about what it is likely to do to the profession if you allow it to do these kinds of services in this jurisdiction. That is about the security benefits, but they are also talking about something like a 10% increase in the likely projection of what cyber-security looks like in this jurisdiction—personnel, GDP and so on.
Dr Spencer
Q
Professor John Child: There are obviously a number. It is always more comfortable when you have a beginning point of criminalisation. The argument to decriminalise in an environment where you want to protect against threats is sometimes a slightly unintuitive sell. Is the criminalisation that we have doing the necessary work in terms of actually fighting the threats? To some extent, yes, but it is limited. Is it doing harms? There is an argument to say that it is doing harms.
This comes back to the point that was made earlier, which was perfectly sensible. When you speak to the CPS and others, their position as prosecutors is to say, “Very few people are being prosecuted, and we certainly don’t want to be prosecuting legitimate cyber-security experts, so there is no problem.” Admittedly, that means there is no problem in terms of actual criminalisation and prosecution, but that is the wrong problem. If you focus on the problem being the chilling effect of the existence of the criminalisation in the first place, you simply cannot solve that through prosecutorial discretion, and nor should you, when it comes to identifying what a wrong is that deserves to be criminalised. You certainly cannot resolve it through sentencing provisions.
The only way that you can sensibly resolve this is either by changing the offence—that is very difficult, not least because, from a position of criminalisation, it might be where other civil jurisdictions begin—or by way of defence, which realistically is the best solve from the point we are at now. If you have a defence that can be specifically tailored for cyber-security and legitimate actors, you can build in reverse burdens of proof. You can build in objective standards of what is required in terms of public interest.
The point here is that the worry is one of bad actors taking advantage. The reality is that that is very unlikely. The idea that the bad actors we identify within the system would be able to demonstrate how they are acting in the public best interest is almost ridiculous. Indeed, the prospect of better threat intelligence, better securities and so on provides more information and better information-sharing to the NCSC and others and actually leads to more potential for prosecution of nefarious actors rather than less.
It is a more complicated story than we might like in terms of a standard case for changing the criminal law, but it is nevertheless an important one.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for his evidence. We move on to our next panel.
Examination of witness
Detective Chief Superintendent Andrew Gould gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Detective Chief Superintendent Andrew Gould, programme lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council cyber-crime programme. For this session, we have until 3.40 pm. I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Spencer
Q
Secondly, on ransomware attacks, you will know that the Government review states that ransomware is
“the greatest of all serious and organised cybercrime threats”.
In your view, what is the scale of that threat and what sectors and businesses are the primary targets?
DCS Andrew Gould: To take the actors first, they are probably quite well known, in terms of the general groupings. Yes, we have our state actors—the traditional adversaries that we regularly talk about—and they generally offer very much a higher-end capability, as you will all be aware.
The next biggest threat group is organised crime groups. You see a real diversity of capability within that. You will see some that are highly capable, often from foreign jurisdictions—Russian jurisdictions or Russian-speaking. The malware developers are often the more sophisticated as service-type offerings. We see more and more ransomware and other crime types almost operating as franchises—“Here is the capability, off you go, give us a cut.” Then they have less control over how those capabilities are used, so we are seeing a real diversification of the threat, particularly when it comes to ransomware.
Then, where you have that proximity to state-directed, if not quite state-controlled—that crossover between some of those high-end crime groups and the state; I am thinking primarily of Russia—it is a lot harder to attribute the intent behind an attack. There is a blurring of who was it and for what purpose was it done, and there is that element of deniability because it is that one further step away.
Moving back down the levels of the organised crime groups, you have a real profusion of less capable actors within that space, from all around the world, driving huge volumes, often using quite sophisticated tools but not really understanding how they work.
What we have seen is almost like a fragmentation in the criminal marketplace. The barrier to criminal entry is probably lower than it has ever been. You can download these capabilities quite readily—you can watch a tutorial on YouTube or anywhere else on how to use them, and off you go, even if you do not necessarily understand the impact. We certainly saw a real shift post pandemic from traditional criminals and crime groups into more online crime, because it was easier and less risky.
You look more broadly at hacktivists, terrorists—who are probably a lot less capable; they might have the intent but not so much the capability—and then the group that are sometimes slightly patronisingly described as script kiddies. These are young individuals with a real interest in developing their skills. They have an understanding that what they are doing is wrong, but they are probably not financially or criminally motivated. If they were not engaging in that kind of cyber-crime, they probably would not be engaging in other forms of criminality, but they can still do a lot of damage with the tools they can get their hands on, given that so many organisations seem to struggle to deliver even a basic level of cyber-resilience and cyber-security.
One of the things that we really noticed changing over the last 18 months is the diversification of UK threats. Your traditional UK cyber-criminal, if there is such a thing, is primarily focused on hacking for personal benefit, ransomware and other activity. Now we are seeing a diversification, and more of a hybrid, cross-organised crime threat. There are often two factors to that. We often hear it described in the media or by us within law enforcement publicly as the common threat—this emerging community online—otherwise known as Scattered Spider.
There, we are seeing two elements to those sorts of groups. You see an element of maybe more traditional cyber-skills engaged in hacking or using those skills for fraud, but we also see those skills being used for Computer Misuse Act offences, in order to enable other offences. One of the big areas for that at the moment that we see is around intimate image abuse. We see more and more UK-based criminals hacking individuals’ devices to access, they hope, intimate images. They then identify the subject of those intimate images, most predominantly women, and then engage in acts of extortion, bullying or harassment. We have seen some instances of real-world contact away from that online contact.
Think of the scale of that and the challenge that presents to policing. I can think of cases in cyber-crime unit investigations across the country where you have got a handful of individuals who have victimised thousands of women in the UK and abroad. You have got these small cyber-crime units of a handful of people trying to manage 4,000 or 10,000 victims.
It is very difficult and very challenging, but the flipside of that is that, if they are UK-based, we have a much better chance of getting hold of them, so we are seeing a lot more arrests for those cross-hybrid threats, which is a positive. There is definitely an emerging cohort that then starts to blend in with threats like Southport and violence-fixated individuals. There seems to be a real mishmash of online threat coming together and then separating apart in a way that we have never seen historically. That is a real change in the UK threat that is driving a lot of policing activity.
Turning to your ransomware question, what is interesting, in terms of the kinds of organisations that are impacted by ransomware, a lot of the ransomware actors do not want to come to notice for hitting critical national infrastructure. They do not want to do the cloning of pipelines. They do not want to be taking out hospitals and the NHS. They know they will not get paid if they hit UK critical national infrastructure, for starters, so there is a disincentive, but they also do not want that level of Government or law enforcement attention.
Think of the disruptive effect that the UK NCA and policing had on LockBit the year before last. LockBit went from being the No. 1 ransomware strain globally to being out of the top 10 and struggling to come back. We saw a real fragmentation of the ransomware market post that. There is no dominant strain or group within that that has emerged to cover that. A lot of those groups that are coming into that space may be a bit less skilled, sophisticated and successful.
The overall threat to organisations is pretty much the same. The volume is the volume, but it is probably less CNI and more smaller organisations because they are more vulnerable and it is less likely to play out very publicly than if there is a big impact on the economy or critical national infrastructure. As such, there is probably not the level of impact in the areas that people would expect, notwithstanding some of the really high-profile incidents we had last year.
David Chadwick
Q
DCS Andrew Gould: That is a really good question. The international jurisdiction challenge for us is huge. We know that is where most of the volumes are driven from, and obviously we do not have the powers to just go over and get hold of the people we would necessarily want to. You will not be surprised to hear that it really varies between jurisdictions. Some are a lot more keen to address some of the threats emanating from their countries than others. More countries are starting to treat this as more of a priority, but it can take years to investigate an organised crime group or a network, and it takes them seconds to commit the crime. It is a huge challenge.
There are two things that we could do more of better—these are things that are in train already. If you think about the wealth of cyber-crime, online fraud and so on, all the data, and a lot of the skills and expertise to tackle that sit within the private sector, whereas in law enforcement, we have the law enforcement powers to take action to address some of it.
With a recent pilot in the City funded by the Home Office, we have started to move beyond our traditional private sector partnerships. We are working with key existing partners—blockchain analytic companies or open-source intelligence companies—and we are effectively in an openly commercial relationship; we are paying them to undertake operational activity on our behalf. We are saying, “Company a, b or c, we want you to identify UK-based cyber-criminals, online fraudsters, money-laundering and opportunities for crypto-seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002”. They have the global datasets and the bigger picture; we have only a small piece of the puzzle. By working with them jointly on operations, they might bring a number of targets for us, and we can then develop that into operational activity using some of the other tools and techniques that we have.
It is quite early days with that pilot, but the first investigation we did down in the south-east resulted in a seizure of about £40 million-worth of cryptocurrency. That is off a commercial contract that cost us a couple of hundred grand. There is potential for return on investment and impact as we scale it up. It is a capability that you can point at any area of online threat, not just cyber-crime and fraud, so there are some huge opportunities for it to really start to impact at scale.
One of the other things we do in a much more automated and technical way—again funded by the Home Office—is the replacement of the Action Fraud system with the new Report Fraud system. That will, over the next year or so, start to ingest a lot of private sector datasets from financial institutions, open-source intelligence companies and the like, so we will have a much broader understanding of all those threats and we will also be able to engage in takedowns and disruptions in an automated way at scale, working with a lot of the communication service providers, banks and others.
Instead of the traditional manual way we have always been doing a lot of that protection, we can, through partnerships, start doing it in a much more automated and effective way at scale. Over time, we will be able to design out and remove a lot of the volume you see impacting the UK public now. That is certainly the plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Q
DCS Andrew Gould: I love the fact that you have heard of it. One of the things that we struggle with is promoting a lot of these initiatives. Successive Governments actually deserve a lot of credit for the range of services that are provided. We aspire to be a global cyber-power, and in many ways we are. When you look at the range of services, tools, advice and guidance that organisations or the public can get, there is quite a positive story to tell there. I think we struggle to bring that into one single narrative and promote it, which is a real challenge. People just do not know that those services are there.
For those who are not familiar with Police CyberAlarm, it is a Home Office-funded policing tool focused on small and medium-sized organisations that probably do not have the skills or understanding to protect themselves as effectively. They can download that piece of software, and it will sit on their external networks and monitor for attacks. For the first time, it helps us in policing to build a domestic threat picture for small and medium-sized organisations, because everybody has a different piece of the puzzle. GCHQ has great insight into what is coming into the UK infrastructure, but it obviously cannot monitor domestically. Big organisations that provide cyber-security services and monitoring know what is impacting their clients or their organisation, but not everybody else. At policing, we get what is reported, which is a tiny piece of the puzzle. So everyone has a different bit of the jigsaw, and none of it fits together, and, even if it did, there would still be gaps. For SMEs, that is a particular gap.
For us, we get the threat intelligence to drive our operational activity, which has been quite successful for us. The benefit for member organisations—we are up to about 12,000 organisations at the moment, which are mostly schools, because we know that they are the most vulnerable to attack for a variety of reasons—is that, having the free tool available, it can do the monthly vulnerability scans and assessments. So they are getting a report from the police that tells them what they need to fix and what they need to patch.
We do not publicly offer a lifetime monitoring service, because we would not want the liability and responsibility, and we do not have the infrastructure to run that scale of security operation centre. But, in effect, that is actually what we have been doing for a long time—maybe not 24/7, but most of the time—because we have been able to identify precursor activity to ransomware attacks on schools or other organisations, and have been able to step in and prevent it from happening. There have been instances where officers have literally got in cars and gone on a blue light to organisations to say, “You need to shut some stuff off now, because you are about to lose control of your whole organisation.”
To that extent, it has been really impactful, but the challenge for us is how to scale. How do you scale so that people understand that it is there? How do you make it easier for organisations to install? That is one of the things that we are working on at the moment, so that everybody can benefit from the scans and the threat reporting, and we can benefit from a bigger understanding of what is going on.
The flip side of the SME offer from our point of view is our cyber-resilience centres. By working with some of the top student talent in the country, we can scale to offer our member organisations across the country the latest advice and guidance, help them understand what the NCSC advice and guidance is, and then help them to get the right level of security policies, patch their systems and all that kind of thing. It helps them to take the first steps on their cyber-resilience journey, and hopefully be more mature consumers of cyber-security industry services going forward. We are helping to create a market for growth, but also helping those organisations to understand their specific vulnerabilities and improve from a very base level.
Bradley Thomas
Q
DCS Andrew Gould: That is another really good question. Generally, it is financial, but you will often get what is called the double dip, so there is the extraction of data as well as the encryption of it, so that you no longer have access to it. They might take that data as well, primarily personal data, because of the regulatory pressures and challenges that that brings. There is a sense among a lot of criminal groups that, if they have personal data, you are more likely to pay, because you do not want that reputation, embarrassment and all the rest of it, as opposed to if they take intellectual property, for example. But it is not that that does not happen as well. Primarily, it is financial gain.
Chris Vince
Q
DCS Andrew Gould: It is a tricky one. It feels like the technology change is getting ever faster and ever more challenging, but I first went into cyber-crime in the Met back in 2014, and we are giving the same advice now as we were giving then. Sometimes your head can explode with the technical complexity of it, but a lot of the solution just comes down to doing the really boring basics in a world-class way. It is things like patching and doing your software updates. Whether you are a member of the public or running an organisation, finding a way to do those updates and patches means that 50% of the threat has gone, there and then. With something like multi-factor authentication, it seems like most organisations do not want to inconvenience their staff or customers by putting it in place, but that would be another 40% of the problem solved. It is not infallible—nothing is—but if you are thinking about how attacks are still successful, it is pretty basic: a lot of our protections are not in place. Solving that means that 90% of the threat is gone, there and then. That then leaves the 10% of more sophisticated threats—let’s make the criminals work a bit harder.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Richard Starnes gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Richard Starnes, chair of the information security panel for the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists. We have until 4 pm for this session.
Dr Spencer
Q
Richard Starnes: The question about effectiveness is difficult to answer. There is the apparent effectiveness and the actual effectiveness. The reason I answer in that way is that you have regulators that are operating in environments where they may choose to not publicly disclose how they are regulating; it may be classified due to the nature of the company that was compromised, or who compromised the company. There may not necessarily be a public view of how much of that regulation is actually going on. That is understandable, but it has the natural downside of creating instances where somebody is being taken to task for not doing it correctly, but that is not exposed to the rest of the world. You do not know that it is happening, so the deterrent effect is not there.
Information sharing and analysis centres started in the United States 20 or 25 years ago, when different companies were in the same boat. The first one that I was aware of was the Financial Services ISAC, which comprises large entities—banks, clearing houses and so on—that share intelligence about the types of attacks that they are receiving internationally. They may be competing with one another in their chosen businesses, but they are all in the same boat with regard to being attacked by whatever entities are attacking them. Those have been relatively good at helping develop defences for those industries.
Dr Spencer
Q
Richard Starnes: Yes. We have FS-ISAC operating in the United Kingdom and in Europe, with all the major banks, but if you took this and replicated it on an industry-by-industry basis, particularly ones in CNI, that would be helpful. It would also help with information sharing with entities like NCSC and GCHQ.
David Chadwick
Q
Richard Starnes: On what you say about the 18-month tenure, one of the problems is stress. A lot of CISOs are burning out and moving to companies that they consider to have boards that are more receptive to what they do for a living. Some companies get it. Some companies support the CISOs, and maybe have them reporting to a parallel to the CIO, or chief information officer. A big discussion among CISOs is that having a CISO reporting to a CIO is a conflict of interest. A CISO is essentially a governance position, so you wind up having to govern your boss, which I would submit is a bit of a challenge.
How do we help CISOs? First, with stringent application of regulatory instruments. We should also look at or discuss the idea of having C-level or board-level executives specifically liable for not doing proper risk governance of cyber-security—that is something that I think needs to be discussed. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 states that you must act in the best interests of your company. In this day and age, I would submit that not addressing cyber-risk is a direct attack on your bottom line.
Dr Gardner
Q
Richard Starnes: I think this should flow from the board to the C-level executives. Most boards have a risk committee of some sort, and I think the chair of the risk committee would be a natural place for that responsibility to sit, but there has to be somebody who is ultimately responsible. If the board does not take it seriously, the C-levels will not, and if the C-levels will not, the rest of the company will not.
Dr Gardner
Q
Richard Starnes: That is a very broad question.
Dr Gardner
I know, sorry. I collapsed it down from quite a few.
Richard Starnes: There is any number of different reasons. You have 12 competent authorities, at last count, with varying funding models and access to talent. Those could vary quite a bit, depending on those factors. I am not really sure how to answer that question.
Dr Gardner
Q
Richard Starnes: True, but I would submit that under the Companies Act that liability is already there for all the directors; it just has not been used that way.
Emily Darlington
Q
Richard Starnes: You just stepped on one of my soapbox issues. I would like to see the code of practice become part of the annual Companies House registrations for every registered company. To me, this is an attestation that, “We understand cyber-security, we’ve had it put in front of us, and we have to address it in some way.”
One of the biggest problems, which Andy talked about earlier, is that we have all these wonderful things that the Government are doing with regard to cyber-security, down to the micro-level companies, but there are 5.5 million companies in the United Kingdom that are not enterprise-level companies, and the vast majority of them have 25 employees or fewer. How do we get to these people and say, “This is important. You need to look at this”? This is a societal issue. The code of practice and having it registered through Companies House are the way to do that. We need to start small and move big. Only 3% of businesses are involved in Cyber Essentials, which is just that: the essentials. It is the baseline, so we need to start there.
David Chadwick
Q
Richard Starnes: Throughout my career, I have been involved in cyber incidents from just about day one. One of the biggest problems that you run into in the first 72 hours, for example, is actually determining whether you have been breached. Just because it looks bad does not mean it is bad. More times than not, you have had indicators of compromise, and you have gone through the entire chain, which has taken you a day, or maybe two or three days, of very diligent work with very clever people to determine that, no, you have not been breached; it was a false positive that was difficult to track down. Do you want to open the door to a regulator coming in and then finding out it is a false positive?
You are also going to have a very significant problem with the amount of alerts that you get with a 24-hour notification requirement, because there is going to be an air of caution, particularly with new legislation. Everybody and his brother is going to be saying, “We think we’ve got a problem.” Alternatively, if they do not, then you have a different issue.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witness for his evidence. I will suspend the Committee for a few minutes because our next witnesses, who will give evidence online, are not ready yet.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Brian Miller, head of IT security and compliance, and Stewart Whyte, data protection officer, both from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and joining us online. For this session we have until 4.20 pm. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Brian Miller: Good afternoon, Chair. It is nice to see you all. I am Brian Miller and I head up IT security and compliance at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. It is a privilege to be here, albeit remotely. I have worked at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for four years. Prior to that, I was infrastructure manager at a local authority for 16 years and I spent 10 years at the Ministry of Defence in infrastructure management. I look at the Bill not only through the lens of working with a large health board, but from a personal perspective with a philosophy of “defenders win” across the entire public sector.
Stewart Whyte: Good afternoon, Chair, and everyone. My name is Stewart Whyte and I am the data protection officer at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I am by no means a cyber-security expert, but hopefully I can provide some insight into the data protection side and how things fit together.
Dr Spencer
Q
Brian Miller: That is a good question. Some of our colleagues mentioned the follow-up secondary legislation that will help us to identify those kinds of things. I suppose there is no difference from where we are at now. We would look at any provision of services from a risk management perspective and say what security controls apply. For example, would they be critical suppliers in terms of infrastructure and cyber-security? Does a cleaning service hold identifiable data? What are the links? Is it intrinsically linked from a technological perspective?
I mentioned looking at this through a “defenders win” lens. Yes, some of these technologies are covered. I saw some of the conversations earlier about local authorities not being in scope, but services are so intrinsically linked that they can well come into scope. It might well be that some of the suppliers you mentioned fall under the category of critical suppliers, but that might be the case just now. There might be provision of a new service for medical devices, which are a good example because they are unique and different compliance standards apply to them. For anything like that, where we stand just now—outside the Bill—we risk assess it. There is such an intrinsic link. A colleague on another panel mentioned data across the services; that is why Stewart is here alongside me. I look after the IT security element and Stewart looks after the data protection element.
Dr Spencer
Q
Brian Miller: Sometimes, but sometimes not. I do not think we had any physical links with Synnovis, but it did work on our behalf. Emails might have been going back and forward, so although there were no physical connections, it was still important in terms of business email compromise and stuff like that—there was a kind of ancillary risk. Again, when things like that come up, we would look at it: do we have connections with a third party, a trusted partner or a local authority? If we do, what information do we send them and what information do we receive?
Chris Vince
Q
Stewart Whyte: Anything that increases or improves our processes in the NHS for a lot of the procured services that we take in, and anything that is going to strengthen the framework between the health board or health service and the suppliers, is welcome for me. One of our problems in the NHS is that the systems we put in are becoming more and more complex. Being able to risk assess them against a particular framework would certainly help from our perspective. A lot of our suppliers, and a lot of our systems and processes, are procured from elsewhere, so we are looking for anything at all within the health service that will improve the process and the links with third party service providers.
Dr Gardner
Q
Brian Miller: That is a great question. I will touch on some different parts, because I might have slightly different information from some of the information you have heard previously. On reporting—Stewart will deal with the data protection element for reporting into the Information Commissioner’s Office—we report to the Scottish Health Competent Authority. It is important that we have an excellent relationship with the people there. To put that in context, I was speaking to them yesterday regarding our transition to the CAF, as part of our new compliance for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. If there was a reportable incident, we would report into the SHCA. The thresholds are really well defined against the confidentiality, integrity and availability triad—it will be patient impact and stuff like that.
Organisationally, we report up the chain to our director of digital services, and we have an information governance steering group. Our senior information risk officer is the director of digital, and the chief information security officer role sits with our director of digital. We report nationally, and we work really closely with National Services Scotland’s Cyber Security Centre of Excellence, which does a lot of our threat protection and secure operations, 24/7, 365 days a year. We work with the Scottish Government through the Scottish Cyber Co-ordination Centre and what are called CREW—cyber resilience early warning—notices for a lot of threat intelligence. If something met the threshold, we would report to the SHCA. Stewart, do you want to come in on the data protection officer?
Stewart Whyte: We would report to the Information Commissioner, and within 72 hours we also report to the Scottish Government information governance and data protection team. We would risk assess the breaches and determine whether they meet the threshold for reporting. Not every data breach is required to be reported.
From the reporting perspective, it would be helpful to report into one individual organisation. I noticed that in the reporting requirements we are looking at doing it within 24 hours, which could be quite difficult, because sometimes we do not know everything about the breach within that time. We might need more information to be able to risk assess it appropriately. Making regulators aware of the breach as soon as possible is always going to be a good thing.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Brian Miller: We would work with the Scottish Health Competent Authority as our regulator; I cannot speak for other regulators and what that might look like. We are doing work on what assurance for critical suppliers outside the Bill looks like just now, and we are working across the boards in Scotland on identifying critical suppliers. Outside of that, for any suppliers or any new services, we will assess the risk individually, based on the services they are providing.
The Bill is really valuable for me, particularly when it comes to managed service provision. One of the questions I was looking at is: what has changed since 2018? The biggest change for me is that identity has went to the cloud, because of video conferencing and stuff like that. When identity went to the cloud, it then involved managed service providers and data centres. We have put additional controls around that, because the network perimeter extended out into the cloud. We might want to take advantage of those controls for new things that come online, integrating with national identity, but we need to be assured that the companies integrating with national identity are safe. For me, the Bill will be a terrific bit of legislation that will help me with that—if that makes sense.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Brian Miller: I think we would work with the regulator, but we are looking for more detail in any secondary legislation that comes along. We have read what the designation of critical suppliers would be. I would look to work with the Scottish Health Competent Authority and colleagues in National Services Scotland on what that would look like.
Stewart Whyte: On how we would make that decision, from our perspective we are looking at what the supplier is providing and what sort of data they are processing on our behalf. From the NHS perspective, 90% of the data that we process will be special category, very sensitive information. It could be that, from our side, a lot of the people in the supply chain would fall into that designation, but for some other sectors it might not be so critical. We have a unique challenge in the NHS because of the service we provide, the effect that cyber-crime would have on our organisations, and the sensitivity of the data we process.
Dr Spencer
Q
Stewart Whyte: For me, it would be a slightly different assessment from Brian’s. We would be looking at anything where there is no processing of personal data. For me, that would not be a critical supplier from a data protection perspective. But there might be some other integration with NHS board systems that Brian might have concerns about. There is a crossover in terms of what we do, but my role is to look at how we manage data within the NHS. If there are suppliers where there is no involvement with identifiable data of either staff or patients, I would not see them as a critical supplier under this piece of legislation.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Brian Miller: I do not want to step out of my lane. There will be clinical stuff that absolutely would be essential. I would not be able to speak in any depth on that part of it; I purely look at the cyber element of it. As an organisation, we would be identifying those kinds of aspects.
In terms of suppliers, you are absolutely right. We have suppliers that supply some sort of IT services to us. If we are procuring anything, we will do a risk assessment—that might be a basic risk assessment because it is relatively low risk, it might be a rapid risk assessment, or it may be a really in-depth assessment for someone that would be a critical supplier or we could deem essential—but there are absolutely suppliers that would not fall under any of that criteria for the board. The board is large in scale, with 40,000 users. It is the largest health board in the country.
Dr Spencer
Q
Stewart Whyte: Yes. There is a lot of information sharing between acute services and primary care via integrated systems. We send discharge letters and information directly to GP practices that then goes straight into the patient record with the GP. There is a lot of integration there, yes.
Dr Spencer
Q
Stewart Whyte: Yes, there is integration between ourselves and the local authorities.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Chris Parker MBE and Carla Baker gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Chris Parker, director of government strategy at Fortinet and co-chair of the UK cyber resilience committee at techUK, and Carla Baker, senior director of government affairs in the UK and Ireland at Palo Alto Networks. For this session, we have until 4.50 pm.
Dr Spencer
Q
Carla, from the Palo Alto Networks perspective, what are your views on the changes to the incident reporting regime under the Bill? Will the approach help or hinder regulators in identifying and responding to the most serious threats quickly?
Chris Parker: I should point out that Carla is also co-chair of the cyber resilience committee, so you have both co-chairs here today.
As large cyber companies, we are very proud of one thing that is pertinent to the sector that may not be clear to everybody outside. I have worked in many sectors, and this is the most collaborative—most of it unseen—and sharing sector in the world. It has to be, because cyber does not respect borders. When we go to the most vulnerable organisations, which one would expect cannot afford things and therefore there must be a function of price, such as SMEs—I was an SME owner in a previous life—that is very dear to us. With the technology that is available, what is really good news is that when people buy cyber-security for their small business—in the UK or anywhere in the world—they are actually buying the same technology; it is effectively just a different engine size in most cases. There are different phases of technology. There is the latest stuff that is coming in, which they may not be getting into yet. However, the first thing to say is that it is a very fair system, and pricing-wise, it is a very fair system indeed for SMEs.
The second point is about making sure we are aware of the amount of free training going on across the world, and most of the vendors—the manufacturers—do that. Fortinet has a huge system of free training available for all people. What does that give? It is not just technical training for cyber-security staff; it is for ordinary people, including administrative workers and the people who are sometimes the ones who let the bad actor in. There are a lot of efforts. There is a human factor, as well as technological and commercial factors.
The other thing I would like to mention is that the cyber resilience committee, which Carla and I are lucky to co-chair, is elected. We have elected quite a large proportion of SME members. There is also a separate committee run by techUK. You heard from Stuart McKean earlier today, and he is one of the co-chairs, or the vice chair, of that committee.
Carla Baker: On incident reporting, as I am sure you are aware, the Bill states that organisations must report an incident if it is
“likely to have an impact”.
Our view, and I think that of techUK, is that the definition is far too broad. Anything that is likely to cause an impact could be a phishing email that an organisation has received. Organisations receive lots and lots of spoof emails.
I will give an example. Palo Alto Networks is one of the largest pure-play cyber-security companies. Our security operations centre—the hub of our organisation—processes something like 90 billion alerts a day. That is just our organisation. Through analysis and automation, the number is whittled down to just over 20,000. Then, through technology and capabilities, it is further whittled down, so that we are analysing about 75 alerts.
You can equate it to a car, for example. If you are driving and see a flashing yellow light, something is wrong. That is like 20,000 alerts. It is then whittled down to about 75, so we would potentially have to report up to 75 incidents per day, and that is just one organisation. There are a lot more. The burden on the regulator would be massive because there would be a lot of noise. It would struggle to ascertain what is the real problem—the high-risk incidents that impact the UK as a whole—and the noise would get in the way of that.
We have come up with a suggestion, an amendment to the legislation, that would involve a more tiered approach. There would be a more measurable and proportionate reporting threshold, with three tiers. The first is an incident that causes material service disruption, affecting a core service, a critical customer or a significant portion of users. The second is unauthorised, persistent access to a system. The third is an incident that has compromised core security controls—that is, security systems. Having a threshold that is measurable and proportionate is easier for organisations to understand than referring to an incident that is
“likely to have an impact”,
because, as I said, a phishing email is likely to cause an impact if an organisation does not have the right security measures in place.
David Chadwick
Q
Chris Parker: That is an excellent question. The good news is that a lot is happening already. An enormous amount of collaborative effort is going on at the moment. We must also give grace to the fact that it is a very new sector and a new problem, so everybody is going at it. That leads me on to the fact that the UK has a critical role in this, but it is a global problem, and therefore the amount of international collaboration is significant—not only from law enforcement and cyber-security agencies, but from businesses. Of course, our footprints, as big businesses, mean that we are always collaborating and talking to our teams around the world.
In terms of what the UK can do more of, a lot of the things that have to change are a function of two words: culture and harmonisation—harmonisation of standards. It is about trying not to be too concerned about getting everything absolutely right scientifically, which is quite tempting, but to make sure we can harmonise examples of international cyber-standards. It is about going after some commonality and those sorts of things.
I think the UK could have a unique role in driving that, as we have done with other organisations based out of London, such as the International Maritime Organisation for shipping standards. That is an aspiration, but we should all drive towards it. I think it is something the UK could definitely do because of our unique position in looking at multiple jurisdictions. We also have our own responsibilities, not only with the Commonwealth but with other bodies that we are part of, such as the United Nations.
It is not all good news. The challenge is that, as much as we know that harmonisation is okay, unfortunately everyone is moving. Things have started, and everyone is running hot. An important point to make is that it is one of the busiest sectors in the world right now, and everybody is very busy. This comes back to the UK having a particular eye on regulatory load, versus the important part that other elements of our society want, which is growth and economic prosperity. We talked earlier about SMEs. They do not have the capability to cover compliance and regulatory load easily, and we would probably all accept that. We have to be careful when talking about things such as designating critical suppliers.
All of this wraps up into increasing collaboration through public-private partnerships and building trust, so that when the Government and hard-working civil servants want to see which boundaries are right to push and which are not, bodies such as the UK cyber resilience committee, which Carla and I are on, can use those collaborative examples as much as possible.
There is quite a lot there, but something the UK certainly should be pushing to do is culture change, which we know has to be part of it—things have been talked about today by various speakers—as well as the harmonisation of standards.
Carla Baker: I think we are in a really interesting and exciting part of policy development: we have the Bill, and we have recently had the Government cyber action plan, which you may have heard about; and the national cyber action plan is coming in a few months’ time. The Government cyber action plan is internally facing, looking at what the Government need to do to address their resilience. The national cyber action plan is wider and looks at what the UK must do. We are at a really exciting point, with lots of focus and attention on cyber-security.
To address your point, I think there are three overarching things that we should be looking at. First is incentivising organisations, which is part of the Bill and will hopefully be a big part of the national cyber action plan. We must incentivise organisations to do more around cyber-security to improve their security posture. We heard from previous panellists about the threats that are arising, so organisations have to take a step forward.
Secondly, I think the Government should use their purchasing power and their position to start supporting organisations that are doing the right thing and are championing good cyber-security. There is more that the Government can do there. They could use procurement processes to mandate certain security requirements. We know that Cyber Essentials is nearly always on procurement tenders and all those types of things, but more can be done here to embed the need for enhanced security requirements.
Thirdly, I think a previous witness talked about information sharing. There is a bit of a void at the moment around information sharing. The cyber security information sharing partnership was set up, I think, 10 years ago—
Chris Parker: Yes, 10 years ago.
Carla Baker: It was disbanded a couple of months ago, and that has left a massive void. How does industry share intelligence and information about the threats they are seeing? Likewise, how can they receive information about the threat landscape? We have sector-specific things, but there isn’t a global pool, and there is a slight void at the moment.
David Chadwick
Q
Chris Parker: It is a national problem. We have had a lot of discussion on that at the techUK cyber resilience committee. We think it is not just about skills and bunging lots of training at people, because you have to work out cyber as a whole. A very small component of cyber is people at the wonderfully high-tech end, where they are coding and writing software. There are an awful lot of jobs in places out there that a lot of people are just not aware of, and perhaps would therefore not be volunteering or aiming towards it—even at their school. There are lots of jobs in cyber sales, marketing and analysis that do not require a very high level of mathematics, for example. Some of them do not need a very high level of mathematics at all. I think that some awareness needs to be built there.
Personally, I would like to see more championing of the people who are in the sector at the moment. We have some fantastic young men and women in the sector, but we also need to make sure they are able to have chartered status. It is out there, now that we are starting, but it needs to gather pace, because we need to make sure these people are represented and feel professional, so that it can be reflected.
Another thing to mention is that there is a lot of effort in the cyber growth partnership, which is run through DSIT and techUK. It is initiating an idea where people will be lent from industry into academia, to offer inspiration but also to improve lecture quality and standards, because things move fast and we are running so hot. It is very hard for academia to keep up. There is quite a lot that can be done to increase the workforce and skills, but going back to our original points, with greater public-private collaboration and discussion, we will get it absolutely right on focusing on the right places to spend resources.
Dr Gardner
Q
Carla Baker: My comment on information sharing was about what else the Government could do. It was not necessarily specifically to do with the Bill. If you want me to elaborate on the wider issue of information sharing, I am happy to.
Dr Gardner
Particularly between regulators, and how that would work.
Carla Baker: I cannot necessarily talk in much detail about information sharing across regulators. It is more about information sharing across the technology industry that I can talk about.
Dr Gardner
Q
I will ask my actual question, and I am trying to get my head around this. You recommend mandating that company boards be accountable for mitigating cyber-risks, and as we know from the annual cyber-security breaches survey, there are declining levels of board responsibility for cyber in recent years, which links to whether there should be a statutory duty. I am a little worried about small and microbusinesses having to deal with that regulatory burden, especially if they are designated as critical suppliers. I am trying to marry those two things together, and the concern of where liability sits, because we are very dependent on service providers. I do not know if that makes any sense to you, but could you clarify my thinking?
Chris Parker: It is a concern. I will start off with a small point about where there is a statutory requirement, certainly for large companies. I personally believe—and I am pretty sure that most industry people I speak to would say this—that it would be very surprising if we did not have cyber-focused people on boards and in much bigger governance, as we would in a financial services company, where people who are expert in financial risk are able to govern appropriately. As we get smaller and smaller in scale, that is much harder to do.
The good news is that there are some brilliant—and I really mean that—resources available from probably the most underused website in the world, but the best one, which is the National Cyber Security Centre website. It has some outstanding advice for boards and governance on there. You can effectively make a pack and write a checklist, even if you are a very small company with a board of two people, and go through your own things and make sure your checklists are there.
The data and the capability are there to give support. Whether it is signposted enough, and whether we are helping on a local level, to make sure that people are aware of those things is perhaps something we could do better at in this country. But I am sure that industry will do our part, and we do, to share and reinforce the good sharing of things like that website, to guide good governance for SMEs especially.
Carla Baker: That board-level accountability is really important, and it is crucial for cyber-security. I think it is getting better—from the senior execs that I speak to in industry, there is more understanding—but generally speaking, there is a view that cyber-security is an IT issue, not a business issue. I am sure you have heard throughout the day about understanding the risks we have seen around vulnerabilities, and the incidents that have affected the retail or manufacturing sectors. Those are substantial incidents that have impacted the UK and have systemic knock-on effects. Organisations have to understand the serious nature of cyber-security, and therefore put more emphasis on cyber at the board level.
Should we be mandating board-level governance? That is useful for this debate to seek information and input on, but the burden on SMEs has to be risk-based and proportionate, however it is framed.
Dr Gardner
Q
Chris Parker: That is a harder question. There is precedent here—of course, we can think back to the precedents that this great building has set on allowing things such as, post-Clapham train disaster, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 putting it very firmly on boards, evolving from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We are not there yet, but do not forget that we are starting to legislate, as is everyone else in Europe and America who are on this journey.
I believe that we will see a requirement at some point in the future. We all hope that the requirement is not driven by something terrible, but is driven by sensible, wise methodology through which we can find out how we can ensure that people are liable and accept their liability. We have seen statements stood up on health and safety from CEOs at every office in this country, for good reason, and that sort of evolution may well be the next phase.
Carla and I talk about this a lot, but we have to be careful about how much we put into this Bill. We have to get the important bit about critical national infrastructure under way, and then we can address it all collaboratively at the next stage to deal with very important issues such as that.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Chris Parker: I was referring to strategic and critical suppliers, which is a list of Government suppliers. We are advocating that the level of governance and regulatory requirement inside an organisation is difficult, and it really is. It requires quite a lot of work and resource, and if we are putting that on to too small a supplier, on the basis that we think it is on the critical path, I would advocate a different system for risk management of that organisation, rather than it being in the regulatory scope of a cyber-resilience Bill. The critical suppliers should be the larger companies. If we start that way in legislation and then work down—the Bill is designed to be flexible, which is excellent—we can try to get that way.
As a last point on flexibility—this is perhaps very obvious to us but less so to people who are less aware of the Bill—there is a huge dynamic going on here where you have a continuum, a line, at one end of which you have the need for clarity, which comes from business. At the other you have a need for flexibility, which quite rightly comes from the Government, who want to adjust and adapt quite quickly to secure the population, society and the economy against a changing threat. That continuum has an opposing dynamic, so the CRB has a big challenge. We must therefore not be too hard on ourselves in finding exactly where to be on that line. Some things will go well, and some will just need to be looked at after a few years of practice—I really believe that. We are not going to get it all right, because of the complexities and different dynamics along that line.
Carla Baker: This debate about whether SMEs should be involved or regulated in this space has been around since we were discussing GDPR back in 2018. It comes down to the systemic nature of the supplier. You can look at the designation of critical dependencies. I am sure you have talked about this, but for example, an SME software company selling to an energy company could be deemed a critical supplier by a regulator, and it is then brought into scope. However, I think it should be the SMEs that are relevant to the whole sector, not just to one organisation. If they are systemic and integral to a number of different sectors, or a number of different organisations within a sector, it is fair enough that they are potentially brought into scope.
It is that risk-based approach again. But if it is just one supplier, one SME, that is selling to one energy company up in the north of England, is it risk-based and proportionate that they are brought into scope? I think that is debatable.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Q
I can imagine that the legislation has been worded as it is to try to capture that situation where activity might occur, but not have an impact. Would you accept that that is important, and how would that fit in with the tiered approach that you described?
Carla Baker: I completely get your point. We have looked at that; my legal colleagues have looked at things such as spyware, where you have malware in the system that is not doing anything but is living there, for example, or pre-emptive, where they are waiting to launch an attack, and we think this amendment would still cover those scenarios. It is not necessarily cause and impact: the lights have not gone out, but if there is, for example, a nation state actor in your network, we think the amendment would still cover that.
Dr Spencer
Q
Chris Parker: Yes, absolutely.
Carla Baker: Yes, completely. That is similar to my point, which was probably not explained well enough: how you are deemed critical should be more about your criticality to the entire ecosystem, not just to one organisation.
Dr Spencer
Q
Carla Baker: I think that is part of the issue about not having clear criteria about how regulators will designate. That also means that different regulators will take different approaches, so we would welcome more clarity and early consultation around the criteria that will be used for the regulators to designate a critical dependency, which prevents having different regulatory approaches across the 12 different regulators, which we obviously do not want, and gives greater harmonisation and greater clarity for organisations to know, “Okay, I might be brought in, because those are the clear criteria the Government will be using.”
David Chadwick
Q
Chris Parker: The consultation has been a best effort and I think it is a best effort as a function of three things. First, we have a new sector, a new Bill—something very new, it is not repeating something. Secondly, we are doing something at pace, it is a moving target, we have to get on with this, and so there is some compulsion involved. Thirdly, there are already some collaborative areas set up, such as techUK, that have been used. Would I personally have liked to have seen more? Yes—but I am realistic about how much time is needed; when you only have a certain resource, some people have got to do some writing and crafting as well as discussing.
One thing that we could look at, if we did the process again, would be more modelling, exercising and testing the Bill until it shakes a bit more—that is something that perhaps we could do, if we were to do this again. With the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, that was done at length and collaboratively with industry, on a nearly fortnightly basis, for some time. Beyond that, I think that we are realistic in industry because we understand the pressures on the people trying to bring legislation in. A second point to remember is that we are all volunteers. Carla and I, and all those on the Cyber Resilience Committee, volunteer away from our day jobs—which are busy—to do all this. There is a realistic expectation, if you like—but I would say there has been a best effort.
Carla Baker: I would like to look to the future. We have all the secondary legislation that is coming—and there will be lot—so we recommend early insights, and time to review and consult, in order to provide that industry insight that we are happy to provide. Let us look to the secondary legislation and hope that there is good consultation there.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will now move on to our final panel.
Examination of Witness
Kanishka Narayan MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Minister for AI and Online Safety, Kanishka Narayan. For this session, we have until 5.10 pm.
Dr Spencer
Q
Kanishka Narayan: Thank you for the question on definitions. I have two things to say on that. First, observing the evidence today, it is interesting that there are views in both directions on pretty much every definitional question. For example, on the definition of “incident thresholds”, I heard an expert witness at the outset of the day say that it is in exactly the right place, precisely because it adds incidents that have the capability to have an impact, even if not a directness of impact, to cover pre-positioning threats. A subsequent witness said that they felt that that precise definitional point made it not a fitting definition. The starting point is that there is a particular intent behind the definitions used in the Bill, and I am looking forward to going through it clause by clause, but I am glad that some of those tensions have been surfaced.
Secondly, in answer to your question on consultation, a number of the particular priority measures in the Bill were also consulted on under the previous Government. We have been engaging with industry and, in the course of implementation, the team has started setting up engagement with regulators and a whole programme of engagement with industry as well.
Dr Spencer
Q
Kanishka Narayan: I have met a number of companies, but the relevant Minister has also had extensive engagement with both companies and regulators, including on the question of definitions. I do not have a record of her meetings, but if that is of interest, I would be very happy to follow up on it.
Dr Spencer
Q
Kanishka Narayan: I am referring to the Minister for Digital Economy, who is in the other place.
Dr Spencer
Q
Kanishka Narayan: I have had some meetings but, as the Minister in charge of this Bill, she has been very engaged with businesses, so I think that is fitting. We have obviously worked very closely together, as we normally do, in the course of co-ordinating across the two Chambers.
Dr Spencer
Q
Kanishka Narayan: I have spoken to the Secretary of State about the Bill, including the reserve powers, and we have agreed that the policy objective is very clear. I do not think I am in a position to divulge particular details of policy discussions that we have had; I do not think that would be either appropriate or a fitting test of my memory.
Dr Spencer
Q
Kanishka Narayan: I think the guardrails in the Bill are very important, absolutely. The Bill provides that, where there is an impact on organisations or regulators, there is an appropriate requirement for both deep consultation and an affirmative motion of the House. I think that is exactly where it ought to be, and I do not think anything short of that would be acceptable.
Chris Vince
Q
Kanishka Narayan: The primary thing to say is that the range of organisations—commercial ones as well as those from the cyber-security world more generally—coming out to welcome the Bill is testament to the fact that it is deeply needed. I pay tribute to the fact that some of the provisions were engaged on and consulted on by the prior Government, and there is widespread consensus across industry and in the regulatory and enforcement contexts about the necessity and the quality of the Bill. On that front, I feel we are in a good place.
On specific questions, of course, there is debate—we have heard some of that today—but I am very much looking forward to going through clause by clause to explain why the intent of the Bill is reflected in the particular definitions.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Kanishka Narayan: I am shy of making comments on specific incidents, but as a broad brush, clearly the food supply or automotive manufacturing sectors are not directly in scope of the Bill, for reasons I am very much happy to discuss.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Kanishka Narayan: Let me place the focus of this Bill in the global context. As we have heard, there is a range of legislative as well as non-legislative measures on cyber-security. It is deeply important that every organisation, whether in scope of the Bill or not, acts robustly, and we will look at that, not least through the cyber action plan, which I know industry welcomed earlier today and which we are looking forward to publishing very soon.
The particular focus of this Bill is on essential services, the disruption of which would pose an imminent threat—for example, to life and to our economy—in the immediate context. For reasons that we can dive into, if you look at a market such as food supply, the diversity, competitive nature and alternative provision in that market are so obvious that to designate it as fitting the definitional scope I have just highlighted would not be an evidence-led way of engaging.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Kanishka Narayan: As I have said, this legislative vehicle is focused on really high standards of rigour for essential services. I am very keen to ensure that, in the first instance, we are engaging with those companies through the cyber action plan and the National Cyber Security Centre’s framework and to ensure that, as a consequence of those, they are in a robust place.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Kanishka Narayan: This is a great question. There are two things on my mind. One is that the Government have published a cyber action plan, the crux of which is to make sure that, from the point of view of understanding, principles, accountability and, ultimately, skills, there is significant capability in the public sector. The second thing to say is that we have a very broad-based plan on skills more generally across the cyber sector, public and private. For example, I am really proud of the fact that, through the CyberFirst programme, some—I think—415,000 students right across the country have been upskilled in cyber-security. It is deeply important that the public sector ensures that we are standing up to the test of hiring them and making the attraction of the sector clear to them as well. There is a broad-based plan and a specific one for the public sector in the Government context.
Tim Roca
Q
Kanishka Narayan: That is a great question. Broadly, the Bill takes a risk-based and outcomes-focused approach, rather than a technology-specific one. I think that is the right way to go about it. As we have heard today and beyond, there are some areas where frontier technology—new technology such as AI and quantum, which we talked about earlier today—will pose specific risks. There are other areas where the prevalence of legacy systems and legacy database architectures will present particular risks as well.
The Bill effectively says that the sum total of those systems, in their ultimate impact on the risk exposure of an organisation, is the singular focus where regulators should place their emphasis. I would expect that individual regulators will pay heed to the particular prevalence of legacy systems and technical debt as a source of risk in their particular sectors, and as a result to the mitigations that ought to be placed. I think that being technology agnostic is the right approach in this context.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Kanishka Narayan: Do you mean operators of essential services, or critical suppliers, as in the third party element?
Lincoln Jopp
I meant operators of essential services.
Kanishka Narayan: The Bill effectively specifies operators of essential services as large participants in the essential services sectors. I think that that definition is very straightforward. The hospital in this question would be an operator of an essential service. If the question extends to critical third party suppliers—
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Kanishka Narayan: There are two things to say on this. There is at least a four-step test on the face of the Bill for what would qualify as a critical supplier. First, a critical supplier has to supply to an operator of an essential service, in this case the hospital. Secondly, the supplier itself must engage with important network and information systems. Thirdly, the disruption to that third party supplier would have to cause a material disruption to the operator in question—in this case, if the third party supplier falls over from a cyber-security point of view, there would be material and business continuity disruption to the hospital. Fourthly, not only that, but that disruption would have to be sufficiently severe in its impact to be in scope. That is one set of things. Underlying that is a further test in the Bill, whereby alternative provision of that third party supply could not be secured in a practicable way. The combination of those tests means that the scope set out for the critical third party suppliers is extremely tight and robust.
Then there is still the question, having gone through that five-step test, of the particular burden placed on relevant suppliers in scope. My expectation and hope would be that regulators take a much more proportionate approach there than to set the precise same conditions on those suppliers as they do on the operator in question; in particular, that the burden on them is placed specifically in sight of the directional risk that they pose to the operator, rather than the risk in sum for that third party supplier.
The first thing is therefore that the Bill clearly specifies a very tight scope. The second is that it does not seem to me, as a relative novice to both the medical world and cyber-security, unusual to have a specification of this nature in a Bill. Given my professional context, I am particularly conscious of the very clear and critical third party comparable requirement in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which focuses on both cyber-security and supply chain risks. That has worked relatively proficiently in that context, so I hope that there are some good lessons to learn from that.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Kanishka Narayan: The way in which I would envisage it is that each individual regulator assesses the critical nature of the risk posed to its regulated operators. If a hospital has a third party supplier, and the presence and nature of its supply means that there is a critical risk exposure for the hospital, that would be in scope for some degree of regulation in the Bill. To your question, if there is a comparable but separate hospital in a part of England that is separately regulated, but has the same third party supplier, there is obviously a question of whether that third party supplier would end up being regulated twice if the criticality threshold is met. In that instance, and in other similar instances of multiple regulators covering the same third party supplier, I would expect a high degree of co-ordination. In fact, the provisions in the Bill, as well as my hopes for subsequent guidance, are focused on our efficiency and proportionality when there are multiple regulators. However, I think the assessment has to be undertaken by each regulator on a separate basis, because the question being assessed is not the nature, the sum risk, of the third party supplier in itself, but the risk posed by its relationship to the operator it is providing to—if that makes sense.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Kanishka Narayan: Yes, I guess, added together in the sense that they would be separately regulated, but they would all come within the scope of the regulations. Where there is an overlap in the party being regulated, my hope is that the Bill provides for individual regulation, but is very much open to the prospect of a lead regulator engaging in a softer way with the other regulators, as long as each regulator feels that that has assured them of the risk.
Andrew Cooper
Q
We have heard quite a bit about how important it will be, if taking a sectoral approach, to make sure that sharing information between regulators works smoothly, and that there are no information silos. The witness from Ofcom talked about an annual report to the National Cyber Security Centre. That sent chills down my spine, though I am sure she did not mean it quite in that way. How will you ensure that there is an adequate flow of information between regulators in a timely manner? They might not realise that there is cross-sectoral relevance, but when that information is provided to another regulator, it might turn out that there is. How do you address the importance of a single point of reporting that we heard about time and again from witnesses today?
Kanishka Narayan: Those are really important points. In terms of supporting the quality, frequency and depth of information sharing, first, the Bill provides the legal possibility of doing that in a deeper way. It gives the permission and the ability to do that across regulators.
Secondly, in the light of the implicit expectation of that information sharing, the National Cyber Security Centre already brings together all the relevant regulators for deeper conversation and engagement on areas of overlap, best practice sharing, and particularly the sharing of information related to incidents and wider risk as a result. I hope that will continue to be systematic.
On the question of a single reporting avenue, the National Cyber Security Centre, from an incident and operational point of view, is clearly the primary and appropriate location during the implementation of the Bill. From my conversations with the centre and its conversations with the regulators, I know there has been engagement to ensure that it remains a prompt venue for regulators to feed in their information.
Andrew Cooper
Q
Kanishka Narayan: The Bill currently says, “We are now giving you the power to be able to do information sharing.” The Bill, as well as other specific bits of wider legislation, has clear expectations on regulators to carry out their regulatory duty. If there appears to be a challenge in the frequency and quality of information sharing, we will of course look at whether we need to go further, but at the moment, giving them substantive permission and the fact that they have clear regulatory responsibilities individually is a very powerful combination.
David Chadwick
Q
Kanishka Narayan: As I mentioned at the outset, the scope of the sectors is focused on a specific test: are they essential services, the disruption to which could cause an immediate threat to life or have an extremely significant impact on the day-to-day functioning of the country? I do not mean to diminish the significance of electoral services, but, notwithstanding their significant impact on me as a candidate on election day, the test does not appear to be met.
David Chadwick
Q
Kanishka Narayan: It is absolutely critical that boards take their responsibilities to the organisation and the consequences of being in a regulated sector very seriously. The scope of the Bill has been mentioned. The Secretary of State wrote to FTSE 350 businesses, as well as a range of small businesses, to make that point very clear. The cyber assessment framework has particular requirements for boards to take their cyber-security responsibilities seriously. In the course of implementing the Bill and in the secondary legislation process, we will look to ensure that specified security and resilience activities, including the possibility of specific responsibilities, are set out very clearly.
Dr Gardner
Q
Kanishka Narayan: It is an important point. We know that the quality of current regulation for cyber-security varies across regulators. As an earlier panellist said, there is virtue in the fact that we have not set an effective cap on where regulators can go by having a single standard. At the same time, we need to make sure that we are raising a consistent floor of quality and proportionality judgments.
First, there is obviously constant oversight of each regulator through the lead Departments. In my case, for example, we consistently engage with Ofcom on a range of areas, including this one, to ensure the quality of regulation and that proportionality judgment is appropriately applied. Secondly, there is a clear commitment in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report back, on a five-year basis, on the overall implementation of the regime proposed in the Bill. That will be when we can get a global view of how the whole system is working.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions, and to the end of the sitting. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for his evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Railways Bill (Ninth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. I remind Members that the selection and grouping documents show the way in which amendment and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order in which they appear in the amendment paper.
Clause 25
Designation of services by Secretary of State
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 25, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Secretary of State must—
(a) take account of—
(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and
(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and
(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”
This amendment requires that passenger service decisions are made in the context of network capacity and freight increase priorities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 227, in clause 26, page 14, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, the Scottish Ministers must—
(a) take account of—
(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and
(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and
(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.
Clause 26 stand part.
Amendment 228, in clause 27, page 15, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) When designating railway passenger services, Welsh ministers must—
(a) take account of—
(i) the Rail Freight Target under section 17, and
(ii) the Infrastructure Capacity Plan under section 60; and
(b) demonstrate that designations under this section cause no unreasonable detriment to rail freight capacity or growth.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 226.
Clause 27 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Mrs Barker, for chairing the debate. It is great to see everyone back in the room.
Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which Great British Railways should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism for assigning responsibility for running passenger train services. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services that GBR or others, including ScotRail, may run for them. Ministers can exempt services from these designations, thereby allowing them to be devolved to other authorities such as Transport for London. Designation also underpins the delineation of relevant powers and requirements in relation to those services, such as the discount fare schemes that we are going to discuss with clause 34.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to designate the railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. It excludes Scotland-only and Wales-only services, as well as services exempted under clause 28. Again, there is a reference to Transport for London, among others, being exempted from designation by the Secretary of State. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to designate services, even if parts of them are already designated by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.
The explanatory notes state:
“The new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not provide route nor timetable-level detail. This will ensure GBR has sufficient flexibility to act as a directing mind and plan best use of the network in the public interest and in accordance with its duties…All designations and changes must be published.”
The Government’s notes on the clause describe GBR as the “directing mind”, yet all its powers are able to be second-guessed by the Secretary of State, including the designation of services. That really prompts the question once again, who is the directing mind? Is it GBR or the Secretary of State?
The seeds of GBR’s failure as a directing mind are already being drafted into the text of the Bill. We have already seen all the Secretary of State’s rights to provide “guidance”, then to “direct” in clauses 7 and 9, as well as the long-term rail strategy in clause 15 and the decision on the provision of funding. This is Department for Transport management of the nationalised railways by the back door, confirming the suspicion that GBR will be, or is at risk of being—I hope it is not—the worst of both worlds. These are costs associated with a stand-alone organisation, coupled with the costs of a DFT shadow organisation that over time will grow again to second-guess GBR as catered for in this Bill. It is not just about the cost; it is about the delay, the obfuscation, the inability to decide whether a decision has actually been made and the second-guessing of decisions. That is death to dynamism in an organisation.
The railways obviously have two functions: passenger services and freight. Amendment 226 will make clear that any designation of passenger services will need to have taken account of freight and demonstrate that freight is not caused unreasonable detriment to capacity or future growth. The amendment is clearly in the interests of the common cause to make freight growth a target for GBR, which the Government agree with. It is impossible to deal with either passenger or freight without having regard to the other. That mutual regard is missing from the Bill, and this amendment supplies the necessary focus, so I shall seek to divide the Committee on it.
I move now to clause 26 and amendment 227. We recognise that, at present, Scotland funds and controls Scotland-only services. Scotland can and does designate cross-border services where it has an operational interest. Scotland must consult with the Secretary of State but, ultimately, has autonomy on Scotland-only designations. Clause 26 requires Scottish Ministers to designate Scotland-only railway passenger services and particular cross-border services—either those that they consider should be provided together with Scotland-only services or existing cross-border services designated to them before the Bill comes into force. It ties into clause 31, where Scottish Ministers can provide the designated services themselves or make direct awards under regulation 17 of the 2023 transport regulations.
In this instance, “Scotland-only services” refers to passenger services that start and end in Scotland and do not make a scheduled call in England or Wales. It provides flexibility for the designation to be made either for specific services or for services of a particular class or description. It also allows Scottish Ministers to designate cross-border services where they consider those services should be provided in conjunction with designated Scotland-only services. It is also worth noting that the clause excludes from designation any services exempt under regulations made under clauses 28 or 29, and requires consultation with the Secretary of State before designation, variation or revocation. It is my understanding that very limited designations are reserved to the UK Government. They lay primarily around open access and freight. Those two areas, I suspect, we will enter into discussions at length later in the Committee.
On cross-border services, it is eminently sensible that the UK and Scottish Governments co-ordinate strongly on this. A later amendment to another clause relates to the allocation of ticket sales on a proportionate basis, to ensure that UK and Scottish Governments—in the fullness of time, we will discuss the Welsh Government too—each get their fair share of funding. Amendment 227 would apply a duty to Scottish Ministers, similar to the one that amendment 226 would place on the Secretary of State, to take account of the rail freight target and the infrastructure capacity plan when considering passenger services. Depending on how the vote goes on amendment 226, I will take a view on whether it is worth proceeding to another Division on amendment 227.
Finally, I turn to clause 27 and amendment 228. It is a broadly similar approach, but applies to designation of services by Welsh Ministers. Hon. Members can read the explanatory notes if they wish, but I am just going to take that as read. On first reading the clause, it seemed sensible; after all, Welsh Ministers are responsible for services that start and end in Wales. The cited example in the explanatory notes is the Cambrian line, which typically goes from Aberystwyth and Pwllheli to Shrewsbury or Birmingham International. These services will, on occasion, terminate at Machynlleth. The Heart of Wales line goes between Swansea and Shrewsbury, and Holyhead services will typically end in England. The Welsh Government will have only a handful of services exclusively in Wales. That is a substantially different from Scotland. Those services are the Core Valley lines, the dedicated Swansea to Cardiff route and the Blaenau to Llandudno route—only three. All other services that start in Wales will generally run into England, which poses a significant challenge for the allocation of moneys from ticket sales.
The Minister may find it useful to outline the practical management of cross-border rail services, and how the Welsh Government’s operator can operate with a degree of confidence when it must report to both Governments, but exists under only one. That is a genuine tension, which I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thoughts on.
Amendment 228 is similar to amendments 226 and 227. I will not repeat my arguments, but there is a qualitative difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Wales. It will have a significant impact on revenue sharing, where 97% of all routes for the Welsh Government contain an English element. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mrs Barker, and to everybody—another day in Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, which seek to ensure that the designation of passenger services does not negatively impact rail freight or undermine GBR in network capacity planning activity.
I hope it is helpful if I clarify that clauses 25 to 27, which set out designation powers of the Secretary of State and devolved Ministers for passenger services, only describe a very high-level mechanism for assigning responsibility for passenger services. For example, the designation helps make clear who is responsible for the service. Further clarity is provided by exemption from designation to show where services have been devolved to other authorities, such as to mayoral strategic authorities or Transport for London. Designation is not a detailed service specification, nor does it determine network access or capacity allocation.
Last week, we published a draft of the Secretary of State’s designation letter to help clarify that, and copies are available in the room today. Ministers’ designation powers do not override or conflict with GBR’s role in determining network access. The access decision process requires GBR to balance passenger and freight needs. The safeguards in the Bill, including the statutory duty to promote rail freight or the ORR’s oversight and appeals body to protect fare freight access are also unaffected by designation. The amendment is therefore impractical and unnecessary and would not achieve its intended purpose in practice.
Protecting rail freight, which I fully endorse, is already enshrined within the Bill. For absolute clarity, I must emphasise that the access clauses in the Bill set out the stages through which network access is determined. It is not determined or affected by designation. The access clauses include producing the infrastructure capacity plan, which will set out GBR’s view of how best to use GBR’s infrastructure to accommodate freight, open access and publicly funded passenger services, as well as maintenance and improvement of the network. GBR will take into account its infrastructure capacity plan when allocating capacity. In comparison, designation is simply the method of determining whether a service should be devolved to, for example, a local authority, or maintained by the Secretary of State and run by GBR. I therefore request that the hon. Member withdraw the amendment.
Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to designate railway passenger services for which GBR should be responsible. Designation is the mechanism by which responsibility for who should run passenger rail services is determined. Clauses 26 and 27 replicate this, but for Scottish and Welsh Ministers respectively. The Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers each have designation powers to set out services which GBR or others—including Transport Scotland or Transport for Wales—may run for them. Designation powers will also assist in providing clarity about which Minister has responsibility to provide, or contract for, cross-border services. Ministers can also exempt services from these designations, which is the way that services can be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. That was the mechanism used to allow Transport for London to run its devolved service. As I have mentioned, the new Secretary of State designation is expected to be succinct and will not include route level or timetable detail. Designation is therefore entirely separate from access or timetabling decisions.
Jerome Mayhew
As I intimated previously, I will put the first amendment to a Division and then we will take a view after that.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
Clauses 28 and 29 enable the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to exempt certain railway passenger services from designation. Exempting a service means that the Secretary of State or devolved Ministers will not be responsible for that service. Instead, responsibility can be devolved to someone else—for example, a mayoral strategic authority—for them to run or contract out the service. That mechanism preserves the existing approach for devolving services to mayoral strategic authorities and their transport agencies, such as Transport for London or Merseytravel, and for light rail networks such as in Greater Manchester. The Secretary of State cannot exempt Scotland-only or Wales-only services, because those fall under the devolved responsibilities of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Clause 29 allows devolved Governments to determine which services fall outside designation, offering flexibility in managing their respective networks.
These clauses are necessary to ensure that there is still a way to devolve services, where that can bring benefits and is the best outcome for the network. Exemptions must be made by regulations, ensuring that the allocation of responsibility for passenger services is transparent. Clause 30 provides supplementary provisions for exemptions under clauses 28 and 29. It allows exemptions to apply to specific persons, classes of persons, services generally or parts of services. Exemptions may be conditional or time-limited, so that decisions to devolve services can be tailored to the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Jerome Mayhew
You will be surprised to hear that I am going to canter through this, Mrs Barker. Clause 28 concerns the method by which the operation of passenger train services has been devolved. A good example is services operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. It is clearly a sensible approach. There is only one clarification that I seek from the Minister. Paragraph 103 of the explanatory notes states:
“All existing exemptions from designations…will be retained.”
That, however, is not in the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the difference between the explanatory notes and the Bill. I am not looking for an amendment to the Bill, but his assurance on the Government’s intention. Clause 29 is similar, but relates to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I see no need to change it as drafted. It sits in line with clause 28 and seems not to act in contravention of the devolution settlement.
Clause 30 clarifies that exemptions made under clause 28 by the Secretary of State, or clause 29 by the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, may apply to specific persons, classes of persons or services generally. I have no objection to the clause, but out of interest, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the clause would be useful.
Keir Mather
I can start by confirming that existing exemptions from designation will be retained. I hope that provides an assurance to the shadow Minister. The powers could be used to allow devolved Administrations to determine which services fall outside of designations, and therefore give them flexibility in meeting the needs of passengers relying on services that otherwise could fall through the cracks. I hope that, having provided the shadow Minister with that assurance, he can support these clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Provision of railway passenger services
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 31, page 16, line 30, leave out from “so” to “, in” in line 31 and insert
“by making a direct award of a contract to Great British Railways, a GBR company, or a private business.”
This amendment would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 170 to 172.
New clause 6—Repeal of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024—
“The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 is repealed.”
This new clause repeals the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 44, in clause 32, page 17, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment requires pre-award publication of public service contracts.
Clause 32 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 31 has a bit more meat to it than the previous half dozen or so clauses. We are looking at the provision of railway passenger services. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may only secure delivery of the passenger services designated under clause 25 through GBR or a GBR company by directly awarding a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company in accordance with regulation 17 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023.
Similarly, the clause grants Scottish and Welsh Ministers two options for delivering their designated services under clauses 26 and 27: either by providing the services directly or by securing their provision through a direct award of a public service contract to one or more public sector companies, including to GBR or a GBR company, in accordance with the 2023 regulations. The powers to provide services directly could also be used in conjunction with clause 4 to enable GBR to operate services on behalf of Welsh or Scottish Ministers.
Subsection (5) provides that, where passenger services are secured through a contract with a joint venture, subsidiary of GBR or GBR, clauses 7 to 10, 13 and 16 to 18—the directions and guidance and GBR’s duties—apply to the provision of those services in the same way as if GBR was performing the contract itself. Subsection (6) ensures that the relevant Ministers have the power to operate network services, station services and light maintenance services, as well as to store and consign goods transported by rail, to enable their responsibility for passenger services. Finally, subsection (7) provides that the obligation to provide or secure the provision of a service under the clause does not give rise to civil liability for breach of a statutory duty.
There is an obvious elephant in the room. The clause implies that GBR, one of its subsidiaries or the respective devolved Government-run rail operators are the only efficient and permitted provider of rail services. The public sector is the only permitted provider of rail services, but that should not be the case. There are many very efficient providers of rail services that are being excluded even from consideration by the wording of the Bill. There may be some instances where private operations are best placed to offer a service, either now or in the future, where they can drive innovation and growth, just like open access has.
Restricting awards by primary legislation to GBR companies provides damaging constraints on the flexibility of future Secretaries of State. If a circumstance exists in the future where a private sector operator is able to offer a better service for a lower cost to the taxpayer, why should the Secretary of State of the day be prevented by primary legislation from making such an award? What is the rationale that the Minister can come up with, beyond union pressure and the Labour party distrust of profitable businesses? What is the danger that this primary legislation is seeking to protect the rail industry from by removing any ability of the Secretary of State of a future Government to award a private sector contract in any circumstances, including those we may not yet have foreseen? It is clearly a bad decision.
Amendments 41 to 43 grant maximum flexibility to a future Secretary of State, which is surely what we want, as well as to Scottish and Welsh Ministers, to make an award to the organisation best placed to undertake the operation, whether it be public or private. Amendments 42 and 43 were grouped with clause 18, so they have already been debated, but they are relevant to this clause as well. These amendments do not mandate the Government to permit private passenger services; they simply allow them flexibility. There may well be opportunities for the private sector to operate passenger services, and why not combine the very best of public and private and allow that provision to exist under the auspices of GBR? The amendment would allow Welsh and Scottish Ministers to do the same, as flexibility is a very important tool in the Government’s arsenal. It is only right that devolved Governments also have the ability to decide, if they so wish—they are not required to—to have private operators as well.
Our approach allows the principle of private investment driving growth, innovation and expansion to be an element of GBR as it progresses. After all, it will rely on the private sector rolling stock providers for its fleet, and private sector supply chain and infrastructure providers to support its Network Rail function, and presumably it will incorporate other private sector elements around freight and open access, so it is only logical that it allows itself the flexibility to strengthen passenger services by having private sector investment, which is more likely to take risks under the GBR banner.
If the Government disagree with that assessment, I would like to hear their rationale. Why do they accept the private sector in all the other parts of the industry that I have just listed, but believe that this sector alone is required to be protected from the private sector so much that the Government have to use primary legislation to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State in every circumstance?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s comments provoke the question, is it a concern that the lack of flexibility for the Secretary of State will mean that there is no space for private sector companies in this role in the future? Ultimately, given the measures set out in the Bill, and that the opportunity to give access to other private businesses is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, it is potentially foreseeable that there could be no private involvement in the future, which would be a problem.
Jerome Mayhew
It is a genuine and legitimate concern of private sector rail operators that the tenor of the Bill will design out private sector and open access operators. Through the capacity duty and the ridiculous lack of an appeals process for GBR decisions, they have designed in a structural conflict of interest, in that GBR is both an operator and the quasi-regulator of its own operations. They will be making decisions without an effective appeal right for access and charging of their direct competitors. That is a genuine and legitimate fear, if the Government do not stop and listen to many experts in the industry.
Amendments 41, 42 and 43 would allow private sector companies to operate train services on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers, respectively. I will press them to a vote if I get the opportunity.
Government amendments 170 and 171 provide for the Welsh Ministers to have the power to award a public service contract to any public sector company when exercising the Secretary of State’s function under clause 31(1). Government amendment 172 would apparently remove a provision that is unnecessary—I will take the Government’s word for that because I do not have it in front of me.
New clause 6, which is in my name, would repeal the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, as the title suggests, so that train services can continue to be provided by private companies as well as GBR. We have always maintained that the Government should act as the operator of last resort and allow any organisation, public or private, to provide the highest standard of railway services.
We should step back from ideological certainty one way or the other—whether it is about having a nationalised business or a privatised one—and approach ownership structures based on what works supported by data, not intuition. I fear that this Government are driven by ideology, which is very evident in clause 31, and by their union supporters—I wrote down “paymasters”, but I feel that the tone of the Committee would not permit me to make that assertion; we are all too close to each other—to whom they are far too close to insist on nationalisation irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Passenger numbers have exploded under privatisation and there are popular open-access routes. Those are social goods; they are supporting our constituents to have a better experience on the railways. The Government appear to be seeking to deny that for the future.
I do not expect immediate Government support, but new clause 6 makes clear our rejection of the Government’s “nationalisation or bust” approach—it is more likely to be nationalisation and bust. For that reason, I wish to press new clause 6 to a vote.
Clause 32 relates to contracts awarded under clause 31, which we have just been talking about. It provides flexibility for the Secretary of State or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to include financial arrangements, operational requirements and property-related obligations within the contract. It ensures that contracts can be tailored to meet the operational and strategic needs of the train service, and provides that obligations to publish pre-award information under regulation 22 of the 2023 transport regulations, which we have already referred to, do not apply to direct awards.
The removal of pre-award publications significantly reduces transparency around direct awards. That is a problem because it prevents external scrutiny of value for money and limits the ability of operators or stakeholders to challenge ineffective or poorly structured contracts. This is the public sector not publishing information about cosy contracts with other public sector organisations, thereby not exposing themselves to critique. Where is the transparency here? The explanatory notes merely restate the lack of a publication requirement; they do not justify why this reduced transparency is necessary or what safeguards will exist in its place. The clause means that the private sector will be unable to critique the operations or question the value for money achieved by the public sector negotiating with itself.
Amendment 44 removes clause 32(3). That will require the pre-award publication of public service contracts to facilitate the application of private sector companies in bidding for contracts. It would also allow the private sector to critique the performance of the public sector. Without publication—all too cosy—and with no ability for external challenges on the provision of services or on value for money, we will lack transparency, which, I am afraid, is a theme that has run through so much of our discussions. I will seek to divide on that; it is an important point.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have some brief comments on the Conservative spokesperson’s amendments.
Olly Glover
Apologies. One recognises one’s status.
We agree with the shadow Minister on the principle that it should not be about ideology between the public and private sectors. We have argued that consistently in the past. If it was so simple that nationalising train operators would lead to transformative performance improvements, Northern would be a globally inspiring example. I realised this morning that this month it reaches its half-decade anniversary of being in the public sector and, certainly for friends of mine in the north, it remains some way from being a globally leading example. That highlights the fact that public and private sector ideology is but one factor needed to give excellent rail services.
I wonder whether some of the shadow Minister’s amendments are perhaps fighting yesterday’s war. Of course we should all continue to advocate for what we believe, but it seems unlikely that—in the near future at least—there will be a change in approach to the core train operating companies’ being franchised out. Perhaps, rather than relitigating that, we need to focus on other aspects of the Bill, as indeed he has done, and on how we can make the new world better—particularly by removing the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere too much. I wonder what the shadow Minister and Government Minister have to say about that.
Keir Mather
May I begin by saying that I hope the shadow Minister can forgive my initial sluggishness on this drab Tuesday morning, because he asked a perfectly reasonable question about the application of the clause when we debated it last. I did not give him an adequate answer so, if you do not mind me looking retrospectively for a moment, Mrs Barker, I would like to inform him that all existing designations are unconditional. The clause is not there to be used often. However, it replicates an existing power, with the idea being that if the Secretary of State wanted to exempt a service to a new local authority that had not had an exemption before, she might wish to provide a time limit to check how it was performing before granting a longer-term exemption. I hope that is a sufficiently adequate answer to his perfectly reasonable question.
I will now speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments 170 and 171 enable Welsh Ministers to continue securing rail services in the Wales and borders region on behalf of the Secretary of State. Welsh Ministers will do that by contracting Transport for Wales to run the services. That will ensure that passenger services that cross between England and Wales every day continue to connect communities, contributing to economic growth. Without these amendments, the Secretary of State would be forced to abandon existing agency arrangements and procure all the services that she designates exclusively through Great British Railways, including English sections of the services currently operated by Transport for Wales. That is inefficient, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of devolution. This is about making the system work, not creating barriers where none need exist. The amendments were always intended to be part of the Bill, and we are correcting that now. The amendments strengthen the Bill by preserving today’s devolved responsibilities once GBR is established. That will ensure that Transport for Wales can continue running services into England, maintaining reliability for passengers and ensuring connectivity.
The other amendment tabled in my name, amendment 172, is a minor and technical amendment that removes a redundant provision in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his parliamentary question in November 2025 regarding the policy rationale for that drafting, which helpfully drew it to our attention. I am pleased to confirm that it is no longer necessary.
Amendment 41 and new clause 6 are intended to reintroduce private sector companies running passenger services. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, with the whole system working to one clear set of objectives to improve reliability, performance and punctuality for passengers, is the only way to make the railway run better. I think we all agree that the current system simply is not working. However, the amendment and new clause seek to undo all the progress we have made so far. They could cause chaos on the railway and return us to the dark days of franchising, which did not perform for passengers or taxpayers. The Bill is not about re-debating the principles of public versus private; it is about getting on with this generational reform and delivering for passengers, freight users and taxpayers.
Finally, amendment 44 would require the Government and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to publish pre-award details of public service contracts at least a year in advance of entering into the contract. As I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham knows, publishing pre-award information a year in advance would be an unnecessary and impractical administrative burden. The focus for public service operators should be on efficient delivery and clear reporting rather than rigid pre-award timelines. The Government will continue to be required to act transparently by publishing relevant information about the contract, such as contract dates and the parameters of financial compensation, within two months of entering into the contract.
Given those points, I urge the Committee to support the amendments in my name and I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will withdraw, or not move, his amendments. I also hope that the Committee supports clause 31, which sets out how designated services are to be provided, and clause 32, which sets out supplementary provisions for public service contracts awarded under clause 31.
The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State may assign responsibility for running her services only to Great British Railways or a GBR company. She can secure the provision of services by first designating them and then making a direct award of a public service contract to GBR or a GBR company. Public service contracts are a typical arrangement between public authorities and transport operators for providing public transport and are compliant with relevant subsidy control requirements. As clause 32 sets out, contracts may include a range of obligations, including those relating to additional railway assets, operational requirements and financial arrangements—for example, how any payments will be calculated, and performance targets.
Scottish and Welsh Ministers may either provide designated services directly in house or secure them through a direct award to one or more public sector companies, such as ScotRail or Transport for Wales. They also have the option to contract with GBR or a GBR company, which could unlock the integration of track and train in Scotland and Wales. Clause 31 also ensures that GBR’s duties apply to services operated by joint ventures or GBR subsidiaries under contract and gives Scottish and Welsh Ministers powers to handle freight goods where necessary.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister’s response demonstrates an extraordinary lack of confidence by the Government in the efficacy of nationalisation—the very thing that they are seeking to promote in the majority of the Bill. All that amendments 41 to 43 would do is give the Secretary of State flexibility by making them able by law, in certain circumstances, to give a contract for passenger services to the private sector. They would not require it; they are not saying that this is a battle between privatisation and nationalisation. The only ideological battle here is by the Government, who are saying that it is impossible to conceive of any circumstance in which a private business might be able to offer better value for money for the taxpayer and a better service for passengers than a nationalised part of GBR. They are so concerned that a private business might be offered that opportunity, because they are overwhelmingly better, that they are seeking to legislate to tie the hands of every future Secretary of State.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Would the shadow Minister follow the logic of his argument as far as to say that the Conservative Government that passed the Railways Act 1993 were ideologically motivated and acted in an ideological manner, given that that Act barred the public sector from taking on franchises?
Jerome Mayhew
I was 23 at the time, and I certainly was not following every clause of the 1993 Act as it went through the House—I accept that that shows a shocking lack of dedication to my future career. We can re-argue the battles of the early 1990s or we can seek to learn from the mistakes of the past, if the hon. Gentleman claims that they are mistakes, but let us not repeat them in the opposite direction, which is exactly what the clause is intended to do. If he is right that that was a mistake then, on his own logic, it is equally right that this is a mistake, and I look forward to him supporting me as we vote on amendment 41.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 148, in clause 33, page 18, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment removes the power to give binding directions over fares.
Clause stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers’ power to give directions to GBR under clauses 7 or 8 may be exercised to give a direction relating to fares. That direction could cover the general level and structure of fares that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers expect to see on the passenger train services that GBR is running on their behalf. Likewise, the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers can use the power in clauses 9 or 10 to issue guidance about the general level and structure of fares. Clause 33(3) also allows for provision about the general level and structure of fares to be set out in the public service contract under clause 31, which we have just debated. That allows Ministers to manage overall fare levels on their designated services.
Clause 33 centralises control of fares in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing Ministers—not GBR—to determine the general level and structure of fares. That cuts directly against the idea that GBR will operate as an independent guiding or directing mind, and leaves the organisation responsible for outcomes that it does not control. The clause provides no statutory principles, tests or transparency requirements for how fare decisions should be taken—by the Secretary of State, presumably —and recent written parliamentary questions 84697, 86756 and 86754 underline the risk built into the model. In response to the questions, Ministers were unable to define what the “right” fare means, they were unable to say which fares will go up or down under GBR, and they confirmed that all future fare decisions remain entirely at ministerial discretion.
If Ministers are to retain that power, the Bill needs at least a duty to publish the assumptions, criteria and objectives underpinning fare setting, so that decisions can be assessed against passenger growth and affordability. At the moment we have none of that. The clause is in complete contradiction to the assertion in the explanatory notes that the Secretary of State’s directions
“are intended to be used as a responsive tool for necessary course correction, rather than as a proactive tool to set requirements on GBR”,
or in other words,
“they are a last resort”.
The clause says, “No, that’s absolute rubbish. We’re not doing that. We’re keeping in the hands of the Minister the power to guide and then direct and establish what the right fares are.”
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister accept that in recent years, when Transport for London was negotiating its fare settlements, the previous Government dictated the level of fares that should be charged not just for the congestion charge, but for passenger rail services? The Conservative Secretary of State and Government were doing that very thing in negotiations with Transport for London for rail passenger services in London.
Jerome Mayhew
I think we have to decide what GBR is going to be. Is it going to be a stand-alone organisation that is trying to run itself efficiently, providing value for money for the taxpayer and hopefully, one day, a check on the Secretary of State? Or is it going to be a creature of the Department for Transport that is told what to do and having its decisions second-guessed? This is a big decision that the Government have to take.
The clause creates a huge risk of stasis, as GBR gets bossed around and becomes a passive recipient of instructions from the Department for Transport. I worry that it is a recipe for future disaster, so I have questions for the Minister. What factors will the Secretary of State take into account when deciding the general level and structure of fares? Why is the Secretary of State in a better position to take those decisions than GBR is, given the objects that she has set the organisation? What additional information will she use that is not available to GBR? I will be grateful for the Minister’s answer. At least it is clear that any future failure of the railways will be down to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State, not to GBR, since the power to guide and then direct and then set fares lies expressly with the Secretary of State.
My amendment 45 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions and set guidance as to the general level and structure of railway fares, thereby preventing ministerial intervention in how fares are set and making that decision separate from political influence. When considering amendment 45, Rail Forum said:
“We support this as it should be for GBR, as an arm’s length body and the directing mind, to determine fares not the Secretary of State.”
Amendment 148 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage would remove the power to give binding directions over fares—another version of our approach.
The clause as drafted is overreach by the Department for Transport and exactly the kind of micromanagement that the Minister claims will not happen. Why do we need these powers?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
As the shadow Minister outlined, amendment 148 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage is not overly dissimilar to Conservative amendment 45 in what it tries to achieve, but I will come at it from a slightly different angle. Clause 33, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue binding directions to Great British Railways on the level and structure of fares. We have said many times that the Bill already grants the Secretary of State extensive influence over GBR. Allowing binding directions on fares risks tipping that influence into outright micro-management. It opens the door to the imposition of short-term political decisions, rather than long-term, evidence-based decisions about fares being made by those responsible for actually running the railways. It is a tool that can be misused, particularly in times of fiscal or political pressure.
Even if the current Government assure us that they would not misuse the power, the problem is that once it exists, it exists for all future Governments. I hope the Government will recognise the inherent risk in that and support amendment 148, thereby preventing not only themselves but all future Secretaries of State from being able to abuse the power.
Keir Mather
On the role of the Secretary of State in setting parameters for fares, we have had a lot of debate in the Committee about the need to ensure efficiency on behalf of taxpayers, who are also passengers on the railway. It is the Secretary of State who ultimately has the democratic responsibility to do so; therefore, it is right that the power exists to set broad parameters as they relate to fares. However, that process must be undertaken transparently. Parameters will be set through guidance and public service contracts, which will be published and open to scrutiny. The Bill says that the Secretary of State can direct on fares, but not that she will do so regularly. That is important to the point about overreach, and the exceptional circumstances in which direction might be a wise provision to have in the legislation. I will turn to that later.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Can the Minister give a few examples of the exceptional circumstances that might cause the power to be used?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member is far too eager. I shall turn to that in due course.
Amendment 148 would prevent the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers from issuing directions to GBR relating to fares, and amendment 45 would do the same for directions and guidance. I remind hon. Members that, as I said when we debated the directions and guidance clauses earlier in the Bill, the strategic parameters and guardrails that the Secretary of State will set for GBR on fares may not ultimately be delivered through directions and guidance by default.
Clause 33 already allows for provisions on fares parameters and guardrails to be included in public service contracts awarded to GBR for operating passenger services. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the Secretary of State retains the powers to direct and give guidance to GBR on fares. It is necessary that the Government and GBR alike can respond to exceptional circumstances, which may necessitate a swift reappraisal of the strategic approach to fares. That is precisely what the Secretary of State’s directions-making power allows for, supplemented by the ability to issue guidance, to ensure a clear and speedy response if there is a crisis or unexpected change in context.
Amendments 148 and 45 would remove those options for the Secretary of State and, in fact, for Scottish Ministers where GBR is operating services that they designate. The Government strongly believe that that is not in the interests of passengers or taxpayers. I agree with Opposition Members that we do not want Ministers interfering with day-to-day fares policy. GBR will have the freedom to define its fares policy within the parameters and guardrails set out, simplifying fares, removing duplication and, in turn, improving value for money. It will therefore be set up to succeed from the outset. Contrary to what Opposition Members believe, the powers in clause 33 do not undermine that.
Edward Morello
I know it has probably been overused already in the Committee, but I keep returning to the NHS England example. The Government set up arm’s length bodies and Ministers are then invariably unable to resist the urge to tinker. The Government devolve responsibility out and then realise that having something completely arm’s length, which they have no control over, is very unattractive when they are politically responsible. What starts off being explained as happening only in exceptional circumstances invariably becomes day to day. The amendments are an attempt to protect against a repeat of the mistake with NHS England, which the Government are now having to unpick.
Keir Mather
We have repeatedly had this allusion drawn between NHS England and the NHS on the one hand and the Department for Transport and GBR on the other. I do not believe that these examples are analogous. NHS England replicated functions in a way that did not serve the interests of patients or taxpayers who paid into the health service. The entire principle here is to take decision-making power from DFT, which under this broken system remains the only body truly accountable for what happens on the railway, and to give it to GBR, in a way that empowers it to ensure that services run in the public interest and represent value for money. I cannot envisage that Members across the House would not think it reasonable, within very broad parameters, to retain some ability to have political accountability in the fare-setting process in exceptional circumstances, such as during the pandemic. That is wholly sensible in making sure the railway continues to offer value for money for both passengers and taxpayers, who are ultimately one and the same.
Olly Glover
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if he means that the ability to give these directions would exist only in very extreme, exceptional cases, such as pandemics or large-scale wars, would he not be open to specifying that in the Bill?
Keir Mather
These direction powers, as drafted, replicate those in many other pieces of legislation, which are fit for purpose in making sure there is democratic accountability for the functioning of institutions, while not being overly onerous and overbearing. We see them with the Oil and Gas Authority, Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear. Only one direction has been given to the Oil and Gas Authority in the 10 years the legislation has existed. In government, the Opposition included the precise same direction power for GBR in their draft Rail Reform Bill, so they clearly believed it was necessary at the time. I therefore believe that it strikes an adequate balance.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister says Great British Railways, not the Department for Transport, will run the railways. He says that is different from the set-up for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England. Was that not exactly the reason NHS England was set up, albeit not by his Government: to run the NHS so that the Department did not have to? I do not see the conceptual difference here at all; what I do is see the inconsistency in the Government getting rid of NHS England because that model does not work and bringing in GBR in the context of transport.
The Chair
Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I remind colleagues that we are not debating NHS England.
Keir Mather
We may have to hash this out in our own time. There is a principle around the replication of functions between organisations. The principle of GBR is that once those decision-making powers are taken out of the Department for Transport—this is the single-mind approach to access decisions, charging and best use of the railway—there is not replication and burdensome inefficiencies in how those functions are designated and actualised by the different organisations. I believe that the difference lies in that point.
To return to my previous remarks, and on the basis of what I have explained, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
I am wholly unpersuaded. The Minister did his best, but he cannot hide from the huge disparity between setting up a stand-alone arm’s length business, which is meant to run itself efficiently and with dynamism, and taking away its revenue-driving function. It is ridiculous. We will end up with an organisation that is second-guessed by the Department for Transport. We all say it is the Secretary of State, but of course it is not; it is many hundreds of DFT officials. They will each no doubt do their best as they see it, but they will be second-guessing the role of the industry organisation. That is not a recipe for an effective management structure, and I will push amendment 45 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 47 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 52 to 55, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families.
Amendment 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 48, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 53, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 49, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 54, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 50, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Amendment 55, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert
“members of the UK armed forces and their families,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Clause stand part.
New clause 51—Remembrance Sunday ticket fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling persons under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.
(2) Regulations under this section must include a person who—
(a) is a member of the armed forces;
(b) has been a member of the armed forces; or
(c) is a widow, widower, or one direct family member of any member of the armed forces who has died in the course of their service.
(3) Regulations under this section must apply the provision of paragraph (2)(c) in such a way that one person is entitled to free travel for each member of the armed forces to which that paragraph applies.
(4) ‘armed forces’ as set out in subsection (2) means any of His Majesty’s forces (within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all Great British Railways passenger services.
New clause 59—Police officer fare exemption—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require Great British Railways to provide a scheme enabling police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PSCO) under subsection (2) to travel for free on railway passenger services.
(2) Regulations under this section must only make provision for police officers who—
(a) present a valid warrant card or PCSO designation card,
(b) are in full uniform or are undertaking such travel for operational purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause requires all rail operators to permit free travel for police officers on all passenger services, subject to certain requirements.
Jerome Mayhew
The clause requires GBR to provide a discount fare scheme for passengers who are “young, elderly or disabled”—that is it—to ensure they can access cheaper rail fares and tickets. I recognise that the clause does not limit GBR to only those discount schemes, and it can create other schemes that provide for cheaper fares and tickets at its discretion, but these are the only mandatory schemes, so they identify where the Government’s priorities lie: the young, elderly or disabled.
The use of discount fare schemes may be subject to conditions. The clause ensures that discounted fares for the young, elderly or disabled are made available on any services designated by Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as on services provided by GBR. It is remarkable that subsection (1) preserves statutory discount schemes only for young, elderly and disabled passengers. The veterans railcard remains entirely outside statute, meaning that it can be changed or withdrawn without parliamentary oversight. Given the strong precedent in the 1993 Act for protecting key concessionary schemes in law, the Bill is a missed opportunity; it is not just a carry-over. In fact, it is an active decision not to give veterans the same statutory guarantee and long-term security as under existing railcards.
Subsection (3) allows any set of conditions to be applied to a scheme, so the whole clause is functionally meaningless without sight of the conditions. We do not know what they are; it is another bit of work the Government have not done. It could be one service, once a month. That risks hollowing out the statutory concession entirely, allowing GBR to comply in form while restricting access in practice.
Amendments 46 to 50 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for veterans. Will the Minister support the amendments, or will the Government demonstrate by their actions that they do not rate veterans’ discounts to be as important as the other discount groups? I will look to divide the Committee on every one of the amendments, because this is a politically sensitive issue.
Amendments 51 to 55 would extend consideration to the immediate families of veterans. They would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for members of the UK armed forces and their families. Again, this is a political issue, so I wish to divide on all the amendments, but I hope that we can be quick.
I will not speak to new clause 51, but new clause 59, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require all rail operators to permit free travel for police offers and police community support officers, if they are in full uniform and travelling for work. It is a noble calling, but where do we stop? If they are travelling to work, they will be reimbursed by the constabulary. No officers commute to work in uniform, for security reasons, so I do not support the new clause.
Olly Glover
We understand and support the intent of the Conservative amendments on veterans, but I suppose the debate will get into what should be legislated for in discount schemes, as opposed to specified in other forms. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister why the Government have opted to put certain discount schemes in the Bill and not others. Hopefully, there is some clear logic, but we shall see.
Our new clause 51 would require the Secretary of State to make a travel fee exemption for journeys to and from Remembrance Sunday events for armed forces personnel, armed forces veterans and one representative of a deceased armed forces member across all GBR passenger services. The context is that there is currently an agreement in place for that travel fee exemption, which is agreed by the Secretary of State and the train operating companies. The new clause would simply formalise something that already happens, but would do so in the framework of GBR and ensure long-term certainty and consistency, national coverage across the GBR network and the inclusion of a representative of a deceased service member. At present, deceased personnel are often not represented at Remembrance events if a family member cannot afford the cost of travel. The new clause addresses that inequity.
The new clause places an existing informal arrangement on a statutory footing and ensures consistency and fairness. The cost implications are limited and predictable, as the travel demand is concentrated around a single annual event and largely happens on that day. The new clause recognises the importance of remembrance for bereaved families and sends a clear message of respect and recognition for service and sacrifice.
On our new clause 59, I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but the intention is simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. This is about officers needing to use the train in the course of their duties. It is important that many of them do so, particularly those engaged in highly visible community policing. The new clause would simply reduce the red tape and bureaucracy of them needing to buy tickets, procure travel warrants and so on. It is not about travel to and from work, but about making sure they can easily use the network while on duty.
Daniel Francis
I will briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made. First, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 does not have many of these components. Yet the Mayor of London allows a number of discounts, including for veterans, care leavers, apprentices and people who are unemployed and seeking work. They are not on the face of that legislation, but those exemptions do exist, including for veterans, and I am sure the Minister will cover those points in due course. However, there is other legislation where that is the case. At no point in their 14 years did the previous Government attempt to amend that Act to provide that exemption for veterans, so that is the position that remains.
I remind Members of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Amendment 62 causes some concern with its reference to fares being “one third lower” because in many cases that would represent a fare increase for wheelchair users and blind passengers.
Rebecca Smith
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said on amendments 46 to 50. I too am surprised that the Government are not seeking to enshrine the right to a veterans railcard on the face of the Bill. While it is laudable that they want to ensure that those long-fought-for discount fare schemes remain for young, elderly or disabled people, I believe that not making the veterans railcard a statutory discount is a backward step and will send a particularly strong message to that community, who we know are quite agitated by a lot of what is being done by this Government, particularly around the prosecution of veterans for previous conduct. Not to use this Bill as an opportunity to put this provision on the statute book is a retrograde step.
I want to pay tribute to the former Member for Plymouth Moor View, Johnny Mercer, who drove putting the veterans railcard in place in the first place through the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. He said at the time that it underlined the “debt of gratitude” that we owe to our veterans. They are ultimately men and women who have fought hard for our country, and the opportunity to receive that discount in perpetuity—whether they have served one day or 100—is something that we should be proud of as a country and should seek to enshrine in legislation. The same goes for the opportunity for serving personnel to travel with their families.
I will be very surprised if the Government vote against the amendment: that would send a very clear message to our veterans community that they are valued more greatly by the Conservatives than by Labour. Although I am sure there is no ill intent behind the omission of the veterans railcard in the Bill, we have to think about the messaging and the political point that is being made. It would be relatively easy to put the veterans railcard in law so that it cannot be changed in the future, and I would support that. As has been said, the Bill does not prevent it from being added later, but I wonder why we are not seeking to enshrine it in law now.
Keir Mather
I sincerely thank the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage for the amendments, which are about discounted travel for members of the UK armed forces, veterans, their families and the police.
On amendments 46 to 55, first and most importantly, the Government fully recognise the enormous contributions made by members of the UK armed forces, UK veterans and their families. I am pleased to confirm that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard, which also covers family members of serving personnel. Those are valuable discounts for people who have sacrificed in the public interest, and the Government are rightly committed to them.
In our view, however, it is not necessary to reflect that commitment on the face of the Bill,. The Bill gives continued statutory protection to the discount schemes that are already protected by the Railways Act 1993 to ensure consistency for groups for whom cost has historically been a particular barrier to travel, to ensure that our railway continues to be inclusive and to be consistent with previous Acts. That does not mean that other discount schemes are not at the forefront of our mind and will not continue.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate what the Minister is saying but, if that is the case, surely we should just remove the whole clause. If the Government do not seek to remove any discount schemes, why do they need three discount schemes, and none of the others, on the face of the Bill? It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Keir Mather
As I have just mentioned, we want to carry over those schemes to provide consistency for those groups. We are carrying over the role of the discretionary schemes as set out in legislation. We think that consistency is important but, for reasons that I will come to later, we also believe it is important that GBR is able to move in an agile way and think about evolving needs when it comes to concessionary travel. It is important, in terms of legislative carry-over, to ensure that that remains in place.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister says that he wants GBR to remain agile, but does he foresee a situation in which it is agile by removing the veterans railcard? If he says no, as I suspect he will, why does he not put that on the face of the Bill and support our veterans?
Keir Mather
For the reasons I have just outlined. I have already confirmed that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, which include the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the veterans scheme is incredibly important, that we all agree with it being there, and that there are absolutely no plans to remove it.
Keir Mather
Yes, I am very eager to agree with my hon. Friend.
This is a serious point. In my constituency, I see the difficulty that veterans have in attending Selby Abbey to mark the enormous contribution that people in our armed services have made across many conflicts. I would have thought that this is personal to every single member of this Committee, which is why I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend.
Laurence Turner
Does the Minister agree that there is a comparison with the disabled persons railcard, the criteria for which have been significantly expanded? That change is due to be implemented over the coming months, and that has been possible only because there was not a restrictive statutory definition in primary legislation. Our understanding of disability has changed since the legislation was passed, and we would not want to restrict ourselves unnecessarily for the future.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and is absolutely right to note that we want the concessionary schemes to be able to evolve to reflect the needs and lived experiences of those they are designed to help. I will expand on that point in more detail later.
I will make some progress now. We are of the view that minimising the number of listed discounts on the face of the Bill will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements over time, reflecting passenger needs and other objectives. For example, in the future it might be desirable to rationalise the existing concessionary offer for current and former military personnel and their families to ensure consistent terms and conditions between the armed forces and veterans. GBR should be able to consider such options but, if we enshrine the schemes in primary legislation, it will become virtually impossible to amend and improve them.
The Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces community through travel discounts and other means. For that reason, while I sincerely understand the motivation behind the amendments, the Government do not believe they are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham to withdraw them.
New clause 51 requires GBR to provide free travel
“to and from events that commemorate Remembrance Sunday.”
As I have said, the Government remain committed to all those who serve, and that includes supporting their attendance at events commemorating Remembrance Sunday. Last year, as in previous years, the Government worked closely with the rail industry to ensure that serving members of the armed forces and veterans were eligible for free travel to and from services of remembrance across the country. Likewise, Poppy Day volunteers and collectors—and their children—travelling to the London Poppy Day events were given complimentary travel to support their fundraising efforts on behalf of the Royal British Legion.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there will still be opportunities for people taking part in remembrance events. However, there are additional matters such as the poppy train, which comes up through the south-west with Great Western Railway. While such things may be worked through in conjunction with the Secretary of State, they are put on by a privately owned franchise rail company. Is the Minister effectively saying that it will be down to the individual business units to decide what happens within their railway scope, or will it be in guidance through the licence or something else? There are many things that have been provided by privately owned franchises that the Bill does not confirm will take place once the railways are state owned.
Keir Mather
While I do not anticipate provision around the specific instance the hon. Lady described—for example the poppy train being frozen into the licence of GBR—I do expect that GBR will be minded and motivated to continue to ensure that members of the armed forces community, veterans and their families can attend Remembrance Sunday services across the country. In our view, concessionary travel more broadly will improve the ability to do that. It will allow GBR to set provisions in an agile manner through an evolving concessionary fares scheme, rather than freezing them as part of the Bill—and, moreover, to set provisions that are not already locked into legislation and do not therefore need to be carried over, in the interest of consistency for the groups that they affect.
Turning back to my remarks on Poppy Day volunteers travelling to events with their children, I do look forward to that policy continuing in the years to come, although precise arrangements for how that will work will be confirmed closer to the time. All that being the case, we do not see the need for legislative amendments. These are things that the Government and rail industry already strongly support and have been providing for many years. A regulatory framework would only complicate delivery, which is more effectively facilitated at the operational level, so, while we wholeheartedly support the spirit of new clause 51, I urged the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw it.
New clause 59 requires GBR to provide a scheme enabling free rail travel for police officers and police community support officers who are in full uniform or who are travelling for operational purposes. The Government gratefully acknowledge the service of police officers across the country and all that they do to keep us safe. The speed, skill and professionalism of the response by British Transport police and other brave first responders to the horrific train attack in Huntingdon last year is just one example of how police officers and all our emergency services save lives every day across our country.
While I understand the intention of the new clause in supporting that vital work, the Bill is not the correct place to set out the requirements for such a scheme. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage knows, any new staff travel scheme should be the product of negotiations between the relevant organisations. To prescribe a scheme in primary legislation sidelines that process and risks the creation of a scheme that is not fit for purpose, as well as unfunded financial impacts to the railway. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of the new clause, the Bill is not the appropriate avenue to establish such a scheme, and I urge the hon. Member not to move it.
Clause 34 ensures that GBR will be able to provide discount schemes, such as those offered today as railcards. First, the clause continues the 1993 Act’s statutory protection for young, senior and disabled passenger discounts. Prices are historically more likely to be a barrier to these groups’ accessing rail travel, and they are covered by the protected characteristics of age and disability. Maintaining these concession schemes in primary legislation supports equal access to employment, education and essential services. It is worth noting that, while other concessionary discounts are not included in the Bill, the Government recognise that they too are important, and there are no plans to withdraw any of the discounted schemes currently being offered.
Nevertheless, the clause also gives GBR the flexibility required to simplify and modernise discount schemes across the network, and to evolve the offer where that is considered desirable to meet passenger needs in the future. Finally, the clause ensures that devolved operators will still be required to offer the core statutory discounts, and that they will have flexibility over whether to participate in the GBR scheme or to create their own.
Jerome Mayhew
It is extraordinary that the Government say, on the one hand, that age and disability need to be included in primary legislation, but on the other hand that it is totally unnecessary to have the same security for veterans. We on the Conservative side of the House do not accept that logic and we will be pushing amendments 46 to 55, individually, to votes.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 34, page 18, line 20, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 57 to 60, would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people aged 26-30.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 57, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Amendment 58, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Amendment 59, in clause 34, page 18, line 35, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Amendment 60, in clause 34, page 19, line 4, after “are” insert “aged 26-30,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 56.
Jerome Mayhew
This should be a short debate, since amendments 56 to 60 serve a single function: to defend the long-term provision of discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds. Although clause 34 refers to discounts for the young, there is potential for the definition to exclude discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds—and that is young to me, at least. Amendments 56 to 60 would require GBR to continue to offer discounted rail fares for young people in this age group. Given the Government’s willingness to identify some characteristics as worthy of discounts in primary legislation—the young, elderly or disabled—what is the principled objection to including other, equally worthy groups? I will press the amendment to a Division.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments, which would place a statutory duty on GBR and on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to ensure that discounted rail fare schemes are available for persons aged 26 to 30—I do not know whether I should declare an interest, as a holder of one of those railcards.
The Government have stated that there are no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, including the 26-30 railcard, but we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to list specific age ranges in the Bill in the way proposed. Listing specific age ranges would be unnecessarily inflexible. The Government are absolutely committed to retaining discount schemes for younger people; however, much of the current discount system is fragmented due to its origin in the franchising system, so GBR may want to rationalise the existing range of discount schemes currently targeting younger people to simplify duplicative and overlapping offers and age ranges between 16 and 30, for example, as part of introducing a modernised, more consistent offer for passengers.
Given that Acts of Parliament are drafted to last a generation or more, placing specific age ranges in the Bill would likely remove those opportunities and potentially limit opportunities for young people. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister says that he wishes to have flexibility. The whole point is that we are trying to remove flexibility, so that GBR cannot take away discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds in the future. The Minister’s argument actually increases my concern that that is a realistic prospect in the Government’s mind, and I feel even more strongly that we should divide in order to ensure that discounts for 26 to 30-year-olds are protected in the long term.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 62, in clause 34, page 19, line 10, leave out “lower fare” and insert
“fare that is one third lower”.
This amendment would ensure that discounted fares remain at one third off the price of a standard fare.
New clause 13—Report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes—
“(1) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the potential merits of customer loyalty programmes for rail passengers (‘rail miles programmes’).
(2) A review under this section must consider any beneficial effect on the growth of rail passenger numbers of introducing rail miles programmes.”
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State conducts a report into potential benefits of a “rail miles” programme for passenger numbers.
Jerome Mayhew
Amendment 61 would remove GBR’s ability to set unrestricted conditions about discounted fares. The amendment probably goes too far, so I will treat is as a probing amendment to flush out what conditions the Minister anticipates will be imposed under subsection (3). Will the Minister undertake that the intention is to minimise constraints on discounts, to afford maximum advantage to the groups that discount schemes are in place to promote? I would be grateful if he could clarify the Government’s position on that.
Amendment 62 would ensure that discounted fares remained at one third lower than the price of a standard fare. That would give certainty to those currently using the variety of railcards mentioned above that their discount will remain the same. The Government claim that GBR will bring savings; all the amendment does is prevent discounted fares from costing more. If the Government do not support the amendment, they would be paving the way for GBR to reduce focus on the passenger and revert to the typical standard of a nationalised organisation, where you get what you are given and expected to be grateful for it.
New clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would ensure that the Secretary of State conducted a report into the potential benefits of a rail miles programme for passenger numbers. That is an idea—but in our view, it is not one that should be included in primary legislation. It is qualitatively different from discounts for veterans and young persons.
Daniel Francis
I again declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.
Amendment 62 appears to refer not to railcards but to all ticketing. As I have said, it would result in an increase for many tickets for wheelchair users and blind and visually impaired people. As the parent of a child who is a wheelchair user, I know that the discount on a ticket for wheelchair users is 75%, and it is the same for an adult day return. For blind and visually impaired users the discount on an adult day return is 50%.
Some discounts also apply to the carer or companion of the wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. That provision is not included in the Bill, yet the Opposition thought it was more important to table an amendment to introduce a discount for 26 to 30-year-olds than to table one on a discount for the carer of a wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. I anticipate that the Government will confirm that the discount remains for carers and companions, and in my mind that does not need to be included in the Bill. I certainly do not support amendment 62, as it would undo the current, more generous discount arrangements for wheelchair users and blind or visually impaired passengers, and cause an increase in their fare.
Jerome Mayhew
This may shock the Committee, but I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, and his expertise has exposed a lack of knowledge on my part. I was not aware that the discount in that circumstance was in excess of one third. Given that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful for his contribution.
Olly Glover
I will speak briefly about the Conservative amendments. I agree with some of the shortcomings identified by the shadow Minister, but there would be a risk in setting in stone some of the current discount and fares arrangements, as amendment 61 seeks to do.
On amendment 62, apart from the good points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the existing differential discount rates, I am not sure of a particularly compelling reason for why the main discount rate of one third should be preserved in aspic—I said that I would not say “aspic” any more, but I have anyway. There may be times in the future when a higher discount, or maybe even a lower one, could make sense.
I assure the shadow Minister that our new clause 13 would require the examination of the idea, rather than a commitment to do it. Our idea is based on the ubiquity of air miles as a highly valued consumer product. So many people talk about air miles in conversation, and the popularity of certain credit cards—I can probably name them, as I do not have an interest, but I will not—is explained by the accumulation of air miles. Why not rail miles? It would promote our network, reward loyal customers and be a brilliant way of promoting domestic tourism, were people able to accumulate rail miles as they currently can air miles. It would also be a good way to promote lower-carbon transport.
Our new clause would simply require the examination of the idea of a rail miles programme, and the production of a report on its potential merits that the Secretary of State would lay before Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I hope to hear the Minister’s warm words about the idea, although I would naturally be astonished if he embraced it.
Edward Argar
Is the hon. Member aware that, although not in a domestic context, there have in the past been schemes in which, instead of air miles, points or miles have been available—for example, with Eurostar—and they were extremely popular?
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The air miles concept has been highly successful for Eurostar, and it is now time to apply the idea to the domestic market.
Rebecca Smith
It is worth reminding the Committee that the idea has also been used on a domestic route. Not that long ago GWR had a scheme with Nectar, and the points I accrued while travelling up and down to London for various engagements used to service me with a bottle of gin once a year. I am not necessarily saying that I support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, but it is worth putting on the record the fact that it is not so farfetched an idea. It certainly made me use GWR’s app, even if I did not use anything else.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although perhaps she is advocating another concept called gin miles, which would definitely be beyond the scope of our new clause. She makes the strong point that there have been examples along the lines of this idea in pockets of the network. The new clause would put the idea on a national footing, boost good practice and give GBR positive things to offer its customers from day one. Perhaps it would even compensate for the ghastly livery that GBR is telling us all is so wonderful.
Edward Morello
I want to speak in support of new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. The new clause is our proposal for a rail miles scheme, as he eloquently laid out, but I want to add a couple of things. First, a rail miles scheme would encourage people to return to rail time and again, reward passengers for regular use and provide additional flexibility and discount. As has been outlined, we have seen existing or similar systems in respect of Eurostar, supermarkets and air miles, and, in certain cases, within the UK railway system.
It is worth stressing that, importantly, new clause 13 does not mandate the introduction of a scheme. It would require a report on how a customer loyalty programme could work in practice, boost passenger numbers and be designed to remain affordable and cost-effective for the taxpayer and the Government. All we ask for is an evidence-based review of rail miles as an important step towards a fairer system. As it is not a mandate but simply a request for the Government to look into the idea, the new clause should be relatively easy for the Government to support.
Keir Mather
Let me start by reasserting the principle that we do not want Ministers to be micromanaging the railway. However, the point about gin miles was very well made and I shall relay it to GBR.
Keir Mather
Well, there we are.
Let me start by responding to what the shadow Minister described as a probing amendment. He asked me to set out a little more detail on how we envisage the use of conditions on discounts, and I want to reflect the intent that he described. We want to ensure that eligibility for concessionary schemes and discounts is kept up to date, is reflective and is rationalised where necessary. A good example could be changing terms and conditions to change the eligibility criteria for the disabled railcard to include non-visible disabilities, which we have committed to in the accessibility road map. The intent to make sure that discounts are reflective of the lived experience of those who rely on them very much lies behind the provisions.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 61, which would seek to remove GBR’s ability to set conditions on the use of discounted fare schemes. As drafted, the legislation will enable GBR to develop and adjust discount arrangements, if necessary, to reflect changing circumstances and passenger needs. More generally, it is worth noting again that the future framework on fares introduces clear and enforceable mechanisms that can be used to hold GBR to account, to ensure it delivers value for passengers and sustainable outcomes for taxpayers. Under this model, the Secretary of State will set parameters and guardrails aligned to GBR’s financial settlements. We believe that strikes an effective balance between strategic oversight and operational independence.
Jerome Mayhew
As I intimated, I am happy to withdraw amendment 61, which is more of a probing amendment, and I will not move amendment 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 47 to 50 and 52 to 55. Divisions are granted at the discretion of the Chair. Although I understand the importance to the hon. Gentleman of the principle of the amendments, the Committee has already made a decision on the principles, so I am not inclined to allow further Divisions.
Jerome Mayhew
In the normal course of events I would not seek to have repeated amendments on variations of a theme. However, this matter is politically salient because it deals with a live political issue between the parties on discounted fares, and whether the Government support veterans and veterans’ families. Each amendment deals with a separate part of the veteran community and also with veterans’ families. It is important that we hear the Government’s view through Divisions on every single one, so I ask you to reconsider your determination, Ms Barker, because of the political salience of the individual Divisions. I am sure you will have noticed that in other areas I have been co-operative, and that I do not cause Divisions just for the sake of it, but I ask you to allow Divisions on this occasion.
Amendment proposed: 47, in clause 34, page 18, line 28, after “are” insert “UK veterans,”.—(Jerome Mayhew.)
See explanatory statement for Amendment 46.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Tenth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I hear the Committee made very good progress this morning. I am sure you will share my ambition to get through part 2 this afternoon, but that will depend very much on how much progress we make. The official stop is 5 pm but if we have to go over, we have to go over. I also intend to have a comfort break at a convenient point.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 2
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve yet again under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 35 provides definitions for key terms used in chapter 1 of part 2, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpretation. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
General duties of the Council
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 36, page 19, line 35, after “of” insert
“all users, and potential users of the railways, including”.
This amendment ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 64, in clause 36, page 20, line 2, leave out
“make efficient use of those funds”
and insert
“ensure value for money through a cost benefit analysis.”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to consider value for money, rather than efficient use of public funds.
Clause stand part.
New clause 7—Purpose of the Passengers’ Council—
“The purpose of the Passengers’ Council is to—
(a) champion the interests of all users and potential users of the railway, including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons,
(b) advocate for the reliability of passenger services, covering punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(c) advocate for safety and security, covering safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(d) advocate for passengers’ comfort and on-board experience, covering cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(e) advocate for affordability and value for money, covering fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money, and
(f) advocate for passenger growth and network expansion, covering growth in passenger numbers, the number of communities served, service frequency, and the provision of new or restored services.”
This new clause would give a statutory purpose for the Passengers’ Council to champion the interests of all rail users.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, for agreeing to chair this afternoon’s deliberations.
Here we are at clause 36, on the general duties of the passengers’ council. The clause requires the passengers’ council to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons when it exercises its rail functions. It also places a duty on the council to consider costs and the efficient use of public funds when it exercises its functions. That updates the council’s duty on value for money, which we can see in section 76(7) of the Railways Act 1993, and is consistent with the duty the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways will have if clause 18(2)(f) makes it into the final Act.
Clause 36(a), however, is silent on the general travelling public; it only mentions having particular regard to disabled persons. It seems like an odd omission for a provision on a passengers’ council to not mention passengers in the round. For the rest of the public, the council only has to
“keep under review matters affecting the interests of the public”,
under clause 37(1)(a).
The current drafting risks the creation, inadvertent I am sure, of a skewed body, directed to focus on disabled passengers and silent on the rest. I know that would not be the intention of the Ministry or anybody else in this Committee, but that is what the draft text would require of the council under its statutory obligations. It sits uneasily alongside clause 18(2)(a) on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR, which we all remember, and which frames disabled people within a wider body of all users, stating that it is to
“promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”.
Why is different language being used? There is a difference, within the same draft text, between clause 18 and clause 36. The effect is to leave the passengers’ council operating statutorily on a narrower basis than GBR. The Minister will need to explain the intention behind that, because I do not believe it is intentional. If it is, he needs to explain why he wishes to constrain artificially the application of the passengers’ council to an area which is less wide than that covered by GBR, which it is meant to be monitoring.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I do not wish to interrupt the shadow Minister mid-flow, but I hope the Government will take on board his amendments and new clause. If they do not, perhaps they might like to amend the name of the passengers’ council to the “disabled passengers’ council”, because, in effect, that is the work it will be doing, so why not name it appropriately?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, although unfortunately he did interrupt my flow—though it was very kind of him to say that he did not want to in the process. He is quite right. Although I obviously love chucking half-bricks at the Government, I do not believe for a moment that there is a serious intention on the part of the Department for Transport to skew the passengers’ council in the way that the drafting currently requires. I am highlighting the provision in the best interests of improving the drafting of the Bill. I am sure the Minister will find a reason not to agree with me in a few minutes’ time, but I hope that he, or his officials, will go away and have a quiet look at it before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
Subsection (b) provides only a duty to “take into account” the costs of recommendations. Surely, as legislators, we want the organisation to balance the public benefits against the likely costs—a cost-benefit analysis, essentially—and not just to consider costs to be met from public funds, because this also involves farebox income. Amendment 63 therefore
“ensures that the Passengers’ Council must have regard to the needs of all users, and potential users of the railway”,
preventing a skewed council with competing interests, borrowing the language used by the Government in clause 18.
Amendment 64 would require the passengers’ council to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis, rather than merely the “efficient use” of public funds, which is only half of the issue. There is a key difference here: value for money focuses on achieving the best balance of cost, quality and outcomes, whereas the good use of public funds also requires spending to be transparent, fair and aligned with the public interest and wider policy objectives. That makes this amendment important in achieving the lowest possible cost for the taxpayer.
New clause 7 would give the passengers’ council a statutory purpose to champion the interests of all railway users and potential users of the railway. The passengers’ council would advocate for the reliability of passenger services, for safety and security, and for passengers’ comfort and on-board experience, which we have discussed a number of times. It would also advocate for affordability and value for money, passenger growth and network expansion. It is important to have a clear set of directions for this new passengers’ council at its inception, and the new clause would help to provide that.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
As ever, Mrs Hobhouse, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will speak primarily to amendment 63, as articulated, typically eloquently, by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister.
We have heard some extremely powerful interventions during the course of this Committee, particularly from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, about the importance of ensuring that the system—if I can call it that—genuinely recognises and is responsive to the needs of those who are disabled, have mobility issues, or face a whole range of things. He has made that case very powerfully, and I can understand what the Minister is seeking to do.
I suspect—although I do not wish to put words in his mouth—that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary because it is inherent in the purposes of a passengers’ council that, of course, all passengers will be considered, and that the amendment simply draws out a particular aspect that must be highlighted. I can understand that. If that is the case, the Minister could accept this amendment without any adverse effects, and without any challenges to the drafting of the Bill or the integrity of what he is seeking to do with the clause, because the amendment emphasises that responsibility but does not lose sight of the particular needs of disabled people and others in the operation of the railway—I am sure the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford would make a point about the importance of that.
Looking at the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, very little—if anything—would undermine the integrity or policy intent of what the Minister is seeking to achieve with the clause. It would simply draw it out and make it much clearer, and remind the passengers’ council, in explicit terms in the legislation, of what it is there to do. I hope that the Minister, in recognising the intent behind it, can move some way to meet my hon. Friend and I by potentially accepting the amendment, or at least, if he is not able to do so today, by committing to take it away and consider whether he might accept it at a later stage.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
I hear what was said about amendment 63, and I will wait to hear what the Minister says. I have sat on a passenger watchdog, although not this one, and worked in that role alongside Passenger Focus, as it was back then—it is now Transport Focus. I served as a member of the board of London TravelWatch, which is referred to as the London Transport Users Committee in the legislation, for four years, although that was a long time ago now. Many of the provisions we will see in later clauses are inherent in the aims and work of such organisations. Investigations, reports, representations and referrals come to the attention of the organisation from all passengers.
The amendment is not necessary. I did this work as a member of a board for four years, and chaired many meetings of sub-committees looking at some of that work, and, in the work of a watchdog, these issues are there, they are referred to the organisation and they are in the reports that are presented on behalf of all passengers.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman notes that clause 36 is about the general duties of the council. It sets out what the passengers’ council is for and those general duties. Does he not think that it is odd that the clause does not refer to passengers, other than one subclass of passengers? Would it not be better for the general duties of the passengers’ council to refer to all passengers?
Daniel Francis
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the clauses in the group, he will see that there are significant issues that the passengers’ council needs to take into account for all passengers, which come to the door and—as I know, having sat on a watchdog for four years—come in the form of casework and meetings. I am sure that I will talk later about why nationalisation, and having trains, signals and rolling stock under one operator, is much better for a passengers’ council, but those issues come to the organisation’s attention anyway.
I fully support the need to look at the issues for disabled passengers who come to the council’s door, and I will hear what the Minister has to say, but I believe that how things are investigated and brought to the organisation’s attention are set out in the legislation, just as they are, in many regards, for Transport Focus and for the London Transport Users Committee. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for these amendments, but also right hon. and hon. Members across the Committee for their contributions on this important point.
The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston is correct that I intend to argue that the passenger watchdog will focus inherently on the needs of passengers. I believe that that is self-actualising, to an extent, in creating one in the first place. But he is also right to push me further on specific provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made some really important points, first about the fact that the duties and responsibilities inherent to the passenger watchdog demonstrate how it will serve the interests of passengers. Having an independent monitoring power for the passenger experience, investigation powers, enforcing minimum consumer standards—this is inherent to representing passengers on the railway.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister has come up with an ingenious argument, but if he takes the trouble of actually reading the opening sentence of clause 36, he will find that it says, under “General duties”:
“When exercising its functions relating to railways and railway services”—
So, arguments about buses and other modes of transport are clearly outside the scope of this clause, are they not?
Keir Mather
But they are not outside the scope of the passenger watchdog as a whole. We would not want to be prescriptive in one place, only for us not to be able to make the passenger watchdog agile and adaptive in dealing with the needs of other modes. There could be unforeseen issues in which the passenger watchdog will need to represent passengers, or new developments, for instance those arising from new technology, where we would want the council to be able to advocate for passengers in the future.
The Bill already gives the council a purpose: via a combination of the functions and duties set out in the Bill and the Railways Act 2005, the council’s purpose and railways functions are set out sufficiently and are rightly broad.
Amendment 64 replaces the passenger watchdog’s duty to make efficient use of funds with a duty to consider value for money through a cost-benefit analysis. The revised duty being suggested by the shadow Minister and the duty in the Bill are to all intents and purposes the same. The watchdog will need to conduct some form of analysis to ensure it is making efficient use of funds when deciding which issues to investigate. Therefore, the amendment is duplicative and in my view unnecessary. With all this in mind, I urge the shadow Minister not to press these amendments.
Clause 36 places two general duties on the watchdog, which it must consider when carrying out its rail functions. The first is a duty to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, which is designed to ensure that the watchdog will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled passengers. The second is a duty to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds when it exercises its rail functions, which will ensure that the watchdog takes the overall cost of the railway into account when carrying out its functions—for example, when advising GBR or the Government. This will ensure that its recommendations are realistic and actionable, and therefore carry more weight in the industry. These duties will enable the watchdog to be an effective passenger champion, with the needs of disabled people at the heart of its priorities.
Jerome Mayhew
You will not be totally amazed to learn, Mrs Hobhouse, that I am not persuaded by the position that the Minister has taken. The obfuscation, chucking in other modes of transport when that is clearly excluded by the wording of the clause, does not persuade me and I wish to press both amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 208, in clause 36, page 20, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) The Passengers’ Council must make arrangements for rail passenger groups to be members of a board, committee or panel of the Council.”
This amendment, along with Amendment 209, guarantees representation for passenger groups on the Passengers’ Council.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 209, in clause 37, page 20, line 4, leave out
“so far as it appears expedient”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 208.
Amendment 65, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) When the Passengers’ Council makes representations under this section, either to the Secretary of State or Great British Railways, they are both under a duty to respond to those representations within the period of one month.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the Passengers’ Council makes under this section.
Amendment 235, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert —
“(3) The Passengers’ Council must, at least once every twelve months, assess the levels of satisfaction of users of public passenger railway services and report their finding in a manner which enables Great British Railways to fulfil its functions under section 3.”
This amendment would require the Passengers Council to assess levels of public passenger railway services’ satisfaction and report these in a manner which enables GBR to fulfil its functions.
New clause 22—Passengers’ Council: Membership and representation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about membership of the Passengers’ Council.
(2) Regulations under this section must make provision that the Passengers’ Council membership includes representatives from—
(a) local friends of stations organisations;
(b) local rail user groups;
(c) regional rail travellers’ associations;
(d) community rail partnerships;
(e) other national passenger groups.
(3) Regulations under this section must include provision about the representation of the Passengers’ Council on any board established by the Secretary of State to govern or otherwise oversee Great British Railways.
(4) Provision under subsection (3) must include—
(a) that any board includes in its membership a member of the Passengers’ Council,
(b) that the member of the Passengers’ Council who is a member of any such board must be elected to that post by a basic majority of members of the Passengers’ Council,
(c) provision about the operation of any election under paragraph (b), and
(d) that any member of the Passengers’ Council who is a member of a board under subsection (3) may vote on any decision made by that board.”
Edward Morello
I will speak in support of amendments 208 and 209, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 208 would guarantee representation for rail passenger groups within the passengers’ council. In West Dorset, we are fortunate to have active and committed groups such as the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group and the west Dorset western area transport action group—they do have snappier acronyms. These organisations bring together passengers, MPs, councils and local communities to push for better services, improved stations, more resilient timetables and new trains. They lobby operators, Network Rail, the Department for Transport and others. They understand in detail what is working and what could be done better. Groups like these exist all over the country and their expertise and insight should be embedded in the passenger watchdog from the start.
Amendment 209 would strengthen that further by removing the vague caveat that representation should be included only
“so far as it appears expedient”.
The Bill promises a powerful new passenger champion that sets standards, investigates poor performance, and holds operators and GBR to account. We envisage that amendments 208 and 209 would do exactly that. I hope the Government will see the logic of supporting them.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling these amendments, and the hon. Member for West Dorset for speaking to them. They seek to make changes to the governance and obligations of the passenger watchdog.
I will turn to amendments 208 and 209, which seek to ensure that rail passenger groups are represented within the passenger watchdog. The passengers’ council currently operates under the name Transport Focus and is led by a board of non-executive directors, including members for Scotland, Wales and London. These are statutory appointments as defined in the Railways Act 2005, and we are not amending those arrangements via the Bill.
Although we are not mandating specific representation of rail passenger groups on the board, the watchdog is a body that represents passengers, just like other rail passenger groups, and will directly engage with them. As mentioned, to ensure that happens, the Bill already requires that the watchdog must consult anyone who it thinks is appropriate and co-operate with other bodies representing the interests of passengers, including other rail passenger groups.
Amendment 209 seeks to delete the words
“so far as it appears expedient”
from the watchdog’s requirement to keep matters under review. Although the watchdog will be a powerful champion and will have resources to reflect that, we must ensure that it can focus its time and resources on the matters that have the most impact on passengers and prioritise its work as it sees appropriate. Without that caveat, it would be required to keep all matters affecting passengers under review, no matter how minor or trivial, which is not a reasonable duty to place on the watchdog.
Amendment 65 would set a deadline of one month for the Secretary of State and GBR to respond to any representations made by the passenger watchdog under clause 37. I agree with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that it is important for representations from the watchdog to be responded to efficiently, but more complex issues raised by it need careful consideration. Setting a uniform deadline could have the effect of rushing that consideration, which might not lead to the best outcomes for passengers. In fact, allowing more time to consider representations would increase the chances of actions being taken that might require a commitment of funding, so I do not think that such a deadline necessarily serves passengers. Additionally, having a duty to respond within a time period in the Bill that would be enforceable only through the courts could result in issues taking much longer to resolve. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.
Finally, amendment 235 would require the passenger watchdog to assess and report on passenger satisfaction at least once a year. Assessing passenger satisfaction is currently a well-established practice of the passengers’ council, which operates under the name Transport Focus, and that will not change with its transition into the new passenger watchdog. Transport Focus has a long record of collecting passenger feedback in the form of its rail user survey.
In addition, a new rail customer experience survey has recently been introduced. This is an industry-wide survey of customers’ experiences. It provides a crucial insight into rail customers’ experience, supporting the industry to achieve a better understanding of where it does well, where improvement is needed and what elements of the journey matter most to passengers. New survey data is provided every four weeks and the passenger watchdog will have access to the raw survey data to enable it to carry out its own independent analysis of the results.
The watchdog will publish its own analysis on a regular basis, as Transport Focus does currently, in the form of rail operator scorecards—including a GBR scorecard—that will be found on their websites and that will demonstrate to passengers which operators are performing well on passenger matters and which are not. Given Transport Focus’ long-established role in assessing rail passenger satisfaction, and the introduction of the new rail customer experience survey, I believe continuous monitoring of passenger experience is well established without this amendment. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.
The Chair
We are now slightly out of sync because the Minister has responded before the shadow Minister could make the case. I remind Members to bob after I put the question, even if the amendment itself is not mentioned when I put the question. I know it is slightly difficult. I will call the shadow Minister, then the Minister will respond very briefly.
Jerome Mayhew
I would not want to prevent the Minister from agreeing with me at some length. We have a slightly odd grouping here, because amendments 208 and 209 would amend clause 36, but the other amendments in the group would amend clause 37—perhaps that is where we have gone wrong.
I will not really speak on amendments 208 and 209, because the Liberal Democrats spokesman has indicated that he will not push them to a vote. In so far as they guarantee representation for passenger groups on the passengers’ council, we support the direction of travel, but as they are not progressing further, I will not say more.
Clause 37 deals with keeping matters under review and collecting information. The Minister has already set out a précis of what the clause—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, but you should be talking to amendments you have tabled, amendment 235 and new clause 22, but not clause 37 itself.
Jerome Mayhew
I understand where you are coming from, Mrs Hobhouse. The problem is that the amendments relate to clause 37, not clause 36, so it is inevitable that I have to describe the clause. I am not speaking to the clause, but explaining how my amendment fits within it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not going to repeat what the clause does, but it establishes only a passive role. The council must “keep under review” and “make representations”, but it has no proactive duty to investigate or intervene. That is quite a big omission, and it contrasts with what the Minister said in answer to written parliamentary question 76652. The Minister gave an assurance that the new watchdog will deliver clear and robust oversight, but the co-operation duty is narrowly drawn, excluding wider consumer and accessibility organisations.
As drafted, the council lacks a clear purpose—in fact, it does not even have a purpose clause—and the practical tools needed to act as the strengthened passenger watchdog the Government have promised. Without a purpose clause, there is no direction as to what the council should be making representations about. Even the title of clause 37 is anodyne: “Keeping matters under review and collecting information” is hardly a strong description of a watchman for the interests of the passenger. Having kept matters “under review”, its only power is to “make representations”, which of course is meaningless.
The Urban Transport Group expressed similar concerns in its written evidence to the Transport Committee:
“The Bill must ensure that the Passengers Council exercise their powers in relation to GBR as they would any other operator and that these hold weight. It is not enough for GBR to only be held meaningfully to account by the Secretary of State, who has varying responsibilities outside of rail, and who may not have the time to investigate instances of poor performance to the relevant level of scrutiny.
Further consideration should be given to the explicit powers and levers the Passengers’ Council will have”—
they are going to split the infinitive—
“to meaningfully hold GBR to account on behalf of users.”
There is a risk that the passengers’ council will be just a busy talking shop, with no ability to effect change. As drafted, it rather feels like an afterthought. For example, there are no enforcement powers, save for referral to the Office of Rail and Road. Under clause 37(1), the council will have the authority to
“make representations to…such persons as they think appropriate”
on
“matters affecting the interests of the public”.
In reality, that will mainly be to the Secretary of State and GBR, but there is no corresponding duty for either the Secretary of State or GBR to respond in any way to those representations. Consider that for a moment: there is a duty to make representations, and no duty to respond at all. It could not be more toothless if it tried.
Amendment 65, in my name, would go a modest way to rectifying the toothlessness of this representative body. It would simply require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the passengers’ council makes under this clause. Surely members of this Committee and the Government would agree that that is a reasonable expectation for the passengers’ council and the passengers it represents.
Amendment 235, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would require the passengers’ council to assess levels of satisfaction with public passenger railway services and report these in a manner that enables GBR to fulfil its functions. Any amendment, and this is one of them, that ensures greater transparency and therefore a better service from this organisation—
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
If the shadow Minister is talking about 235, that is one that he tabled, not me.
Jerome Mayhew
No wonder I agree with it so strongly. I put “LD” by it, but that is being unduly generous to the Liberal Democrats. It is an excellent amendment. As I was concluding, it would ensure greater transparency and, therefore, a better service from this organisation, so I have no hesitation in supporting amendment 235 and I hope that the Liberal Democrats join me in doing so.
Keir Mather
The Committee will be glad to hear that I do not intend to re-rehearse the argument that I pre-emptively set out in response to the amendments. On the broader point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham about the passenger watchdog and its capabilities, I am of the view that having independent monitoring powers for the passenger experience, having investigation powers, having the ability to demand information by a deadline, enforcing an independent dispute resolution service, and making sure that minimum consumer standards are protected with the ability to escalate to the ORR for enforcement is a suite of measures that will allow the watchdog to fully account for the passenger experience. That relates both to this clause and ones that I am sure we will arrive at in short order. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for West Dorset to withdraw his amendment.
Edward Morello
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Keeping matters under review and collecting information
Amendment proposed: 65, in clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) When the Passengers’ Council makes representations under this section, either to the Secretary of State or Great British Railways, they are both under a duty to respond to those representations within the period of one month.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Great British Railways to respond to any representations the Passengers’ Council makes under this section.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
I am pleased to speak to clauses 37 and 38 relating to the passenger watchdog’s duty to keep matters under review and its power to collect information. Clause 37 ensures that the passenger watchdog proactively monitors any matters affecting passengers, whether they relate to passenger services or stations. It also requires the watchdog to consult relevant people and to co-operate with other bodies that represent passengers, such as London TravelWatch. Clause 37 also gives the watchdog the power to collect information so it can effectively monitor the passenger experience.
The clause will ensure that the watchdog is proactive and has a good overview of any emerging issues that may impact passengers. It will also ensure that the watchdog engages and co-operates with relevant bodies and seeks information to effectively address potential issues with the passenger experience. I hope hon. Members will agree that that power is fundamental to the effectiveness of the watchdog as a passenger champion.
Finally, clause 38 will enable the passenger watchdog to enter into agreements with other public bodies so that, if necessary, they can perform the functions under clause 37 instead of the watchdog itself. The Secretary of State’s consent is required before entering into agreements under the clause. The clause replicates section 76A of the Railways Act 1993, which we wish to retain for cases where another body could keep certain passenger matters under review more effectively than the watchdog. That could, for example, happen in a certain geographical area where there is an effective devolved body with specialised local knowledge. The clause supports the watchdog to operate as an effective passenger champion by ensuring that it can flexibly co-operate with local bodies to the overall benefit of passengers.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not going to reheat the discussions that we have already enjoyed on clause 37, and clause 38 simply replicates the 1993 Act. We are happy for the clauses to proceed without amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Investigations
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 39, page 21, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) The Passengers’ Council must not investigate a matter unless the matter has been considered first by Great British Railways and is subject to an appeal for further consideration.”
This amendment makes Great British Railways the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the Passenger Standards Council the appellant body should the complainant not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways.
Olly Glover
I can be very concise, Mrs Hobhouse. We consider the provisions on the passengers’ council to be among the stronger components of the Bill. Some sound thinking is involved.
Amendment 142 is a very basic amendment that aims simply to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. All it would do is ensure that when a complaint is submitted, the first stage is for GBR to look at it. It will be a GBR issue, because GBR is going to run everything. If the appellant body is not satisfied with the response from GBR, the complaint can by all means go to the passengers’ council for investigation.
If the complaint goes first to the passengers’ council, what will happen in pretty much every case is that the council will have to go to GBR to find out the facts. How else will it know them? I hope that the amendment is uncontentious, but if the Minister does not agree I am sure he will give a typically eloquent explanation.
Jerome Mayhew
The clause sets out the circumstances in which the passengers’ council must—that is “must”, not “may”—investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. I could provide a long description of the clause, but I will leave that to the Minister, who I know will want to explain it to the Committee.
Essentially, the Bill largely lifts the current framework into the GBR model, so I can see why no amendment would be needed, although Ministers should clarify how the national and London watchdogs will co-ordinate on cross-boundary issues. I will be grateful for an explanation of how the Minister will undertake the balancing act between GBR and the London Transport Users Committee.
There is, however, a big issue with the current wording of the clause. It requires the council actively to
“investigate any matter relating to the provision of railway passenger services”
put to it by members of the public, as well as others. That sounds great, but from a practical perspective, there are 1.75 billion passenger journeys each year. The potential issues with the service that passengers receive will run into the tens of thousands every year, yet the drafting of the clause will impose a legal duty on the passengers’ council to investigate every single one of them, unless they are “frivolous or vexatious”.
“Frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms. To demonstrate that something is vexatious is a very high bar for the passengers’ council: it would typically have to provide evidence of multiple previous complaints on a similar subject that came to nothing. That is what “vexatious” means, and “frivolous” is not far off it. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, is creating an enormous a legal duty and a vast workstream for the host organisation that is becoming the passengers’ council, which has fewer than 30 members of staff.
Edward Morello
I wonder whether the shadow Minister’s line of argument actually supports the Liberal Democrat amendment. The vast majority of those claims could be resolved by GBR via a repayment or penalty, without ever getting to the passengers’ council in the first place.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a sequence of complaint. Before going to an external body, one would typically be expected to have exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the organisation against which one is complaining. It would be perfectly reasonable for the passenger watchdog’s first questions to be, “Have you complained to GBR? If so, what did it say?” In fact, that might be its working definition of frivolousness: going straight to the watchdog without having made a complaint.
I warn the Minister that the current wording is an open chequebook. It could lead to a huge amount of work for an organisation that is not currently set up to deal with it, and which would require significant funds from somewhere to do so. What assessment of demand has been undertaken for council investigation powers? What budget has been earmarked for the huge increase in workload? Transport Focus, the host organisation, currently has fewer than 30 staff—I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but when I visited there were something like 22 staff. To what size does the Minister anticipate expanding Transport Focus or the new passenger watchdog?
Amendment 142 would make GBR the first stage of a complaint submitted, with the passenger standards council as the appellant body should the complaint not be satisfied by the response from Great British Railways. I doubt whether it needs an amendment to primary legislation, but it would be the right sequence for any complainant to exhaust the in-house complaints procedure first. Does the Minister not mean the passengers’ council to have the authority to pick and choose its investigations? If he does not, he should stick with the current wording; if he does, he should think again.
Keir Mather
The shadow Minister asked about the interaction between Transport Focus and London TravelWatch in instances in which cross-border services might need active deliberation between the two organisations. They currently operate under a memorandum of understanding, and I understand that they are planning to update it when the Bill becomes more mature, which will allow them to develop a consistent framework for dealing with cross-border issues. Where a case is under investigation and is fully within the London railway area, it falls within the remit of London TravelWatch: rightly, the passenger watchdog must refer the case to London TravelWatch as the independent expert on travel in the London area.
The shadow Minister also asked some operational questions about the passenger watchdog’s budgetary planning and the size of its staff. Those matters will be actively developed later in the process, once we have set the legislative foundation for the organisation to be created.
The shadow Minister made a fair point about the principle of investigation, but intensive investigations are one thing, and the ability to have regard to complaints that are not vexatious is quite another.
Jerome Mayhew
That is all very well, but it is not the wording of the Bill. The text does not say “have regard to”; it is a mandatory requirement to investigate every single allegation. I totally understand where the Minister says he is coming from, but unfortunately his Bill does not agree with him.
Keir Mather
My point is that the shadow Minister’s interpretation of the term “investigation” might diverge slightly from mine in respect of what we expect the passenger watchdog to do in relation to each individual complaint that it may receive, and especially to those that are vexatious or frivolous.
On the broader point, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which would require the passenger watchdog to wait until GBR has considered an issue before investigating it itself. He is right to point out that individual passenger complaints should go to operators, including GBR, in the first instance. If the passenger is unable to get a satisfactory resolution to their complaint, they can raise the issue with the watchdog through the service provided by the rail ombudsman for independent dispute resolution. As the amendment suggests, that is a very sensible process.
However, there are times when the watchdog will need to investigate issues before or instead of operators. For example, if an issue falls outside the scope of the ombudsman service, or if the issue is systemic and persistent and cannot be appropriately dealt with by a single operator, the watchdog may decide to open its own investigation.
We expect the watchdog to actively investigate a wide range of issues beyond individual passenger complaints and GBR services. They could include systemic or cross-industry issues in the provision of passenger assistance, such as the issues that we have unfortunately seen on the railway in the past, or persistent issues with punctuality, open access or devolved services. The amendment is therefore not appropriate, as it would unnecessarily restrict the watchdog’s ability to act freely on behalf of the passenger. I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate.
Jerome Mayhew
I recognise that the Minister has his line to take and that there will be lots of angry people sitting behind him at tea time if he makes any concessions. However, a simple amendment to the wording of the mandatory requirement in clause 39(1), paragraphs (a) to (e), would give the passenger watchdog the ability to pick and choose. Changing “or” to “and” at the end of paragraph (d), before
“it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate”,
would surely provide the flexibility that everyone probably thinks is necessary.
Keir Mather
I will happily let the shadow Minister intervene again, because I would like to seek clarity on how inserting “and” would allow the watchdog to choose whether it has to investigate something in the first instance.
Jerome Mayhew
In the wording of clause 39(1), at the moment paragraphs (a) to (e) are additional. If the “or” in
“or…it appears to the Council”
at the end of paragraph (d) were replaced with “and”, there would be a two-part test. The council would receive complaints from all the kinds of people in paragraphs (a) to (d), and the second part of the test would be that
“it appears to the Council that the matter is one that the Council ought to investigate.”
That would give agency to the council to monitor and choose the most important things for it to investigate.
The Chair
I remind the Minister that this is not part of the amendment that has been proposed. Could he therefore wind up? The shadow Minister is welcome to table a new amendment, but his proposal is not relevant to this afternoon’s discussion.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. Perhaps, in slower time, he can walk me through each specific provision and we can come to a determination as to the intent that he outlined, but for the moment—at your discretion, Mrs Hobhouse—I will proceed with the matter at hand.
I do not support restricting in legislation which issues the watchdog can investigate. The watchdog will already be working closely with GBR to ensure that GBR can respond to its own passenger issues effectively and according to best practice and will not duplicate investigations unless it is necessary to do so. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw amendment 142.
Clause 39 will enable the passenger watchdog to investigate matters relating to railway passenger services or station services. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to conduct investigations in certain circumstances. For example, the watchdog must investigate any matters referred to it by passengers, potential passengers or organisations representing passengers provided that the matters are not vexatious. It must also investigate any issues referred to it by the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers or the ORR, and anything that it appears to the watchdog that it ought to investigate.
If the matters fall wholly within the London railway area, the passenger watchdog must refer it to the London Transport Users Committee. Transport Focus, the body out of which the watchdog will be built, has a duty to investigate matters referred to it, but the clause expands the list of people who may refer cases for investigation, to reflect the central role of the watchdog, its role in the reformed railway and the importance of passenger experience to this Government.
Olly Glover
I hear what the Minister says. I still think that the logical wording of the clause could be ameliorated, but I shall leave that to the Government and spare the Committee a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Power to obtain information
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 40, page 22, line 11, leave out subsections (5)(a) and (5)(b) and insert
“the Passengers’ Council may take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate.”
This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council enforcement powers when its requests for information are not met.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 41 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
It is much easier when I start with the amendment, because then I know where I am. This clause is about the power to obtain information. I will leave it to the Minister to give a précis, but it seeks to create a sensible power for the passengers’ council to be able to require the provision of information. However, the council has no power to compel compliance—it may only refer the matter further, to the Office of Rail and Road—so we begin to get into one of the problems with the passengers’ council, which is that it has no enforcement powers at all. Any teeth that are associated with the works of the passengers’ council come only from the economic regulator, soon to be just the safety regulator: the ORR. That will lead to some serious problems.
There is no proposal to require the ORR, as a regulating body with no enforcement powers, to take the preparatory work of the passengers’ council as automatically worthy of acceptance without reinvestigation. That is quite a serious point, because when an investigation undertaken by the passengers’ council comes to a roadblock that it feels requires some kind of enforcement action, it has to go to a separate body, the Office of Rail and Road, because the Government do not intend to give the council any real powers of its own. The ORR, as an independent regulator and enforcement body, then has to start the investigation de novo. It has no ability to take as read the investigation work of the passengers’ council.
That will create the bizarre situation of the ORR having to reinvestigate as an enforcing body, which is a quasi-judicial function, and then come to a decision every single time the passengers’ council refers any matter to it. Surely the Minister can do better than that, with all the resources of his many civil servants and drafting professionals in the Department. That messy process will lead to delay and uncertain enforcement—hardly the stuff of empowering passengers.
I fear that those on the Treasury Bench have asserted that the watchdog will be a nightwatchman, but the Department has granted it no enforcement powers or powers to compel. That will be bitterly disappointing to many rail passenger groups and advocates. When an issue arises and the council begins an investigation, it will inevitably require information. If it is unable to get that information, it must ask the ORR to step in and take over. We heard a lot about that in evidence to the Transport Committee. For example, Emma Vogelmann of Transport for All said:
“In terms of the watchdog itself, I have briefly touched on this already, but we feel very much that the passengers’ council really needs to be given enforcement powers to be able to take proper action on cases that are involving accessibility breaches. In cases where things do get referred up to the ORR, we would like there to be a statutory duty on them to act on those referrals made by the passengers’ council, and to have those outcomes within a clear timeframe.”
Another point she makes is that the ORR does not have to do anything. The passengers’ council can refer a matter to the ORR, but the ORR can say, “We’re busy, thank you, and we don’t think it is important.” It has no obligation to act.
Keir Mather
I turn first to the shadow Minister’s point about either diffusing enforcement capabilities between the ORR and the passenger watchdog or seeking to double them up as part of legislation that is designed to rationalise and simplify notions of accountability and enforcement within the railway. Under the system outlined in the Bill, the ORR can use the findings of the watchdog; the watchdog just has to make its own assessment of the materials given to it by the ORR. In my view, that does not constitute the same thing as reinvestigating a matter. The intention is for the ORR to be made aware of the passenger watchdog’s work at every step toward referral by the watchdog itself. There is therefore a low risk of the ORR having to retake steps, given that it is actively consulted as that process unfolds.
I will now speak directly to amendment 66 and clauses 40 and 41. As the shadow Minister has outlined, amendment 66 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when its requests for information were not met. The Government are creating a strong passenger watchdog that will have powers to monitor passenger experience, and to hold GBR and others to account. Although it will not have full enforcement powers, it will be able to demand information from operators to a deadline, investigate problems, demand improvement plans and refer cases for enforcement action to the ORR. It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers creating additional bureaucracy would be too high.
The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will enforce all other railway licences to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. We expect our licence proposals to include a condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog. That will help to ensure that other licensed operators co-operate with requests from the watchdog. That type of provision is typically found in operator licences. For example, there is a similar requirement for operators to co-operate with Transport Focus today. For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary.
Turning to clauses 40 and 41, clause 40 gives the passenger watchdog the power to request the necessary information to effectively carry out investigations into issues affecting passengers. That information could be requested from train or station operators including, of course, GBR. The information must be provided to the watchdog within a reasonable timeframe, unless the person did not have, or could not reasonably obtain, the information. If the watchdog did not receive a satisfactory response to its information request, it could refer the matter to the ORR, which will continue to act as the enforcement body for the rail sector. The watchdog’s power to request information from operators to a deadline is a new one, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to a strong passenger champion that can make an impact on the railway. That will ensure that the watchdog can carry out its investigations effectively and in a timely manner.
Clause 41 protects any information where the person who provided the information has requested that it be held in confidence. That will ensure that confidential or sensitive information is not published or disclosed by the watchdog, with some sensible exceptions such as ensuring that the watchdog can refer the matter to the ORR for enforcement and that relevant law is complied with. Clause 41 also ensures that information held by a rail operator that may help an investigation but is sensitive or confidential—due to its commercial nature, for example—will not be published in any investigation reports. That will encourage operators to share information and ensure that the watchdog can carry out any investigation effectively while protecting confidential information.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister’s argument is clearly—is it parliamentary to say nonsense? I hope it is. His argument, that the industry will be confused if the passengers’ council is able to enforce its own deliberations, is ridiculous; he just has to think about it. The ORR has its areas of competence on which it enforces, and the passengers’ council has its areas of competence; they are discrete. Where confusion might really arise is if the passengers’ council thinks it is trying to get information and is stymied by the ORR taking a different view, which is the position the Minister has put forward. I have no hesitation in pushing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 42, page 23, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 68, in clause 42, page 23, line 17, leave out subsection (3)(b)(ii).
This amendment would require the ORR to take action where a contravention has been referred to it.
Clause stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
The amendments relate to clause 42, so I will explain what that clause seeks to achieve. Its title is “Representations and referrals”, and its focus is on introducing a power so that
“the Passengers’ Council may make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate for the purpose”,
such as train or station operators, to resolve a matter under investigation.
If the passengers’ council believes that an operator
“is contravening, or likely to contravene”
its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly, as we will discuss further when we consider clause 47, and/or refer the matter to the ORR and notify the Secretary of State. There are various other things that clause 42 does, but those are the main things.
The clause makes it clear that even after a passengers’ council investigation has identified a licence breach, the ORR retains complete discretion on whether or not to act. Once again, that will create a two-stage process in which the council must refer breaches that it cannot resolve itself, but the body receiving the referral is not obliged to act on it, or to intervene. Therefore, the watchdog investigates, but only the ORR can enforce, which it can choose not to do. That structure falls way short of the supposed strengthened passenger accountability model described by Ministers, and it serves only to risk causing prolonged delays for passengers who face ongoing harm, to the extent that a licence provision is breached, without a guaranteed remedy.
Thus far, we have not seen a clear rationale as to why the Government would create a watchdog only for it not to have any enforcement powers. It prompts the question: “What’s the point?” Evidence to the Transport Committee was very clear—the passengers’ council needs to have enforcement powers of its own to do the job envisaged for it. At the very least, if the ORR is to remain the enforcement body, there should not be a weeding process between the decisions of the passengers’ council and the ORR; the ORR should at least get on and enforce. That is what amendments 67 and 68 would achieve, by requiring the ORR to take action when a contravention had been referred to it.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for the amendments, which would require the ORR to take action in the event of a referral from the passenger watchdog.
First, I will point out that enforcement actions by the ORR are not the only way in which problems can be solved. The Bill gives the watchdog the power to request improvement plans, to allow operators to explain their planned improvements and agree them with the watchdog before issues are referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action. That is likely to be a faster way to get improvements for passengers than going straight to enforcement action.
I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that the watchdog will be listened to; it is an intention that the Government support. However, it is also important that the ORR, as the sector regulator, is able to take a broader view before deciding whether enforcement action is appropriate. That is because the passenger watchdog is only a passenger champion—it has a sole focus—and, by comparison, the ORR is the regulator for the whole sector and has to take into account a wide range of matters. If that were not the case, enforcement decisions could be taken that were good for the passenger but had a negative impact on the network as a whole. Each time that the ORR makes a decision, it must transparently explain its rationale to the watchdog on that basis. Therefore, in our view these amendments are unnecessary and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw them.
Clause 42 will give the passenger watchdog the power to:
“make representations to such persons as it thinks appropriate”,
in order to resolve a matter under investigation. If the watchdog believes that an operator is currently
“contravening, or likely to contravene”
its licence obligations, it must either engage with the operator directly to request an improvement plan or refer the matter to the ORR and inform the Secretary of State that it has done so.
If the case is referred to the ORR, the ORR can choose whether to take enforcement action or not. It must then inform the watchdog and the Secretary of State of its decision. That will ensure that the watchdog can act independently to resolve problems through engagement with operators and by directly engaging with the ORR when necessary. Without clause 42, the watchdog would not be able to effectively resolve matters that it had investigated and follow up on them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not persuaded by the Minister. There are two amendments. In order to save time, I will press the first one to a Division, and the outcome of that will determine whether or not I press the second one to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 43, page 23, line 21, leave out
“may prepare a report of its findings”
and insert
“must publish and lay before Parliament a report of its findings”.
This amendment requires the Passengers’ Council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensures any report is laid before Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 43, page 23, line 33, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to publish any report on a matter investigated under section 39.
Amendment 70, in clause 43, page 23, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The report must be published within six months of the completion of the investigation.”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation.
Amendment 140, in clause 43, page 23, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment removes the requirement that the Passengers' Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State, by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers.
Clause stand part.
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend, who is departing the Committee, and I are tag teaming, Mrs Hobhouse. Clause 43 sets out the powers of the passengers’ council when it investigates problems affecting rail users. Amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen transparency, independence and parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 138 would require the passengers’ council to publish its findings and lay them before Parliament after an investigation, rather than that just being an option. It would ensure that evidence was made public and that Parliament could see clearly where the system was or could be failing passengers. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the passengers’ council to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before publishing a report where the investigation had been referred by Ministers. We have all lived through the experience of reports going into the bottom drawer of desks, never to be seen again, and we would like to create a situation here where that does not happen.
A watchdog cannot be effective if the person who triggered the investigation can also control whether its conclusions are published. The amendments would ensure that the passengers’ council had teeth, could operate independently and could report honestly without political interference. Together, amendments 138 and 140 would strengthen accountability, protect the integrity of the passenger watchdog, and ensure Parliament and the public are properly informed when things go wrong on our railways. On the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, we intend to press amendment 138 to a Division.
Daniel Francis
London TravelWatch is a large organisation, and I used to chair some of its casework committees. It deals with and reports on a huge range of issues and, like Passenger Focus, it deals not just with trains but with other modes of transport. I made recommendations on a range of issues. I remember making recommendations to Eurostar about issues regarding disabled passengers. I remember making recommendations regarding changes to timetables. There were some significant issues that one would want to issue a report on. There was an issue back then for South Western about how Network Rail and the train operator were integrating, and a report had to be commissioned. There will be reports that are really to say to the operator, “You need to look at this specific issue.” We do not need to make it mandatory that all those reports are tabled in this House, with the bureaucracy that brings.
Edward Morello
I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are snowed under with paperwork in this place at the best of times. I think there is a difference between providing a report to Parliament as standard, allowing Parliament to make the decision on whether it needs to be scrutinised, and the council or any other part of the regulator having the power to decide itself whether a report should go before Parliament.
The issue is where the balance of power should lie regarding whether Parliament has the right to scrutinise a report. All our amendment seeks to do is, by making it mandatory, to return the weighting and the power to Parliament on those issues.
Daniel Francis
I do not think this provision needs to be on the face of the Bill. These issues already exist; there are examples where the passenger watchdog and the Transport Committee would be looking at the same matter. There would be examples with other Departments where an ombudsman would also be looking at something in a similar vein to a Select Committee. My view is that it would be an overly bureaucratic system. Passenger watchdogs issue many reports, and some are on very serious matters, but sometimes they need to issue a report that is not at that level, and I do not believe these amendments are necessary.
Jerome Mayhew
Under clause 43, the passengers’ council can prepare, send and publish a report of its findings in an investigation, but it must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral. Similar provisions exist for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The wording of subsection (3) makes publication discretionary even after a full investigation and subsection (4) requires ministerial consent before publishing any report arising from a referral.
As the explanatory notes confirm, that structure gives Ministers an effective veto over publication. Why should the Minister have a veto over publication when the organisation being investigated is their own creation? If the state has created a toothless investigation watchdog body that, despite its lack of enforcement powers, has managed to do an investigation, write a report that is no doubt critical of the state, GBR or perhaps even the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State, or the Scottish or Welsh Minister can, for whatever reason they like, veto its publication. They can muzzle the watchdog at whim.
That risks undermining the whole process—where is the transparency?—and weakens the credibility of the new watchdog. If the aim is to strengthen passenger oversight, investigation reports should be published as a matter of course, with only narrowly defined exemptions for confidentiality or commercial reasons. Transport for All explains in its written evidence to the Transport Committee how that will affect passengers:
“Clauses 42-47 empower the Passengers’ Council to receive complaints, investigate issues, and identify potential breaches of licence conditions. However, the Council has no power to compel corrective action, issue penalties, or enforce compliance. If it identifies significant accessibility failings, it must refer the matter to the ORR, which retains full discretion over whether to investigate or take enforcement action.
Disabled passengers already face disproportionate obstacles when raising complaints, and this indirect model appears to add another layer of bureaucracy without increasing accountability. We worry that it will create further delays, weaken enforcement, confuse passengers, and result in inconsistent redress. A watchdog without enforcement powers is fundamentally limited in its capacity to protect passengers’ rights or drive accessibility improvements.”
Amendment 69 requires the passengers’ council to publish any report on a matter investigated under clause 39. That will create greater transparency and accountability in the new watchdog. Frankly, if the Government are serious about supporting the rights of passengers, rather than designing in an ability to hide embarrassing conclusions, they must support this amendment.
Amendment 70 would require the passengers’ council to publish its report within six months of completing the investigation. Having in statute a specific timeframe in which a report must be published would create a sense of urgency, or at least of purpose, and a culture would develop within the organisation that placed high importance on those reports—exactly as it should.
Amendments 138, tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats—presumably the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—would require the passenger’s council to prepare a report of findings after an investigation and ensure that any report is laid before Parliament. It is another attempt to strengthen the reporting requirements from a different angle and should be supported because it is seeking to achieve a similar outcome to my own amendments.
Amendment 140, also in the name of the hon. Member,
“removes the requirement that the Passengers’ Council must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation resulted from a referral by the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 69 is a mandatory requirement that they must publish every report. If that is not acceptable to the Government for whatever reason, then amendment 140 is a slight variation on the theme in that it takes the discretion away from the Secretary of State and leaves it where it properly lies, if there is to be discretion: with the passenger watchdog. That body, surely, having undertaken the investigation, written the report and come to a conclusion, are best placed to decide whether it is in the public interest to publish, not the owner of the nationalised industry that is being investigated.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members for these amendments, which all relate to the passenger watchdog’s investigation reports. I will begin with amendments 138 and 69, which both require the watchdog to publish its investigation reports. Amendment 138 also requires the watchdog to lay the reports before Parliament.
First, I would like to reassure the Committee that the passenger watchdog will routinely publish reports of all its investigations. The watchdog also has an obligation under the Railways Act 2005 to prepare a report of its activities at the end of each financial year, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. That obligation will remain unchanged and will ensure there is transparency and parliamentary scrutiny around the watchdog’s activities.
However, it is worth saying that, for matters referred to it by the Government and the ORR, there must be an opportunity for the referees to review the watchdog’s findings and consider next steps before reports are published. The watchdog’s investigations may also uncover issues that need to be kept confidential, for instance commercially sensitive issues that should not be shared publicly. For those reasons, I do not support the amendments. The existing transparency and security requirements on the watchdog are comprehensive enough to ensure that the public and Parliament have access to investigation results and general reporting without compromising sensitive information.
I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for amendment 70, which would require the passenger watchdog to publish reports of its investigations within six months of completing them. Although we would expect the watchdog to publish reports of all investigations within a reasonable timeframe, it is important that it has some discretion. The watchdog’s investigation may uncover issues that need to be considered carefully and some investigations will naturally be more complex and time-consuming than others, for example investigations into persistent cross-industry issues involving multiple operators and regions.
Transport Focus has raised concerns that setting a deadline may force it to hasten or reduce the scope of investigations, which is not in the passenger’s interest. Transport Focus also has arrangements in place to raise urgent issues with operators, which would continue, so it can act quickly to solve problems for passengers in parallel with investigations if needed. In some cases, reports may benefit from being shared in draft, with time allowed for those impacted to consider improvements. The watchdog should have the flexibility, in that instance, to seek the best outcome for passengers. For those reasons, I do not support a statutory requirement to publish all investigation reports to a six-month deadline.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for amendment 140, which proposes to remove the requirement for the Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State to consent to the publication of an investigation report on issues that they referred to the watchdog. Clause 43 is intended to ensure that Ministers have an opportunity to review the investigation report on matters they have referred to the council before the report is published. That is especially important where the matter under investigation is sensitive and needs some discretion to raise issues carefully and privately, as that may be the best and quickest way to get action for passengers. One example would be issues relating to availability of funding, where Ministers will need to weigh that up carefully against other priorities.
For those reasons, I do not support removing the requirement for ministerial consent before the council sends or publishes a report of an investigation resulting from a referral by the Secretary of State or by Scottish or Welsh Ministers. We are not expecting Ministers to refuse consent to publication, but the clause is a necessary safeguard to protect confidential information, to allow issues to be weighed up carefully and to ensure that problems are fixed for passengers as swiftly as possible. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, clause 43 will enable the passenger watchdog to prepare, share and publish reports of its investigation findings. As I have already set out to the Committee, the watchdog must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before sending or publishing a report if the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the Secretary of State. Similar provision is in place if the investigation has been undertaken following a referral from Scottish or Welsh Ministers. If the investigation was undertaken following a referral from the ORR, the watchdog must inform the ORR before publishing a report of its findings. The clause will ensure that findings of the investigations are transparent and available to the public and Parliament, so that train operators, including GBR, can be held to account for the way they are treating passengers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 45 stand part.
New clause 46—Complaints statistics—
“(1) At least twice each year, Great British Railways must provide to the Office of Rail and Road the number of complaints closed by each passenger service designated by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Office of Rail and Road must publish the statistics received under subsection (1) at least twice each year.”
This new clause would ensure that the ORR would continue to publish data on complaints in the same manner as they currently do.
Keir Mather
With your permission, Mrs Hobhouse, I will speak to the clauses now and address the new clause once I have heard the shadow Minister’s remarks.
Clauses 44 and 45 relate to complaints and dispute resolution. Clause 44 designates the passenger watchdog as the body that will deal with complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. Retained EU law on rail passenger rights includes requirements on operators to provide travel information to passengers and assistance to passengers who need it to travel.
Transport Focus is currently the body designated to receive complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights. The Bill consolidates the existing regulation to ensure that Transport Focus retains that role when it becomes the passenger watchdog. The clause therefore replaces the existing regulations on this matter. That will ensure that operators are held to the same, or indeed higher, standards for passenger experience, and that there is still a body clearly responsible for monitoring and addressing such complaints.
Cause 45 places a duty on the passenger watchdog to provide an independent alternative dispute resolution service to users and potential users of train and station services. The watchdog will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR to fulfil that duty, ensuring that the watchdog provides an independent service to rail passengers that can handle disputes between passengers and service operators fairly and impartially.
Transferring the sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman to the passenger watchdog will provide an effective independent service that has the appropriate third-party accreditation. That includes ombudsman status, which gives it the power to require remedial action from operators on passenger complaints that it upholds. The clause will ensure that the watchdog has the legal obligation to continue to provide an alternative dispute resolution service, even after the existing contract with the Rail Ombudsman expires in 2028.
Jerome Mayhew
I have nothing to add on clause 44. Clause 45 provides a duty for the passengers’ council to secure independent dispute resolution arrangements. As the Minister just said, it is anticipated—according to the explanatory notes, at least—that it will take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the ORR in order to fulfil that duty.
I want to ask the Minister what powers the dispute resolution function will have, because the Bill and the explanatory notes are entirely silent. That is the modus operandi that we have become used to during the course of these Bill proceedings: there is endless putting off, and the detail has not been thought out—or, certainly, not shared. This seems to be a similar case.
New clause 46, in my name, would ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continued to publish data on complaints in the same manner as it currently does. During a significant transition such as the creation of GBR, it is crucial that data collection and publication are maintained in a manner that allows for accurate comparison—another small but important point. The new clause would achieve that objective. The alternative is to risk an inability to make like-for-like comparison, which of course would let the new organisation off the hook. Without continuity of data collection and publishing, GBR would be able to avoid comparative scrutiny.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. We consulted the industry and the public on the future of the content and functions of the alternative dispute resolution service, and identified that the transfer of the Rail Ombudsman sponsorship to the watchdog represents the simplest option with the least disruption to the passenger experience. That choice was supported by both Transport Focus and the Rail Delivery Group.
In the current service, decisions on disputes are made by legally trained staff. That gives passengers and operators assurance and confidence that disputes are handled fairly and correctly. The resolutions are binding, and the impartiality and neutrality between passengers and operators ensures that disputes are resolved fairly. Passengers achieve fair solutions, and operators are required to issue reasonable compensation. That places the balance of duty on operators while ensuring that the passenger experience is at the heart of what the ADR service is there to facilitate. If the shadow Minister requires any further information, I will happily seek it out and provide it.
On new clause 46, I assure the shadow Minister that the ORR will retain its role as the official publisher of rail statistics. As now the frequency of publication is not dictated by law, which enables flexibility and allows the collection of data to be proportionate and needs-based and ensuring necessary levels of transparency. Detailed arrangements for the collection of data by the ORR in the new system will be worked through with GBR once it is established. However, the current system provides a great deal of transparency and we do not propose to reduce that going forward.
The passenger watchdog will have access to the data collected by the ORR and be able to use it to identify issues in areas for improvement for passengers and to follow up. I therefore hope that the shadow Minister will feel that this matter is already addressed by the Bill and existing legislation and will seek to withdraw his amendment. I also thank him for his contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Standards
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 46, page 24, line 26, after “for” insert
“all users and potential users of the railways including, in particular,”.
This amendment allows the Passenger Council to set access standards for all users and potential users of the railway.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 46, page 24, line 33, at end insert—
“(e) passenger service reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(f) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(g) comfort and on-board experience on passenger services, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(h) affordability and value for money of passenger services, including fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money.”
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort and on-board experience and affordability of railway passenger services.
Amendment 141, in clause 46, page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State (and the Office of Rail and Road) before the Passengers’ Council sets, varies, or revokes standards.
Amendment 73, in clause 46, page 25, line 1, leave out “and the ORR”.
This amendment means the Passenger Council does not need the ORR’s consent to set, vary, or revoke standards.
Amendment 144, in clause 46, page 25, line 3, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment aims to ensure the independence of the Passengers' Council by removing the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent to publish new standards.
Clause stand part.
New clause 16—Access for All programme: review—
“(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the Access for All programme.
(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must identify the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.
(3) Accessibility improvements as set out in subsection (2) include ensuring step-free access to all—
(a) platforms;
(b) entrances to stations;
(c) exits from stations.
(4) The review must identify all stations with fewer than 1,000,000 entries and exits a year, as recorded by the estimates of station usage published by the Office for Rail and Road, that do not have step-free access as set out in subsection (3).
(5) The review must set out an explanation for spending decisions on the Access for All programme between the period 25 October 2022 and 24 May 2024.
(6) The review must set out recommendations with the objective of facilitating the level of investment required to support accessibility improvements.”
This new clause would mandate a review of the Access for All programme. The review would seek to ensure that step-free access at railway stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain spending decisions on the programme under the previous Government and set out recommendations for future spending.
New clause 17—Accessibility of passenger information: trains—
“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators must ensure that all trains that they operate provide passenger information announcements that are accessible for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(2) Announcements under subsection (1) include information on—
(a) the current and next station;
(b) interchanges at any given station;
(c) safety.
(3) The Passengers’ Council must monitor compliance with subsection (1) under its duties in section 46.”
This new clause ensures that passenger information provided on trains is accessible for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
New clause 18—Accessibility of passenger information: stations and railway premises—
“(1) Great British Railways and all passenger railway service operators must ensure that all stations and railway premises that they operate provide passenger information systems that are accessible to passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(2) The Passengers’ Council must monitor compliance with subsection (1) under its duties in section 46.”
This new clause ensures that passenger information provided in stations and railway premises is accessible for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
New clause 53—Accessible ticket machines—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the accessibility of ticket machines in all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services.
(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that all stations used by Great British Railways passenger services have at least one ticket machine that meets necessary accessibility requirements for wheelchair users.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide that all ticket machines—
(a) offer all ticket types available across all Great British Railways passenger services;
(b) have the same user interface;
(c) include accessibility options for passengers with sight or hearing loss; and
(d) include the same language options as ticket machines operated by Transport for London.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to mandate the use of the same ticketing machine across all Great British Railways passenger service stations, introduce a minimum number of accessible ticket machines per station and offer the same ticketing options across the network for passengers and tourists.
New clause 69—Accessible rail strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and before the end of each subsequent period of 10 years, Great British Railways must publish a strategy on accessible rail.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out required services standards for stations operated by Great British Railways.
(3) Services standards under section (2) must include targets for the—
(a) percentage of stations with step free access,
(b) number of days per year on which lifts at each station are operational,
(c) number of stations at which passenger assistance is available.
(4) Before the end of 12 months beginning with the publication of a strategy under subsection (1), and before the end of every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a report on performance against the strategy.
(5) Any report under subsection (4) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause mandates that Great British Railways publish an accessibility strategy every ten years to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and that GBR reports annually on its progress against the accessibility strategy.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 46 gives the passengers’ council a power to set consumer standards for operators of rail passenger services and station services, which will be imposed on them via licence conditions. Of course, we have not seen any of those licence conditions, so we will just have to take it on faith. The clause sets out matters that the standards may cover, including passenger assistance, provision of travel information, a process for compensation if services are disrupted, and complaints about passenger services. The council must seek the Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s consent before setting new standards or varying existing ones, and it must publish them, and any variations or revocations of them, and monitor how operators are complying with them.
In summary, the clause gives the passengers’ council a standard-setting role in areas such as assistance, information, compensation and complaints. What about standards on core passenger priorities, such as punctuality, reliability, crowding, staffing, cleanliness, safety and ticketing transparency? Would the Secretary of State be minded to grant consent for such standards, and if not, why not?
Requiring both the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to any new standard creates two veto points, limiting the council’s independence. The result is a standards framework far weaker than the broader watchdog model described in the consultation. As we have discussed, subsection (2)(a) makes no direct reference to general users of the railway; the only reference is to disabled people. While I understand the additional focus that disability access requires, the current wording risks a wholly unbalanced approach for the new organisation.
Amendment 71 would solve that drafting imbalance and encourage the passengers’ council to set standards for all users and potential users of the railway. In drafting it, all I did was take the Government’s own words in clause 18, which, in describing the general functions, refers to all users, both able bodied and disabled. It does not seem to be an enormous stretch to require the passenger watchdog to have a similar functions scope as the organisation that it is watchdogging.
Amendment 72 would require the passengers’ council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort, onboard experience, and affordability of railway passenger services. These are the key issues of importance to passengers. Why do the Government not allow their key champion to tackle the real problems and not just the peripheral ones? Instead of focusing on information provision and complaints processes, let us get to the nitty-gritty. Let us have a watchdog that can actually draft and implement standards, and enforce improvement on a large nationalised organisation in the interests of passengers—that is what they actually want—rather than tipping a cap towards it and saying, “Oh yes, we’ve got a watchdog but it has no enforcement powers. It can write standards, but only about what information you receive, not about the really important stuff.”
If the Government really want to put
“passengers at the heart of the railway”,
why do they not vote for these amendments and enhance the powers of the passenger watchdog? They cannot have it both ways. At the moment, it looks like they are just pretending; they have a superficial watchdog that ticks a box but has very limited practical use for passengers.
Amendment 73 would remove the passengers’ council’s need to obtain the ORR’s consent to set, vary or revoke standards. A truly effective passenger watchdog needs to have its own real powers, and the ability to set its own standards without the consent of another organisation. Why does the Minister not have faith in his own passenger watchdog to do that? If his answer is that such an objection from the ORR would relate to safety-critical functions, why does the Bill not just say that? The Government are planning on stripping most of the competences away from the ORR, save for the remaining aspect of safety, but they do not say, “If the watchdog has a standard that has an impact on the safety-critical application of the railway, it needs to get the permission of the ORR.” That would make sense. Instead, the ORR has a blanket veto.
Amendment 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, would remove the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State and the ORR before the passengers’ council sets, varies or revokes a standard—a similar approach to that which I have put forward. I would be minded to support it, were it to be pressed to a Division.
Amendment 144 comes from a similar quarter. I am sure it is unintentional, but it contains a drafting mistake. The notes to the amendment make it clear that it seeks to delete subsection (5), but the wording as it stands relates to subsection (6). I stand to be corrected, but I think that is what has happened.
New clause 16, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, would require a review of the Access for All programme. It seeks to ensure that step-free access at stations is provided under the programme. The review would explain historical spending decisions and set out recommendations for future spending. I will leave new clauses 17 and 53 to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
New clause 69, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would mandate GBR to publish an accessibility strategy every 10 years, to monitor and improve accessibility across the rail network, and to report annually on its progress against that strategy. I welcome that approach to transparency and the focus on accessibility. It deals with the Minister’s arguments about imposing onerous reporting targets on GBR. Given the number of stations involved, the requirement is limited to once a decade, which would be a reasonable compromise. Without such data, how can GBR expect to allocate resources efficiently? The Minister needs to set out how GBR will address accessibility investment without such data. I anticipate an argument that it would be imposing onerous conditions on GBR for it to have an idea as to accessibility around the country. Every now and again, it should know what its own business is up to.
Olly Glover
The shadow Minister is right to say that our amendments have similar intentions to his; we may have taken slightly different avenues but we are heading in the same direction.
Amendments 141 and 144 are intended to reduce the Secretary of State’s role in the passengers’ council’s abilities to set standards and go about its work. The shadow Minister is quite right to point out that there is a typo in amendment 144, which I had not spotted—the intention is to delete subsection (5) and not subsection (6). I thank him for drawing our attention to that.
Edward Morello
I will speak briefly to new clauses 16, 17 and 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, and new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. Accessibility is still inconsistent, poorly enforced and often treated as optional. If railways are to work for everyone, accessibility has to be planned, delivered and monitored.
New clause 16 would require a full review of the Access for All programme, including past spending decisions and future investment needs. Too many stations, particularly small and rural ones, still lack step-free access to platforms, entrances and exits. New clauses 17 and 18 focus on accessible passenger information on trains and at stations. Reliable audio and visual announcements on safety, stops and interchanges are essential for passengers with sight or hearing loss, and should be consistently monitored and enforced. New clause 53 would ensure that ticket machines are accessible, standardised and usable independently by all passengers. Machines must work for wheelchair users, people with visual impairments or limb differences, older passengers, and visitors without apps or digital access, offering the same tickets and interfaces across the network.
The new clauses are designed to deliver practical and enforceable accessibility that improves passenger confidence, independence and safety, and I very much hope that the Government will see the logic of them.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members for their amendments, which relate to the standard-setting role of the passenger watchdog and to accessibility. I will speak first to those related to the passenger watchdog.
Amendment 71 would allow the passenger watchdog to set accessibility standards for all users and potential users of the railway, replacing the current reference to disabled passengers and those needing assistance. It is important that all passengers can access the railway, and I support the shadow Minister’s intention to ensure that that happens. However, clause 46 already covers both users and potential users of the railway who require assistance to access services. Furthermore, the list of areas in which the watchdog may set standards is not exhaustive; it can set accessibility standards for anyone it deems appropriate, potentially including passengers travelling with prams or some of the other examples that were outlined. Let me also clarify that the wording of the clause is not exhaustive, so as well as the examples given in the Bill, the passenger watchdog can set standards on any other matters relating to passenger experience, at its discretion. That allows it to be responsive to passenger feedback and passenger needs. For that reason, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary.
Amendment 72 would expand the list of example areas where the passenger watchdog may set standards. First, as I mentioned, the clause already allows the passenger watchdog to develop standards covering all areas of the passenger experience. The list in subsection (2) sets out matters that may be covered by the standards and is not exhaustive, so it does not prevent the passenger watchdog from developing further standards in other areas in time; in fact, we expect that it might do so, for some of the very reasons that the shadow Minister suggested. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as it would not make a practical difference to the watchdog’s powers. Let me also clarify that standards on safety and security would significantly expand the remit of the watchdog, and are best left to expert safety bodies such as the ORR.
Jerome Mayhew
I think the Minister may have misunderstood my point. I was not for a moment suggesting that the passenger watchdog should take over responsibility for safety-critical functions. I was anticipating that he might argue that the ORR needs to retain a veto right because there might be clashes with its safety-critical functions, in which case the clause could be redrafted to make it clear that that is the area of focus.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification.
Amendment 141 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State and the ORR to consent to standards that may be set, varied or revoked by the passenger watchdog. Amendments 73 and 144 would both remove the requirement for the ORR and the Secretary of State respectively to consent to new standards. It is my view that the watchdog must seek the Secretary of State’s consent before the standards are referenced in associated licence conditions, and therefore before they becoming binding on operators, because that is one of the only ways to ensure that the standards are affordable and actionable.
Ultimately, the Secretary of State is funding GBR, and if the Government are not able to provide the funds to support a new standard, which could in theory add costs for operators, the standards are doomed to fail. Similarly, the ORR will remain the sector enforcement body, enforcing all licences. It is therefore important that it gives consent to standards before they become binding on operators. That will ensure that all standards are fair and enforceable. These measures are necessary to ensure that the new rail system will work effectively. The Secretary of State’s and the ORR’s input into the standards will provide constructive challenge, ensuring that all standards are high quality and serve the railway as well as possible.
All three bodies are subject to the duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled passengers, so they will share a common goal of improving the passenger experience. There should therefore be no concern that the process will weaken or undermine standards; rather, all bodies will be committed to improvements for the passenger. I therefore urge the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Didcot and Wantage not to press their amendments.
New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to review the Access for All programme, which delivers step-free access upgrades at stations across Great Britain. I recognise that passengers with accessibility needs often find rail travel challenging, as facilities and assistance frequently do not meet expectations. Many of Great Britain’s 2,581 railway stations predate modern accessibility standards, making navigation difficult for disabled passengers. That is why the Access for All programme was introduced in 2006, and why it is so important. More than 270 stations have benefited from it so far.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has proposed a review of the programme, and I am delighted to inform him that the Government agree with him so strenuously that a review was already conducted in late 2024. The Department and Network Rail have acknowledged that the delivery of the programme from 2019 to 2024 was disappointing, which led to the late 2024 review. The national Network Rail Access for All team has now been strengthened to improve governance and financial control, and accessibility has been given a higher priority by all Network Rail regions. That review, and the associated changes, resulted in almost 34 projects being completed in the last 18 months, compared to 36 in the previous five years. I think that that demonstrates our commitment to improvement.
Edward Argar
Does the Minister also recognise that the review has led to cuts of about 20 individual programmes? That was not done on the grounds of accessibility—although the letter I received from his colleague the noble Lord accepts that there is clearly a significant accessibility challenge in the case of station in my constituency—but by imposing on the scheme a match funding requirement that was never, as I understand it, part of the original scheme.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient with the Government’s pace in achieving accessibility improvements at stations in his constituency and across the country. He is right to point out that even though the number of stations that have been upgraded and improved has increased, that does not mean that all stations have done been, and the Government need to work at pace to deliver improvements across the piece. However, given that the review the new clause requests has already happened, and that measurable improvements have already been demonstrated by the Government, although there is more work to achieve, I encourage the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw new clause 16.
I thank the hon. Member for new clauses 17 and 18, which together would ensure that accessible passenger information is provided for those with hearing or sight loss. Our commitment to the outcomes sought by the new clauses is clear and unambiguous. Accessibility is at the core of what we are here to do, and it will be central to GBR from day one. Both legislation and the GBR licence will ensure that accessibility is always considered.
I also recognise the importance of ensuring that timely information is provided, and that it is provided in a format that all passengers can access. To that end, the Bill lays the foundation for GBR’s licence, and establishes a powerful passenger watchdog with a mandate to act in disabled passengers’ interests, setting licence standards and holding GBR to account. The objective of these new clauses is best achieved there, where licence conditions can set out the necessary detail about what accessibility standards are needed, rather than in primary legislation.
To acknowledge that, the Government have already committed that accessible travel policies will be included in GBR’s licence. Those policies will include requirements, as they do now, about accessible information, including specific mention of visually and hearing-impaired passengers. The standards for accessible information included in the licence will be monitored by the passenger watchdog and enforced by the ORR.
The Government’s proposals for accessibility build on the work of the accessibility road map, published in November 2025, which is taking clear steps to improve real-time information provision on the railways, and rolling out welcome points across the network in England. Those will include closed-loop and British Sign Language capability. Despite the positive measures we have committed to in the Bill and in the licence, we are not waiting: we are acting now to improve things for people with disabilities. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage not to press the new clauses.
New clause 53 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the accessibility of ticket vending machines. I reassure the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that all station operators are currently required through their station licence to comply with an accessible travel policy, which includes assisting disabled passengers in relation to ticket facilities. Subject to consultation, we expect GBR to have a similar requirement in its new licence.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed assessment of the new clauses and amendments. In the interests of time, I do not propose to press amendment 71, but I do not swallow the explanations given in relation to amendment 72. We need to focus the passenger watchdog on important issues for passengers, so we will press that amendment to a Division. However, on amendment 71, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 72, in clause 46, page 24, line 33, at end insert—
“(e) passenger service reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(f) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(g) comfort and on-board experience on passenger services, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(h) affordability and value for money of passenger services, including fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would require the Passengers’ Council to set standards relating to the reliability, safety and security, comfort and on-board experience and affordability of railway passenger services.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 47, page 25, line 23, leave out from “Council” to the end of line 32 and insert
“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of remedying the contravention, or avoiding it taking place or being repeated.”
This amendment would give the Passengers’ Council the power to enforce improvement plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 45—Passengers’ Council: enforcement powers—
“(1) Within 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provisions for the enforcement powers of the Passengers’ Council.
(2) Regulations under this section must make provision about—
(a) the making of orders by the Passengers’ Council relating to operator compliance with its purpose;
(b) procedural requirements relating to orders under paragraph (a);
(c) the validity and effect of orders under paragraph (a); and
(d) penalties associated with orders under paragraph (a).
(3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to sections 55 to 57A of the Railways Act 1993.
(4) Regulations under this section may amend provision made by or under—
(a) the Railways Act 1993;
(b) the Railways Act 2005.
(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide the Passengers’ Council with enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the Office of Rail and Road under the Railways Act 1993.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 47 deals with improvement plans. It allows the passengers’ council to request improvement plans from licensed rail operators
“where it judges them to be, or likely to be, non-compliant with the standards it sets and therefore, the consumer licence conditions”—
not that we have seen them. The clause continues:
“The improvement plans would be requested from operators to allow them to explain their planned improvements before issues were referred to the ORR or potential enforcement action”—
although we do not know whether they would choose to enforce either.
The clause highlights—again—just how toothless the passengers’ council will be. It still has no direct enforcement powers, and the explanatory notes confirm that these plans are only a precursor to possible ORR action. If an operator ignores a plan, the council can do nothing about it at all, except refer the matter to the ORR, which may
“take such action (if any) as it thinks appropriate”.
This is another two-stage approach from the Government, with no guaranteed remedy, and it leaves the council structurally dependent on the ORR for all meaningful enforcement. There is no requirement for the ORR to do anything at all, when provided with a file from the passengers’ council. There is no ability for the ORR to adopt a passengers’ council investigation as its own, and any enforcement action will be required to consider the matter afresh. I accept the Minister’s earlier point that the ORR will be able to read documentation presented by the passengers’ council, but that is it. That will take time and add cost, and it will fail the consumer all the way through the process. It is not the ORR’s fault; it is how the Government are designing the system, which falls well short of the Government’s stated aim of creating a genuinely empowered passenger watchdog. Subsection (2) says:
“If the person fails to take the steps set out”
in the improvement plan, or does not prepare one
“within a reasonable time, the Passengers’ Council must refer the matter to the ORR”.
That part is mandatory, but the ORR’s response is not mandatory. Why is that? Perhaps the Minister can help us out.
The new system needs to be able to stand up for passengers, with a watchdog worthy of the name. Amendment 74 would give the passengers’ council the power to enforce improvement plans, and new clause 45 sets out how that will be achieved. It would require the Secretary of State to provide the passengers’ council with enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the Office of Rail and Road under the 1993 Act. The Government want to put passengers at the heart of the railway, but they have created a passenger watchdog with no teeth—or power—to enforce any of its decisions. To give an advance indication, I will seek to divide on both amendment 74 and new clause 45.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for amendment 74 and new clause 45. Amendment 74 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers when it issues requests for improvement plans, and new clause 45 would give the passenger watchdog enforcement powers broadly equivalent to those of the ORR.
We are creating a strong passenger watchdog, which will have real powers to monitor passenger experience and hold GBR and others to account. It will be able to demand information from GBR to a deadline, investigate problems and demand improvement plans to encourage improvements. Finally, it can refer cases for enforcement to the ORR.
It is important to have one clear enforcement body for the entire sector to avoid duplication or confusion for industry. If there were two bodies with enforcement powers, the risk of conflicting enforcement steers would be too high. The ORR will therefore enforce GBR’s new, streamlined licence, ensuring that the organisation meets its industry obligations and all minimum standards, including passenger standards. As it does today, the ORR will also enforce all other railway licences, to ensure that there is an independent, consistent enforcement body for the sector. That is fair and rational.
If operators did not comply with their consumer licence conditions—for example, relating to accessible travel standards—the passenger watchdog would directly engage with them and request an improvement plan. We would naturally expect operators to comply with that request, because if they do not, they will be aware that the ORR can simply take action against them for the original licence breach. That mirrors what happens in practice today, where most compliance issues are resolved through direct engagement and improvement plans rather than resorting to enforcement.
Jerome Mayhew
I am interested in the Minister’s repeated insistence that there would be confusion if there were more than one enforcement body for rail activities. What is his proposed solution to the Competition and Markets Authority and its enforcement competency for the railways, which currently is shared with the Office of Rail and Road? Is it his plan to amend the competencies of the Competition and Markets Authority? If not, why is the argument so overwhelming to prevent the passenger watchdog from having teeth, when he allows the CMA to have teeth?
Keir Mather
The shadow Minister previously made a point that related to whether the ORR and the passenger watchdog had an equivalent power when they sought to enforce against railway licences. My point there was that we could have contradictory steers arising out of these licences being in conflict with each other. That is where the route of not having dual licence- enforcing capabilities lies, and it is the argument against amendment 74.
Turning back to operators’ co-operation, we expect our GBR licence proposals to include a licence condition requiring operators to co-operate with the passenger watchdog, which will strengthen these provisions further. I hope that that reassures the shadow Minister that the system will work effectively to hold operators to account. I cannot support any amendments that confuse the enforcement landscape, as two enforcement bodies would be duplicative, burdensome on operators and potentially very confusing. That is not a system that would drive good performance. I therefore urge the shadow Minister not to press his proposals.
Let me turn now to clause 47, which will give the passenger watchdog the power to require improvement plans from train and station operators where it judges that an operator might be breaching its standards and, therefore, the consumer licence conditions. Demanding improvement plans from operators will allow them to set out the steps they plan to take to address the issues and meet their licence conditions before non-compliance is referred to the ORR for potential enforcement action.
The clause will allow the watchdog to work with operators to seek improvements collaboratively. Improvement plans are a crucial element of this engagement, as they allow operators to set out a plan to achieve compliance and to have a dialogue with the passenger watchdog. The watchdog can represent the passenger by making suggestions for improvements and advocating sensible solutions. Enforcement is the last resort to ensure compliance, and it is important that the watchdog has sufficient means to encourage operators to do the right thing before it refers any persistent or serious issues to the ORR.
Jerome Mayhew
I am unpersuaded. As I previously indicated, I will press amendment 74 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 49, page 26, line 28, at end insert—
“(h) passenger service reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(i) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(j) comfort and on-board experience on passenger services, including cleanliness, the functioning of heating, air-conditioning and lighting, overcrowding, the availability and performance of any internet connection or power sockets, and toilet facilities,
(k) affordability and value for money of passenger services, including fare levels, availability of discounted or flexible fares, transparency of fare information, and passenger perception of value for money.”
This amendment would require GBR to consult the Passengers’ Council when it is developing or changing its policies or procedures with reference to the passenger-focussed KPIs proposed in NC2.
Clauses 49 to 52 stand part.
New clause 68—Duty to co-operate—
“(1) The Secretary of State may direct Great British Railways to co-operate with transport authorities and other specified persons where such cooperation would—
(a) reduce transport disruption, and
(b) ensure the effective operation of transport networks.
(2) Before the end of 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, the Secretary of State must lay before both Parliament an annual report on any direction that has been taken under subsection (1).
(3) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of expected transport disruption resulting from—
(i) maintenance;
(ii) construction;
(iii) any other work;
related to railways infrastructure operated by Great British Railways and ancillary services.
(4) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption.
New clause 70—Service changes: consultation—
“(1) Before making any planned changes to passenger services, Great British Railways must—
(a) publish a statement on the compatibility of the changes with—
(i) its functions under Section 1;
(ii) its regard to strategies under Section 16;
(b) publish notice of the impact of the changes on any station or routes;
(c) make provision for compensation claims for passengers affected by the changes;
(d) consult—
(i) local stakeholders,
(ii) passenger groups, and
(iii) groups representing those with accessibility requirements
about those changes.
(2) In this section, ‘service changes’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State must by regulations specify, provided that it include changes to rail—
(a) timetables;
(b) routes;
(c) service capacity.
(3) Regulations under this section must specify the framework for any compensation under subsection 1(c).
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause sets out requirements for Great British Railways to ensure any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and following communication with stakeholders.
Keir Mather
I will speak first to the clause and then to the amendments, once I have heard hon. Members’ comments on them.
Clause 48 will establish the passenger watchdog as a statutory adviser, able to advise Ministers and industry bodies on matters of importance to passengers. The clause places a duty on the watchdog to provide advice to certain bodies, including the Secretary of State, rail operators and devolved Governments; they may also refer matters to it. The watchdog will also have a duty to provide advice without a referral if it considers it appropriate. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand passenger experience because of its research and investigations functions, as well as its access to complaints and core industry performance data.
We wish to establish the watchdog as the central body that Ministers, mayoral strategic authorities, the ORR, GBR and other train and station operators can go to for advice on passengers’ interests, needs and priorities. We also want to ensure that the watchdog is an authority on all passenger matters, so that Ministers and others take its advice seriously. This will be the first time that the rail industry has had a statutory adviser covering all passenger matters.
Clause 49 will place a duty on GBR to consult the passenger watchdog when developing or changing policies or procedures that significantly affect the interests of passengers. The clause sets out an indicative list of matters on which GBR should consult the watchdog. Those include passenger rights, handling disruption to rail services, determining fares, and arrangements for the sale of tickets. By feeding the watchdog’s insight to GBR when central policies and procedures are being developed, it will support GBR in creating better policies that prioritise passenger needs.
I return briefly to the official Opposition’s wise words about culture last week, because the Government absolutely agree that getting culture right is essential to the success of the railway. The watchdog’s role here will be critical in influencing the culture of the reformed rail industry, being involved in all relevant policymaking to ensure that the focus on passengers is at the heart of everything the railway does. I therefore commend clause 49 to the Committee.
Clause 50 will give the passenger watchdog the power to publish any information or advice it considers that passengers, or potential passengers, may find useful. For example, this could include publishing information on train operator performance to encourage improvements, such as league tables or the naming and shaming of poorly performing operators or routes. It could involve setting out complaint handling processes or advising passengers on their rights.
Before publishing information or advice, the watchdog must consider whether it is necessary to exclude any matter relating to an individual or body that would have a serious and negative impact on their interests. This could include sensitive, personal or market information. This power will be central to the watchdog’s ability to hold operators to account publicly.
I now turn to clauses 51 and 52. Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to exclude certain rail services from the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48. This power mirrors an existing power in the Railways Act 1993 and has been included because it is not appropriate, nor a proportionate use of resources, to require the watchdog to investigate services that are not part of the wider national network, are not licensed and mainly operate for tourism or leisure purposes—such as heritage trains. As service providers change over time, the clause can also be used to include new services in the watchdog’s remit, or to modify its duties in relation to specific services. In the future, there may be new services that the watchdog ought to monitor, or which it ought to monitor in a slightly different way. The power therefore exists to ensure that all relevant operators can be appropriately held to account by the passenger champion. The clause does not mean that the watchdog is prevented from monitoring any excluded services, just that the watchdog is not obliged to do so.
Clause 52 provides additional clarity by defining some of the terms used in this chapter. For example, the clause defines a “disabled person” as
“a person who is a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010”.
I commend clauses 48 to 52 to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister has described the function of clause 48, the lead measure in this group, but there is one notable exception from the list of bodies that can refer to the council for advice under clause 48(1)(a) as drafted. It includes mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London and Ministers—whether the Secretary of State, Welsh or Scottish Ministers—but there is no room for local transport authorities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon is not in her place, because she made the point powerfully in previous sittings of the Committee that some areas of the country do not have mayoral combined authorities and never will, because of their geographic or demographic set-up—that is particularly the case in the south-west. Those areas still have local transport needs, and a local transport authority, yet under the Bill as drafted, those authorities are excluded from asking the advice of the passenger body. We have heard that there are many areas that will never have an MCA but that still have rail-related concerns and issues. I seek advice from the Minister: what is the thinking of the Government, that they have deliberately excluded local transport authorities from the clause?
Clause 49 deals with “Consultation about railway passenger services and station services”. Again, I have left it to the Minister to explain what the clause does, but it sets out the policies and procedures that GBR should consider consulting the passengers’ council on. It gives GBR discretion to decide whether to do so based on its assessment of the impact on passengers. That is, again, quite important. The clause creates a duty on GBR to consult the passengers’ council, but only where GBR itself decides that a policy change will significantly affect passengers. The explanatory notes confirm that that judgment is entirely for GBR. GBR, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will all owe consultation duties to the council, but the Bill imposes a duty only on GBR, and even then only on GBR’s own assessment of significance. There is no parallel duty on Ministers, meaning that major ministerial decisions affecting passengers could fall entirely outside statutory consultation. The list in clause 49(2) once again seeks to sideline the passengers’ council by limiting its remit. The list does not cover the issues that
“significantly affect the interests of the public in relation to…passenger services or station services”,
as described in clause 49(1)(b); far from it.
Amendment 75 would require GBR to consult the passengers’ council when GBR is developing or changing its procedures, with reference to the passenger-focused KPIs outlined in proposed new clause 2:
“reliability, including punctuality…short-forming…key connections… safety and security…comfort and on-board experience”
and
“affordability and value for money”.
Those are issues at the heart of the passenger experience. Let the passengers’ council do a proper job.
Clause 50 gives the passengers’ council the power to publish information and advice for
“users or potential users of railway passenger services”.
The clause only allows the passengers’ council to publish information; it does not require it to publish information. That means the council can choose not to publish anything at all. The clause also gives no sense of what should be published, or how often. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the reasons he has not decided to require publication when it is about information and advice; that seems a bit odd.
Clause 51, which is on the power to make exclusions, will be watched by many, as it is really important to rail enthusiasts. Committee members should be careful when commenting on it, because people are keenly interested in this power. Actually, on this occasion I think the Government have got it about right. The clause replicates similar provisions in the 1993 Act—specifically, sub-sections (7B) and (7C) in section 76.
Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to exclude services from one or more of the duties imposed by clauses 37 to 43, 45 and 48 through regulations, or modify those duties for particular services. However, before making changes, the Secretary of State must consult the passengers’ council and the London Transport Users Committee.
There are currently two exemptions from the similar requirements in the 1993 Act in place, one of which excludes services without through-ticketing facilities and which are exempt from holding a licence. Charter and heritage railway operators fall under this exemption. The Government assert in the explanatory notes to the clause that,
“it would be burdensome and unnecessary for the Passengers’ Council to be required to investigate heritage railway operators,”
which only operate for tourism and recreational purposes, not for the mainline network. I agree that those potential exclusions are reasonable. The Government rightly point out that burdening heritage rail with unnecessary regulation when the hospitality and tourism sector is facing serious challenges—admittedly, because of this Government—would be disproportionate.
Very few constituencies do not boast a heritage railway, so I declare an interest, Mrs Hobhouse: the Bure Valley Railway and the start—or the finish, depending on which way a person is going—of the Wells and Walsingham Light Railway run in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham.
Jerome Mayhew
I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been on that railway. I would continue on that, but I have gone on long enough by saying, “and another thing—I remember”.
Rail charter services are a different matter that must also be considered. Those with children may have travelled on one of the many Christmas polar expresses that are chartered services. They are very important to tourism and to the financing of the railway, as they make an economic contribution to the running of it. They sit in a unique space of quasi-open access and are a useful component of the railway. Mainline heritage rail routes, such as the Cambrian express—although the Minister of State for Rail, Lord Hendy, still needs to do some work to restore steam, rather than diesel, locomotives to that heritage route—as well as services with the Flying Scotsman, or Sir Nigel Gresley, which is the last working version of the Mallard class, the A4s, are very important, and crowds of people gather to watch them steam past.
I applaud the Government for that sensible exemption. All I ask is that they continue to do what they can to facilitate and support heritage and chartered railways, and I would be grateful to hear the Government’s plans to do so, if there are any. I would propose no amendments to clause 51. Clause 52 is the interpretation chapter, and I am happy for that to continue without amendment.
That leaves me solely with the pleasure of discussing new clauses 68 and 70, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. Network Rail is often cited as a poor neighbour, with no interest in co-operating with other transport modes, or frankly with adjacent landowners— I have had more than one letter of complaint from constituents on that—to minimise disruption not on the railway. The Opposition support the intentions behind the new clause. Culture change is needed in the successor to Network Rail, and a duty to co-operate would at least help. The Minister needs to recognise the existing problem of Network Rail’s culture being—I think it is fair to say—deeply suboptimal in relation to this, and set out his proposals for improvement.
New clause 70, also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, sets out the requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives and are fully communicated with stakeholders. I read the new clause into the record, but I do not propose to press it to a Division when the time comes.
Keir Mather
I start by addressing two points that the shadow Minister made. First, on the publication of information and advice, I set out in my original arguments surrounding the new clauses that there might be instances where, for professional or personal reasons, it might be best not to publish confidential information.
On a broader issue, the shadow Minister asked why local transport authorities were not listed directly under clause 48. On the question of the devolution of rail services, the Committee has rehearsed at length the Government’s view that mayoral strategic authorities provide the right unit of economic activity to be able to engage with productively. Nevertheless, this is not an exclusive list of those that might be consulted, and there is provision written into the Bill for the council, where it considers it appropriate, to consider consultation without such a reference as is listed in the clause. Local transport authorities could fall within that frame of reference.
Amendment 75 would ensure that GBR consulted the passenger watchdog when developing key performance indicators. GBR will set out its proposed activities over a five-year period in its business plan, setting KPIs for itself there based on how it intends to deliver the business plan and, through that delivery, meet the high-level goals in the Secretary of State’s funding objectives and her long-term rail strategy. The ORR will independently scrutinise GBR’s business plan and advise the Secretary of State on its quality, which will give the Secretary of State the right information to support her decision on whether to approve the plan. All advice on the business plan can and should be published, so the public can also be aware of how that is developing. This constructive challenge process will ensure that GBR’s KPIs are realistic, measurable and ambitious.
Additionally, as we have discussed, there is already a requirement in clause 49 for GBR to consult the watchdog on policies or procedures affecting users or potential users of the railway. This would also cover consultation on any KPIs about passenger services. Therefore, this amendment is duplicative of the drafting already in the Bill, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
New clause 68 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to reduce disruption. First, it is clearly critically important that we reduce disruption for all passengers and stakeholders on the railway. I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that GBR should collaborate with local authorities to reduce transport disruption across modes. I am aware of his efforts to campaign for more joined-up planning in his area, and I hope that the Bill will improve the system for him.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, however, that there are mechanisms elsewhere in the Bill that will enable the sort of collaboration and co-operation that the amendment envisages. The Government are supportive of a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, which is why GBR will be able to agree partnerships with MSAs to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities.
Together, the provisions in the Bill create a framework for significant levels of co-operation between GBR and transport authorities. GBR will be organised to work collaboratively with devolved leaders, and I would expect that potential disruptions would be discussed between them as a result of those closer working relationships, enabling them to explore possible measures to reduce disruption and contribute to the effective operation of transport networks.
I thank the shadow Minister for speaking to new clause 70, which seeks to impose several requirements on GBR before it can make service changes, such as publishing a statement, publishing a notice of changes on stations or routes, providing compensation for passengers and consulting various stakeholders.
Let me address each of those elements in turn. It is redundant for GBR to publish a statement about whether service changes are compatible with its functions. The Bill assigns GBR the function of providing railway passenger services, and planning service changes is inherent in that. There is no need to affirm that separately through a published statement.
GBR will not plan service changes in a vacuum. Clauses 80 to 82 require GBR to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, mayoral combined authorities and Transport for London before making decisions that will significantly affect the interests of the economy and people in those areas. GBR will also be required through its duties to consider local transport plans when making service changes.
As for publishing notices, it is for GBR to determine the best approach to communicating service changes to the public, and GBR should be able to adapt its communications approaches in line with stakeholder needs and technological advances. The consumer standards set by the passenger watchdog will cover passenger information. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister that appropriate information will be provided to passengers. The watchdog will have powers to request improvement plans and refer issues to the ORR for enforcement when GBR falls short.
I now turn to planned service changes. For clarity, as the new clause indicates, that relates to when GBR chooses to replan services in advance, for example timetables and stopping patterns. It does not relate to service disruption. I cannot see a feasible or a necessary solution to providing compensation to passengers affected by service changes of this nature. Clearly, the development of an effective timetable requires the need for service changes, for example to make the most of infrastructure enhancements for the benefit of passengers and communities. That will especially be the case under GBR, as GBR can review the network and timetable holistically and make joined-up decisions in a way that has been impossible in previous years.
In relation to compensation, quite apart from the undeliverable practicalities of funding and administering such a scheme, at the heart of this is the fact that GBR is being established as the expert-led directing mind of the railway, in charge of planning the best use of the network and balancing its statutory duties. Those duties include promoting the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services and acting in the public interest. Any planned service changes by GBR will therefore be the result of that new system and guided by those duties. Forcing GBR to compensate all those affected by service changes would therefore cut across GBR’s ability to balance its duties in the round, and could create perverse incentives not to make changes and to allow services to stagnate.
I add one point of assurance: service change and service closure are separate issues. The Railways Act 2005 contains the specific processes that must be followed for full service closures, with a decision-making role for Ministers who are the relevant railway funding authority for a given service. Closure proposals must also be ratified by the ORR. The Bill does not change the fundamentals of this process, which protects our important passenger services. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Jerome Mayhew
I have thought long and hard about this, Mrs Hobhouse, and given the time of day, we will let it pass.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
General duties of the LTUC
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clause 54 stand part.
Government amendment 173.
Clauses 55 to 58 stand part.
Keir Mather
Committee members will be very pleased that I have considerably less to say about this group than the previous one.
Government amendment 173 corrects a small naming error in the Bill: a clause for the London Transport Users Committee incorrectly refers to the passengers’ council. The correction ensures that the Bill is drafted correctly.
Clause 53 will place two general duties on the London Transport Users Committee, which has the operating name London TravelWatch, that it must consider when carrying out its rail functions: to consider the interests and needs of disabled persons, and to consider the costs and efficient use of public funds. The aim of the clause is to align the duties of London TravelWatch with those of the passenger watchdog and ensure that both passenger champions will pay specific attention to the experiences of disabled people. The duties also ensure that the passenger champions take the overall cost of the railway into account, such as when making recommendations for improvement. That will ensure that their recommendations are realistic and actionable and, therefore, carry more weight in the industry. Aligning London TravelWatch’s duties and powers with the passenger watchdog, as many of the clauses do, ensures consistent passenger advocacy across Great Britain.
I now turn to the remaining clauses 54 to 58. Clause 54 expands London TravelWatch’s powers under section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by giving it the explicit power to collect information that may be of interest to the public. Clause 55 expands London TravelWatch’s current investigation powers to align it with the powers the Bill grants to the passenger watchdog. That includes expanding the list of people who may refer matters to London TravelWatch for investigation, enabling them to obtain information from operators to a deadline, make representations on behalf of passengers and refer matters to the ORR for enforcement, as well as powers to publish investigation reports.
Clause 56 will designate London TravelWatch as the body to which complaints about potential infringements to retained EU law on rail passenger rights should be addressed within the London railway area. Clause 57 will give London TravelWatch the power to publish information and advice it considers appropriate for users or potential users of the railway in London. That could include information on operator performance—including GBR’s performance in London—such as league tables or naming and shaming, as well as passenger rights and complaint-handling processes. Clause 58 will ensure that London TravelWatch protects sensitive and confidential personal and commercial information obtained during its investigations or through its general power to collect information. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
We are at the final furlong—for today at least. I will keep the pace up for the last straight. I am not going to make any comments on clause 53, the general duties of the LTUC, because there is nothing to be improved. Clause 54, which amends section 252A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, mirrors the passengers’ council in many ways. We could take the opportunity to seek to apply the same improvements to the LTUC that we have to the passengers’ council, but I have resisted that temptation given the Government’s reaction to all other proposals to date.
Clause 55 designates the committee as the body to which complaints about potential infringements of retained EU law on rail passengers rights should be addressed. I see no issue with that other than in relation to the criticism we have already outlined regarding the passengers’ council. It is clear that the clause is designed to ensure consistency in London in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, so we have no amendments there. I take on board the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 173 and make no further comment.
Clause 56, which is about complaints to the LTUC, again, allows the LTUC to be the official body in which complaints about retained EU law are handled. As the Minister has pointed out, that clause, like others in this group, mirrors the ability of the passengers’ council, so we have nothing else to add on that one.
I make no comments on clause 57 about the publication of information and advice by the LTUC. That brings us to clause 58—restrictions on disclosure of information by the LTUC. As we come to the last clause of the London Transport Users Committee, we also come to the last amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. For those keeping track of these things at home, we are now amending section 252DC. The clause outlines restrictions in a very similar fashion to that of the passengers’ council, so we consequently have no further amendments to suggest for that clause either.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive approach to the remaining clauses and the Government amendment as part of this group. He and his colleagues have ably and comprehensively outlined any potential concerns that they have in relation to the passenger watchdog, many of which would map over to consideration of these clauses. Therefore, I have put our points in relation to this group on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Investigations by the LTUC
Amendment made: 173, in clause 55, page 31, line 30, leave out “Passengers’ Council” and insert “Committee”.—(Keir Mather.)
This amendment corrects a reference that was made to the incorrect body.
Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 56 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
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
Town and City Centre Safety
(1 day, 7 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
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered town and city centre safety.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I declare my interest as a city councillor in Derby and former council leader, but most importantly as a proud Derby-born resident since 1972—yes, the year we won the league. In Derby, as in towns and cities up and down the country, there is so much to be proud of. We have a community that rolls up its sleeves and cracks on. From Alvaston to Sinfin, our Derby Parks Volunteers are out come rain or shine, working to keep our parks looking their best. Just before Christmas, volunteers from across the city—from the Salvation Army, the Pakistan Community Centre and the gurdwaras—pulled together to support 200 Pear Tree families evacuated from their homes. It is those examples of community, and many more, that make us proud to call our city home.
The city is brimming with what it has to offer our residents and visitors. People can grab a pint at the Hairy Dog, and head on to a gig at Vaillant Live, which opened its doors last year. They will see that the city is buzzing. And there is an exciting future ahead, with regeneration efforts breathing new life into the cultural heart of our city. Demolishing the Assembly Rooms, which could not come a moment too soon in my view, will completely transform our marketplace, creating a multipurpose community venue, a four-star hotel and grade A office space for the fantastic businesses across our city. That is not all. From the redevelopment of the derelict Friar Gate Goods Yard, to the Guildhall theatre, regeneration is going full steam ahead. In our city, we are committed to creating positive change that our community can feel.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out brilliantly some of the regeneration that we are seeing in our city. From the new performance venue, Vaillant Live, and the redevelopment of the Friar Gate Goods Yard, to the £20 million that the Government are investing in the Guildhall and Derby theatres, it is regeneration that he has played a central part in, both as council leader and, now, as an MP. He is absolutely right that the long-awaited demolition of the Assembly Rooms and the regeneration of that site will be transformational for our marketplace—the icing on the Birds Bakery cake. But does he agree that people will go into the city centre and enjoy that regeneration only if they feel safe to do so? Does he agree that more bobbies on the beat and further investment in our CCTV—issues that we have both been working on—are essential so that everyone feels safe to live, work and play in our city?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that 20-odd people wish to speak. That means that everyone will get a maximum of about two minutes—I might as well give everyone a heads-up on that—so if there are to be interventions, then, as I have said in the past, can they be a sketch, not an oil painting, please?
Baggy Shanker
Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—my fantastic MP—for her intervention. She is absolutely right: it is a partnership of investment, but people need to feel safe in our city centre.
As my constituent John told me, we can see how much effort and investment are being put into our city, from building housing to breathing new life into the shops and spaces in our city centre. I want every single resident and visitor to be able to take their family out for the day, meet up with friends and enjoy what the city centre has to offer, but the long-term success of regeneration depends on the community feeling safe to enjoy our city centre. As John also told me, he has real concerns about the safety of his family when they are out and about in Derby. Seeing drug users loitering on St Peter’s Street and on paths by the River Derwent has put him off popping to the shops and has stopped his wife going out running in our city centre altogether.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes the point about people needing to feel safe in their communities. One of the issues that many of us hear from our constituents about is illegal e-bikes speeding through our parks and town centres. Many reputable dealers, such as Bikeseven and Palace Cycles in my constituency, would never sell an illegal e-bike, but they are widely available. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to ban the sale of illegal e-bikes and cut the problem off at source?
Baggy Shanker
It is simple: if they are illegal, they should be banned.
Unfortunately, John and his family are not alone. I hear those concerns reflected at my surgeries and in my inbox time and again. Families such as John’s tell me that they are worried about the drug and alcohol abuse they see on our streets.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
In my constituency, the Safer Wolverhampton Partnership works with keyholders such as the council, police, healthcare, housing and education providers. The Way Youth Zone also provides support, stability and a safe place for young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to adopt a co-ordinated and holistic approach to addressing city centre safety, with appropriate funding for youth services?
Baggy Shanker
It is critical to have the right funding and a sense of partnership working to tackle the problem together. Young people often tell me they want to take in everything our wonderful city centre has to offer but knife crime, and the perception of knife crime, makes them worry for their safety when they are out and about. Constituents, such as Tirath, tell me the lack of visible policing heightens their concern, so that they feel unsafe in the city centre.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Neighbourhood policing teams are essential to ensure that feeling of safety on our high streets and in our town centres. I hope my hon. Friend will join me in commending my local team, led by Inspector Tany Ditta in Bingley, Shipley and Baildon. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s investment in 3,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers is essential to make people feel safe in our town centres, to help our high streets thrive?
Baggy Shanker
I congratulate Inspector Ditta and my hon. Friend on all the work she does to help her local police, coupled with the additional investment in the police from our Government.
Nobody here will want to talk down their city centre and I am not here to talk down Derby. Like our constituents, we are proud of the places we represent but, up and down the country, years of Tory austerity and mismanagement have eroded that pride. Austerity took bobbies off the beat and out of our city centres, with PCSO numbers halved and an estimated 600 police stations shutting their doors for good. It left our high streets boarded up, with shops closing at a rate of 37 a day in 2024. It also let retail crime run rampant, leaving shoplifting at its highest level since records began, with hard-working staff worried about their safety at work. A Co-op campaign to protect retail workers shows that, shockingly, there are more than 1,300 incidents of violence and abuse every day, with shop workers threatened just for doing their job.
The catastrophic austerity experiment left our communities feeling less safe than ever. Research by the University of Southampton demonstrates that austerity led to a 3.7% increase in total crime and 4.8% increase in violent crime, with those increases hitting deprived neighbourhoods the hardest. In Derby, we have seen that play out in the streets and places we love. Pride for one’s city is stretched when the high street is littered with empty or plain dodgy shops. In 2024, Derbyshire Live estimated that more than 80 shops in the city centre were for sale or to let. That is an increase of about 60% on the previous two years. Any sense of safety was shaken when last summer residents watched masked thieves smash their way into a pawnbroker’s shop on St Peter’s Street in broad daylight.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about an issue that is important to many of us. He talks about masked thieves. Councils have the power to ban face coverings, particularly in town centres, by introducing public space protection orders. Does he agree that councils should work with the police to do that where appropriate? Is he as shocked as I am that Hillingdon council is refusing to ban face coverings in the town centre, despite the community and the police asking it to do so for exactly the sorts of reasons that he mentions?
Baggy Shanker
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The police need to work with local authorities to tackle these issues sensitively.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned dodgy shops. I have been running a campaign against dodgy vape shops and others on the high street. Safety is so important, and these shops, which sell goods to young people, erode confidence in the high street. Does he agree that commercial landlords must be given more powers so that they can understand exactly who they are renting to and shut such shops down?
Baggy Shanker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such shops do not help other businesses and residents, and do not make our city centres a safe environment, so more measures are needed to tackle that.
Last year, there was another really difficult day for our city. Gurvinder Singh Johal, also known as Danny, was tragically murdered as he was going about his business in a Lloyds Bank branch on a Tuesday afternoon. It was utterly devastating for his family. When crimes like that happen in plain sight, in places that we use regularly and consider to be safe, it is not surprising that public confidence is shaken. Communities are left wondering whether the towns and cities they know and love really are the places that they see in front of them. Public safety is not just about law enforcement; as my constituent Tirath puts it, it is also about preserving the character of the places we call home.
Constituents up and down the country, in towns and cities from Stoke-on-Trent to Somerset, share the same feelings. We are here today because we want to take our constituents’ concerns seriously. We are here because when they tell us that more needs to be done for them to feel like crime is being taken seriously and tackled, we want to listen. Most importantly, we are here because although austerity damaged our towns and cities, it did not break them. We want to crack on and make changes so that everyone can enjoy our town and city centres as the brilliant and buzzing places that we know they can be.
That is why I want to talk about what comes next. We know that keeping our communities safe is not about warm words; it is about action. That means working hand in hand with the police and our partners to ensure that people feel welcome and secure spending time in our towns and cities.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have recently completed a “shop local” survey of almost 4,500 residents, and they said that a cleaner high street would improve community pride and help to reduce crime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a good initial approach, although it does not replace police on the beat?
Baggy Shanker
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need clean, vibrant, buzzing city centres, and organisations must work in partnership with the police—it is everyone’s responsibility.
At home in Derby, I have worked to drive practical action on crime and antisocial behaviour. I have teamed up with local partners and my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, to hold regular city centre summits. I pay tribute to the organisations that have got round the table with us, including Safe and Sound, the Derbyshire constabulary and the Derby City Youth Alliance. The work they do day to day to support our city centre and ensure it is a place that our community can enjoy is absolutely vital. There is still much more to do, but we are taking steps in the right direction.
Constituents regularly tell me that when police are not visible, they feel more worried about their safety in the city centre. On a recent walkabout with local police, I was pleased to see at first hand how work to recruit and deploy more police officers and public protection officers is helping residents to feel safe and supported when they are out and about in Derby. We also know that action at a local level needs backing with investment, resources and the visible, responsive police presence our communities want to see.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I am pleased that the night-time economy is on the rise in Epsom, and although I have not sampled the new Labyrinth nightclub I have been to many restaurants and pubs with local residents. The thriving night-time economy contributes to our high streets but, as the hon. Member mentioned, they must be safe. Does he agree that, even at night time, a visible, trusted police presence deters crime?
Baggy Shanker
Absolutely. There is no time when the police presence should not be there. It should be there during the day, in the evening and during night-time hours.
Last year, I was absolutely chuffed to see the Chancellor back Team Derby, which will bring everyone with a stake in our city’s future together to ensure that every pound of investment coming into Derby delivers the real change our community can see. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to keeping our streets safe for everyone to enjoy. Whether it is freeing up local offices to deliver neighbourhood policing in their communities; making sure that, when residents report concerns to 999, they can be confident about the response they will get; or putting bobbies back on the beat, it is vital that we crack on with the job—today, tomorrow and every single day.
Wherever we call home, it is a basic expectation that we can step out of our front door, pop to local shops and feel safe. I urge the Minister to back reform with the investment and resources our local police forces need so that, in Derby and across the country, our communities have the confidence to enjoy everything that their towns and cities have to offer them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that, should they wish to bob to be called in the debate, they should do so. Members have two minutes to speak.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate, and on his introductory speech. Across the country, there is a growing disconnect between the official statistics on serious crime and the lived experience of our communities. Although some categories of serious violence have declined, many people feel less safe than ever in our town and city centres. That perception is not irrational; it reflects the rise of highly visible, everyday crimes that fundamentally shape how people experience public spaces. Antisocial behaviour, phone snatching and shoplifting have become rife on our streets. Those offences may not always dominate national headlines, but they corrode public confidence in the police and undermine the social fabric of our communities.
In Dewsbury and Batley, those trends are painfully visible. Just weeks ago, a gang knife attack in Dewsbury town left one man seriously injured in broad daylight. Days later, the police seized £600,000 worth of cannabis from a drugs factory operating in the town centre.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I appreciate that this is a slightly different issue but, with empty properties on high streets and absent landlords not contributing to our communities, crime is taking place in those buildings in Stafford, and local authorities do not have the powers they need to take them back from absentee landlords. Does the hon. Member agree that that is something on which the Government need to press heavily, to get our town centres back into active use?
Iqbal Mohamed
I agree that empty shops and buildings in town centres are a draw for nefarious activities, with people squatting or committing crimes from those places. I encourage the Government to look at that. The recent announcement of business rate cuts will help certain businesses, but that should be extended across all town centre businesses.
On Sunday, thieves brazenly stole the 129-year-old mayoral chains from Dewsbury’s town hall, having climbed in through the roof. Constituents tell me that they no longer feel safe shopping, or even leaving home after dark. These are not abstract statistics; they are lived realities that have major ramifications for an individual’s quality of life. The decline of visible neighbourhood policing and the hollowing out of council services and youth centres have played a significant role in this deplorable state of affairs. Those changes were not inexorable certainties, but a conscious political programme of austerity. That is why I welcome the Government’s renewed emphasis on neighbourhood policing, including dedicated antisocial behaviour leads and guaranteed patrols in towns. In Dewsbury, we have seen the emergence of a new town centre team. Those initiatives matter: visibility matters.
Nationally, the challenge is stark: shoplifting is at record levels, phone snatching rose by 153% in a single year and abuse of retail workers is escalating. The Crime and Policing Bill contains some welcome measures, but legislation alone will not rebuild public confidence. Town centre safety requires a holistic approach—policing, youth services, urban design, transport, economic regeneration and more must work together. Ultimately, crime is a threat not just to security, but to democratic trust. Safer town centres are not just a policing objective; they are a democratic necessity. If we want people to believe in our towns, institutions and democracy, we must start by ensuring that they feel safe on our streets.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate.
Improving community safety in Clwyd North is one of my top priorities. It has been great to work alongside North Wales police through meetings and walkabouts, and to talk directly to retail workers and residents out and about in the town centre. I have seen how antisocial behaviour is being tackled through better community cohesion. Local PCSOs and shopkeepers are connected by radio in our town centres, staying in regular contact so that they can quickly share information about what is happening on the street and, crucially, step in when issues arise. That kind of everyday co-operation is making a difference by deterring antisocial behaviour before it escalates, reassuring residents and businesses with a visible presence, and bringing a sense of order and safety, which is so important. That really matters because it shows people that antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated, and that our communities, and crucially our high streets, belong to the law-abiding majority.
We have got more PCSOs in every Clwyd North neighbourhood with a named officer in each one. We have got local initiatives, such as Operation Restore and Operation Vroom, to tackle violent offences, antisocial behaviour and persistent nuisance behaviour like e-bikes and disruption on our streets. In short, I can see first hand from being out and about in Clwyd North that Government-backed initiatives are being backed up by the local police’s confidence to really tackle issues. We have more PCSOs in our neighbourhoods, safer streets and stronger local communities. It makes a real difference and makes people feel secure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate and giving us all a chance to participate.
I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on town and city centre safety. Northern Ireland has several specific Government-led and multi-agency initiatives designed to improve safety in town and city centres. They are often co-ordinated through local partnerships, such as the PCSP—police and community safety partnership. However, as with most Departments, lack of funding in Northern Ireland has greatly hampered the progress in safety that they need. For example, CCTV —the sleeping policeman, as I call it—in Newtownards and Bangor is not fit for purpose. It needs upgrading: the screen and film is very grainy, so it is hard to ascertain who is on it. The local Police Service of Northern Ireland chief superintendent is crying out for a system that can be used as evidence for crimes, but more importantly one that can prevent crimes. The local PCSP have acknowledged the need, and yet the council’s hands are ostensibly tied, having struck the local rate.
We then go up the ladder to the Minister for Justice.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the potential for a win-win here? Many people complain about high street shops being derelict and empty, but if we can encourage people to live adjacent to or above retail units, we can increase footfall and protect people, provided the police are present, particularly in the evening time.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is not just about CCTV in the city centre, but in the shops as well. The Minister and the Department have highlighted that their funding does not stretch. I could argue that the Minister does not prioritise in the way that I would like, but that does not change the facts. The PSNI has indicated that if it had the system, it would monitor it. In other words, if the system is in place, the PSNI will look after it, so there is an advantage to doing that.
I have one quick story— I am conscious of time and want to give others the chance to participate. My son worked in a shop in Newtownards—he does not work there any more. One night, a guy came in to rob the till and steal some drink. He threatened my son with a knife, so my son stepped back, which was the right thing to do—there is no sense in being a hero when it comes to some maniac with a knife. The CCTV in the shop was the reason they were able to catch them, so it is just not about CCTV in the street, but the CCTV in the constituency shops as well.
The rate of crime in Newtownards is 33.6 crimes per 1,000 people compared with 36 elsewhere. The PSNI find themselves going from business to business to ask for camera evidence, and even to ask residents for Ring doorbell footage. That is another way of catching those who are up to no good, and is something we need to focus on.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. In my constituency of North Somerset and our amazing town centres, safety is an issue raised consistently by residents, and their concerns reflect a wider truth about communities across our country. Homicide rates in England and Wales have fallen to their lowest levels since records began, which is welcome news, yet that is not how people in my community and across the UK feel. We have less violent crime, but the small crimes that tear the fabric of our community spirit are on the rise.
Having spent nearly two decades working in pharmacy, I know at first hand that I can be in a local shop watching somebody sweep a shelf of products into their bag and walk away almost undeterred, driving a feeling of lawlessness, making us feel that antisocial behaviour and crime rates are increasing, because low-level everyday issues are more prevalent and more visible. Shop floor staff are often told not to put themselves at risk—rightfully so, as I still have a scar on the back of my hand from a shoplifter. The public are afraid to get involved, as they will likely be on the wrong side of the law. It is the antisocial behaviour, the petty shoplifting, the lack of police presence and even the proliferation of e-bikes tearing through our streets that is driving the feeling of unsafe towns and villages. Add in the absence of CCTV coverage and police presence in key areas, and residents feel they have nowhere to turn.
The Portishead post office, which is in one of the largest towns in my constituency and a vital hub that Portishead residents and I campaigned tirelessly for, suffered two break-ins, one only a month after opening its doors in May 2025. Even next door in the village of Pill, where I live, I have seen a rise in antisocial behaviour, including bikes tearing up football pitches and even affecting a match. That is why I welcome the Government’s Bill and the safer streets mission that sets out clear priorities on neighbourhood policing and town centre crime. Part of the conversation should be about the fundamental changes we have seen on our high streets. We should look not with nostalgia, but at what we need our high streets to look like in future.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. The Government promised to strengthen neighbourhood policing. We have heard many well-intentioned but sadly empty words from Labour Members as their actions in London fall far short of the mark. Nowhere did they tell Londoners during the mayoral or general elections that they would cut £260 million from London’s police service, and yet that is exactly what they are doing.
Bromley might be one of the safest boroughs in London, but our town centres and villages still face acute policing challenges, from antisocial behaviour and shoplifting to car theft and burglary. We are simply not receiving the policing resources our community needs to tackle the issues. Together with the £22 million funding cut for Bromley council, my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill are being unfairly punished by this callous Government. As part of Mayor Khan’s sweeping cuts to the Metropolitan police, he is closing all but two of the 24-hour police counters across London. In doing so, he is breaking his manifesto promise to retain at least one 24-hour front counter in each borough—just as, incidentally, he is breaking his promise to protect the green belt. Bromley, despite being a major town centre with a busy nightlife, is one of the areas set to lose its round-the-clock police station service. On the evening of 23 March, lights will be turned off at Bromley’s police station. It will be a huge blow for public safety, further undermining confidence in the Met and hindering our brave police officers from doing what they do best, which is keeping our people safe.
Regardless of the outcome of any changes, I will keep fighting this closure all the way. If we do not stand up and say, “Enough is enough,” Sadiq Khan will break more manifesto promises and come back for even bigger cuts to policing in Bromley. It is clear that our town and city centres are not safe under Labour.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Last Friday I was at a roundtable with local businesses, creative organisations and city centre groups in Dunfermline to discuss the safety of the town centre and how we can make Dunfermline a prosperous city in the future. What struck me was the unanimity of experience: people love their city and are committed to its future, but they feel that too much of the burden of improvement is falling on them, rather than being supported by different levels of Government.
Those at the roundtable spoke about day-to-day frustrations that shape how safe a city feels: graffiti that is not cleaned; broken cobbles left unrepaired; street furniture that has seen better days, and a lack of accessible parking, which makes the city centre more difficult for disabled residents. I also heard examples of vandalism and shop break-ins not being meaningfully followed up. Here we come to one of the key responsibilities devolved to the SNP Scottish Government: policing.
While frontline officers in Dunfermline and across Fife work incredibly hard, they are operating under sustained pressure from years of cuts, centralisation and under-investment. Dunfermline, with its heritage and potential future, has not received the kind of long-term planning and investment that it deserves from the Government at Holyrood, and that is also true of wider investment in Scotland’s towns and cities.
What was striking at the roundtable, however, was a sense of optimism—from places such as Café Wynd, Veneno Music Store and Caledonian Craft Beer Merchant, there was a clear pride in what Dunfermline has to offer. While many of the policy levers for direct intervention in the future success of Dunfermline lie in Holyrood, there are actions that the UK Government could and should take.
I hope the UK Government will consider Dunfermline as a pilot area for trialling any kind of tax incentives, which small businesses are calling for to support creation and innovation in town centres. We need a shared vision between the UK and Scottish Governments, Fife council and local businesses to deliver that future. Dunfermline has talent, ambition and enormous potential, and with the right support across both Scotland’s Governments, and a clear, shared and deliverable vision, it can become a leading example of how to build a safe, thriving and modern city centre in the 21st century.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. In my constituency, our local town centres are the beating heart of community life. Whether that is Erdington High Street, Slade Road, or Kingstanding shopping precinct on the Hawthorn Road, these hubs are vital to our local economy, culture and sense of belonging.
When I was first elected, Erdington High Street recorded some of the highest levels of crime in Birmingham. Working closely with West Midlands police and our police and crime commissioner, we secured £880,000 from the proceeds of crime fund to launch Operation Fearless. Through that initiative, officers have made substantial arrests for violence, theft and drug offences, seized dangerous weapons, and helped restore a sense of safety and order to the high street, showing that effective, sustained policing can make a real difference.
I urge the Minister to continue working closely with police forces, local authorities and community partners to support proven initiatives such as Operation Fearless, which demonstrate that sustained, community-focused policing can turn around our high streets, making them safe, welcoming and vibrant places at the heart of our communities.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Aylesbury has much to offer and huge potential, but we will fulfil that potential only if people feel safe when they are in town. Our police do a really good job, as do wonderful organisations such as Street Angels, but we have got to be honest about the challenges, of which I will briefly mention three.
First, the threats faced by our retail workers have surged in recent years. I met the assistant manager at one of the retailers at the shopping park in Aylesbury, and she showed me harrowing footage from her bodycam during a recent shoplifting incident. She kept remarkably calm and professional, but she was dealing with not just one individual, but a whole crowd of shoplifters who threatened her, surged the exit to the store and attacked her physically as well as verbally before making a dash for it.
That is far from the only time this has happened recently, and no retail worker should ever have to deal with that. I support the measures in the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, which will introduce a new standalone offence of assaulting a retail worker, but I would like to hear more from the Minister about that.
Secondly, I want to highlight the persistent antisocial behaviour we see in our town. I met representatives from our local Pubwatch group, who described the antisocial behaviour that deters paying customers from coming into their premises. I hear from women in particular who say they do not feel safe walking down certain streets at night. I know that the Crime and Policing Bill includes measures to address this, such as the introduction of new respect orders, but I would be grateful if the Minister shared more about plans to continue tackling that blight on our town centres.
Thirdly, I want to make a point about root causes. While it is right that we tackle these threats to safety in our towns, we will not get far without also looking at what is behind them. We know that antisocial behaviour is often linked to drug and alcohol use, but it is also driven by lack of opportunity and hope. In my view, measures such as the Government’s youth strategy, which sets out a long-term plan to invest in safe spaces and opportunities for young people, will ultimately reduce the incentives for people to get into the kinds of activities that make our town centres unsafe, and instead give people a sense of hope and opportunity. I would like to hear more from the Minister on that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate. Huddersfield is my home town, and I am so proud of it. Regeneration is on its way, including investments in Our Cultural Heart, the George hotel, the TransPennine route upgrade and the national health innovation campus at Huddersfield University.
Those investments are important because, like many towns across the north of England, Huddersfield has faced decades-long challenges from under-investment in our communities and town centres. That can be seen in the visible decline of our high streets, the increase in vape shops and stores dealing in counterfeit items—many of which are propped up by organised criminal networks—and in the drop in visible policing and growing concerns about public safety.
It is also apparent in the feeling that institutions, agencies and Governments have let our areas down, and in the lack of trust in us to deliver. On a recent visit to Kirklees college, one of the key concerns raised by students was safety and the perception of safety in the town centre. Those concerns have been echoed in my meetings with town centre business owners and in contacts with residents at coffee mornings.
I am proud to have stood on a manifesto that committed to supporting town centres, and we have seen that in the commitment to neighbourhood policing, which includes 12 additional officers in Huddersfield town centre. The Home Secretary announced plans to reform policing last week, which included the creation of a new police force to tackle serious crime and further restore neighbourhood policing. Those measures are all important, but will the Minister set out how we will tackle organised crime and county lines networks, and give us an update on the role of violence reduction units in providing youth-focused prevention networks in Huddersfield? More importantly, we must ensure that we continue to invest in young people. Investing in young people, alongside increasing policing and levels of infrastructure, is really important for our town centres.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate.
This issue comes up repeatedly with my local residents, who want to feel safe in our town—whether that is walking, shopping, eating or enjoying public spaces. Women and girls should feel safe at night. Families should be able to enjoy our town centre free from the fear of antisocial behaviour. As has already been mentioned, shop workers should not have the threat of retail crime hanging over them. I am really pleased that, after years of campaigning by the Co-operative party, that was included as a standalone offence in the Crime and Policing Bill.
We have made real progress in Ipswich over the past couple of years through a combination of Government initiatives in partnership with our hard-working police force. For example, the Clear, Hold, Build initiative has removed weapons and drugs from our streets, led to over 100 arrests, and resulted in charges and convictions totalling nearly 43 years. Other initiatives, such as Operation Spotlight over the summer, meant that police spent more than 1,700 extra hours patrolling the town centre in July and August, so there is real progress. We have seen crime fall in the last few years by 13%. I look forward to further legislation, which will make it much easier for councils to bring empty shops back into use and protect our high streets from unwanted businesses. There has been real progress in tackling some of those problems.
Although tackling crime is absolutely a priority, we cannot arrest our way out of the problems that we see on our high streets. That is why we are working hard in Ipswich to bring good, well-paid and secure jobs to the town. Whether it is at Sizewell C or Halo, hundreds of jobs will be created, and we are increasing footfall in our town centre—it has increased by 15%—by attracting people in. We are making progress, but there is much more to do. I thank the Government, and look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I want my constituency, where beauty surrounds and health abounds, to be a place where everyone feels safe on the high street. There is still work to be done, but I am committed to doing that work alongside our local partners.
Central to that is the Government’s plan to put 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood roles by 2029. Those officers will be embedded in our communities, building relationships, preventing crime and responding quickly when crime occurs. Locally, there are some fantastic initiatives such as Safe Morecambe, which brings together the police, the business improvement district, the local authority, the community safety partnership and my office. Through funding from the police and crime commissioner, we are putting in place a street warden to help reassure residents further.
A key part of making our streets and town centres safe will be tackling the antisocial behaviour that people suffer, from vandalism to noise, and drug use to harassment. Those are the everyday issues that really upset people, quite rightly. To combat that, the Labour Government are bringing in respect orders, and local authorities are getting powers to issue higher fines and to seize those damned bikes and get them off the road. We are also cracking down on shoplifting and violence against retail staff. It is horrendous that people are going to work in fear of being assaulted.
However, it is not all doom and gloom. There have been some real successes in London under Mayor Sadiq Khan, where crime is at its lowest level since comparative records began. This shows that it can work.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Does the hon. Member acknowledge that total crime figures are actually up over the last 15 years in London—from 87.1 crimes per thousand people in 2023-24 to 106.4 in 2024-25? Is she happy to correct the record and say that overall crime levels in London are up under Sadiq Khan?
Lizzi Collinge
I would welcome the hon. Gentleman sending me those statistics, but they go against all the other pieces of evidence I have seen, particularly for serious crime. Obviously there are spikes in particular crimes. Phone theft, for example, has been a real problem in London, as it has been elsewhere because they are now very high-value items. Online crime, as I discussed with one of my hon. Friends earlier, is becoming more prolific—people are being scammed and defrauded. The nature of crime has changed. I am very happy to look at all the evidence. All the evidence I have seen shows that serious crime in London is going down, and that is the result of co-ordinated policing efforts and public health measures because, in some respects, crime is a public health problem.
Visible policing, backed by good community relations and street-level intelligence, can work. It reassures communities and deters crime. That is the approach we need in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country—neighbourhood policing, targeted funding and practical local initiatives, such as Safe Morecambe, together with national action, such as the creation of a specific offence for an assault on a retail worker. We owe it to all our constituents and communities to make sure they feel safe in our town centres.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate. Many of my constituents are in regular contact with me about safety in their town centres and local high streets. If criminals are allowed to prevail, law abiding residents feel unsafe and are deterred from popping to their high street and town centre. That adds to the deterioration of our high streets and town centres, which have already had 14 years of Tory austerity to help that process along.
Closed shops, rubbish piling up and an over-concentration of vape shops, barbers and betting shops hardly encourage visits to our communities. High streets and town centre shops matter: we build relationships with our shops and community spaces. Unless the police are given greater resources to tackle shoplifting in places such as Dagenham and Rainham, my residents will be put off visiting the shops. I welcome the Pride in Place funding for Barking and Dagenham, but what we need to focus on—this is a big issue in my constituency—is that when criminals feel that they can get away with shoplifting, crime escalates. In Elm Park in my constituency, one shopworker was assaulted. When the criminals could not get what they wanted without paying in one shop, they ran into another, stole its cash and assaulted the shopworker. The human cost is terrible: that worker was traumatised.
Without a doubt, we all enjoy shopping online, but equally, we take joy in popping out and visiting our local shops. Local authorities should think about local start-up businesses with short leases, look at the areas where great things work and share best practice. The Government will give councils the power to say no to businesses that do not enhance their area. I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government give a sterling defence of our town centres and high streets on Sunday. I welcome that renewed focus from the Government and hope that we start to see the investment that is much needed for our high streets to thrive again.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate.
Town and city centres are the beating hearts of our communities. They are places where people come together to meet friends and family, and to complete daily tasks such as nipping to the Post Office or getting their weekly shop. They are places that help to combat loneliness and, at a time when society can feel so divided, they show that we have lots in common with each other. Places such as Dayus gift shop, Spelt & Rye and Cassidy’s are local businesses that represent the best of our towns, and places such as Hucknall and Ollerton represent the very finest of Nottinghamshire.
In my constituency, local businesses care about their community, but there is a dark side to our town centres that makes them feel unsafe to those for whom they are also a lifeline. Shoplifting has sadly become rampant in parts of my constituency such as Hucknall, where many local businesses have faced violent attacks from offenders who are often known to them and have targeted the same stores over and over again. What links much of this criminal activity is addiction, whether that is to alcohol or drugs—or perhaps even both. Ashfield police do an incredible job and are highly efficient, but sadly the criminals go back to those businesses again and again once they are released. Without intervention from across Government Departments, the system will continue to allow offenders to repeat these attacks, all while harming businesses on high streets and making residents feel unsafe.
Health has an important role to play. Years of local support services were absolutely decimated by the previous Government, which has left a gap in our communities and affected local businesses. Pride goes two ways, and for too long the previous Conservative Government let Sherwood Forest down. Enough is enough. I am proud that this Government are investing in communities long neglected by the Tories. By tackling shoplifting and antisocial behaviour through early intervention, tackling root causes and improving infrastructure to suit the needs of communities, we can make town centres safer.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate. York may have a purple flag, but the feeling of security is certainly not spread across my community. There are particular areas of crime where we have great concerns, such as bike and shop theft—I welcome the measures that the Government are taking on that—and personal safety across our city.
We have already heard about the challenges people face with substance misuse. We have to drive that public health model to ensure that there are safe places people can use, and that they get the help and public health support that they need. We also need to go upstream and ensure that we are addressing the waves of county lines, which come into the city of York and cause much disturbance. We must ensure that we have early intervention and a seamless approach to youth services in our city. I called two meetings—
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a great speech, outlining the need for more youth services. In Darlington, I have called for the council to apply a public spaces protection order, which would allow them to remove balaclava-wearing people who commit anti-social behaviour. We are seeing an escalation in such activity from young people, who are trying to be “the big man” in the town and wearing balaclavas to hide their identity from the police. What is her view on that?
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing in Darlington. Clearly, PSPOs can be used in a really powerful way to create safer spaces in our town and city centres.
I called two meetings in York, one for the night-time economy in the city and one for the daytime economy, because they operate in very different ways. I called together all the agencies involved to examine, first, where the strategies for the two economies can be co-ordinated and come together, and, secondly, the specific issues for each economy.
The issue that came to the fore was CCTV and ensuring that there is a proper strategy for it, including making sure that cameras are switched on, are in the right places and are of the right resolution, so that we can identify crime. I am working with agencies across our city to ensure that we have proper CCTV protection. I am also looking at how we can ensure there is co-ordination across the different agencies that work in our city, which is really important.
However, the words that come to the fore so often are that we need more bobbies on the beat. We need more police on our streets, and there is also an issue with the funding formula for policing. When I spoke to our deputy mayor for police and crime, they highlighted the real challenges in areas such as North Yorkshire, which is a huge rural area with crime hotspots in our urban spaces. I ask the Minister to look at that funding formula again.
Let me briefly mention Unite’s important campaign, Get Me Home Safely—I declare my interest as regards Unite. We need to ensure that our taxis are safer. I want to ask the Minister what has happened since Casey’s recommendation on changing taxi licensing regimes. We operate a safe taxi licensing process in York. We want to ensure that there is such a process in the city, and that we have the resources to control and monitor it. Will she also consider how we can protect our transport staff? I know that the RMT has campaigned hard for that, because it is so important.
In closing, I thank all the agencies that keep our city safe.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Dowd, to speak under your chairship.
Our town centres are the heart of our communities. They give our towns identity and define how we interact with where we live. However, it is that very interaction that means people also need to feel safe, secure and welcome in town centres. That is certainly true in my constituency and in my home town of Gillingham, where the high street has become a visible sign of decline. Unfortunately, we are plagued by antisocial behaviour, graffiti, drug activity and knife crime.
Our brilliant local police officers—Marcus, Matt and Issy—do a fantastic job in visibly patrolling our town centre, which shows the difference that community policing can make, but the fact remains that Gillingham town centre is in the top national decile for crime and residents just do not feel safe. That did not just happen overnight. It comes after chronic underinvestment by the former Conservative council and the damaging impacts of austerity under the former Government, which left Gillingham forgotten.
My town centre is a reflection of how reduced civic investment has changed the character and feel of town centres. Despite that, I have hope for the future, because there are opportunities for change. The announcement of the Pride in Place scheme by the Government is a significant step in the right direction.
Additionally, in partnership with Medway Council I have established a taskforce that adopts a multi-agency approach, working with the police, local councillors and other stakeholders to address the challenges that we face. Off the back of that work, we have launched the Love Gillingham initiative, convening a community panel of residents, stakeholders and businesses who have the same passion and vision for their town centre. I would argue such a holistic community-centred approach, which is also tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, is needed, alongside national Government interventions, to truly ensure that our town centres across the country are safer and more vibrant.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
In October last year, I ran a community meeting in partnership with Catriona Munro, who is Labour’s candidate for Holyrood in the Edinburgh South Western constituency. One of the key things that was brought up was the activity of food delivery companies. At the heart of this activity is what some would call a precarious business model, based on precarious work, which essentially exploits these workers and encourages them to drive illegal e-bikes in quite a reckless manner. In November last year, outside my constituency office, the police managed to impound 13 of these e-bikes. Just imagine what they could do if they were fully funded.
Lola McEvoy
My hon. Friend is eloquently making a point about the funding given to the police to eradicate e-bike crime. Does he agree that we would be in a better position if we had more bobbies on bikes? Perhaps the Minister will talk about that in her speech.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. We do not have very much longer. I want to get other Members in, and the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople need the opportunity to speak. I am not telling the hon. Gentleman not to take interventions, but I will end up cutting somebody out of the debate if he does.
Dr Arthur
Thank you, Mr Dowd. I appreciate that guidance.
We absolutely need more police, but unfortunately their budget was cut in Scotland last year, which has made their job even harder. I recently wrote to Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat. They track their riders’ every move, and they say that despite knowing where they are all the time, they cannot use their apps to track their speeds and whether they are riding recklessly unless I know the order number for the thing that is being delivered. I find that absolutely incredible. I have, however, been offered a place on the Deliveroo rider training course—it will be interesting to see what that comprises. It is really disappointing that the companies are not taking more ownership of the problem.
I approached the Minister for road safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and she confirmed that the Government will launch a national work-related road safety charter. I really hope the food delivery companies engage with it constructively, but I have my doubts that it will change matters on the ground. Recklessness and exploitation of their workers is fundamental to those companies’ business model, and we need to address that. I hope the Government will legislate if the companies do not step up.
It was said earlier that the Government must take seriously their powers to manage the import and sale of these illegal bikes, and I agree. I find it absolutely incredible that people can buy them given that, in most of our constituencies, there is nowhere that they can ride them. I hope the Minister will address that point too.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate.
Nuneaton town centre, like many of our town centres, used to be a source of pride. Our vibrant markets stretched all the way through town, down Queens Road, through market square and back down Abbey Street. Every shop was full, bustling with shoppers. Over the past decade, like many of our town centres, it has taken a hammering and has suffered significant decline. Shops have been boarded up, and the market has been reduced to an echo of its former self. Crime—shoplifting, serious organised crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour—has become commonplace.
A few years ago, my teenager—like many parents’ teenagers—was in town on a Saturday, and a Facebook post popped up showing police cordons around the town centre, with a flippant comment, “Nunny got a bit stabby”. It culminated in the tragic and fatal stabbing of one of our local lads, a gentle giant, Tom Ellis, in June 2024.
Since my election, I have been driven to change the future of Nuneaton town centre, alongside the ambitious Labour council, and we are progressing rapidly with transformation work. The market is growing back, and in March our transformation project, Grayson Place, will be completed. We await the opening of food halls, college campuses, event spaces and the first championship padel centre.
I have made it my priority to meet senior officers from our local safer neighbourhoods team, walk the town, and talk to businesses, market stall traders and shoppers. I welcome the return of our designated town centre officer. I also welcome the investment of £1.5 million from the Government’s Pride in Place impact fund for our town centre, alongside £1.4 million in neighbourhood funding. We are working together with organisations such as the police, the business improvement district, our town centre wardens and our brilliant councillors, such as Councillor Nicky King, to co-ordinate the approach and rescue our town centre.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Tackling crime and antisocial behaviour has been a priority in my constituency since my election. Countless residents have told me they feel unsafe. Bournemouth faces seasonal pressures, where millions of people visit our beaches and parks during the summer. Last year, we had a slew of negative headlines about chaos, decline and lawlessness, but the crime statistics show a completely different picture. Bournemouth is consistently in the top 20—if not top 10—safest cities, or large towns in our case. Yes, serious incidents occur, but they are trending downwards. Shoplifting is rife. I do not want to minimise that or people’s experience of it, but in my limited time I want to understand why fear feels so real for so many people when crime is relatively low.
I recently met a resident who told me he does not let his 12 and 14-year-old daughters go out after 3 pm or 4 pm in Bournemouth. Yet when they went up to Regent Street he let them wander around and go off shopping on their own. Crime rates in Bournemouth are 16% lower than the national average. They are 130% higher in Westminster—an area that has 8% of London’s crime. I do not say that to minimise or to denigrate Westminster, but safety is not only about where the crime happens; it is also about whether the shops are filled and the streets busy, clean and looked after, and about confidence and pride, and feeling reassured and protected.
Since my election I have been relentlessly focused on funding for our police, with £1 million for hotspot policing over the summer, 40 new officers for Dorset police, and it is why I relentlessly bang on to the Minister about the funding formula. Safety was a key theme of our Bournemouth town centre citizens’ panel. The panel called for four things: a co-ordinated women’s safety initiative, improved co-ordination of positive safety initiatives, awareness of CCTV effectiveness, and a lighting audit to highlight low and high lighting areas in the town. These sit alongside actions designed to improve the public realm, spur regeneration, fill our streets and restore civic pride. I will certainly be playing my part in all of these.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Let me start by thanking Westhoughton South councillor John McHugh for his campaigning for measures to tackle antisocial behaviour in Westhoughton, to give residents and firms the confidence they need to go about their business. John has worked extensively with me and with Greater Manchester police, and many of his efforts are not publicly commended but they should be.
Our town centres are the hearts of our communities, which is why I welcome the Government’s new Pride in Place funding for Bolton West. But regeneration, whether in Bolton or Blackrod, Horwich or Westhoughton, will only succeed if we resolutely confront one of the biggest threats to our town centres—high street economic crime. In towns across this country, cash-intensive businesses are being used to launder criminal money, evade tax and undercut legitimate traders. These acts are not victimless. They are predatory. They enable organised crime and drug dealing, drain the public finances, and drive honest businesses out. That is why the Government’s safer streets mission must include tackling economic crime. If there is one thing I know after tackling bribery and corruption for more than a decade, it is that if we want safer streets, we must follow the money.
It is not just an issue of putting more police officers on the streets. Having met officers from Greater Manchester police’s economic crime unit, it is clear to me that any lasting efforts to address and increase safety in our towns must also rely on provision for specialist financial investigators within the police, to go after the same criminal actors who feed off our high streets, carrying out their business in plain sight. I welcome the Government’s decision in the latest Budget to establish a high street criminality taskforce, but for it to work, high street economic crime must be treated as a systemic national threat, with regeneration funding aligned to enforcement. That has to include stronger licensing and registration in high-risk sectors and tougher action against phoenix companies and against serial non-payment of tax and business rates. We can look to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, which has set the way on tackling high street money laundering and been very effective over the years. We also need to see far better data sharing between different trading standards teams, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Companies House, the police, and local authorities.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I will make two brief points—one per minute. The first is around Rugby town centre and how the police officers, community wardens and BID rangers all work together to ensure that it is safe. Will the Minister look at whether borough or district council-run community wardens can play a really powerful role in defeating antisocial behaviour and criminality at the sub-policing level?
My second point is about children and young people carrying out antisocial behaviour and criminality in our town centres. There was a recent case in Rugby in which the police made several arrests of young people for antisocial behaviour and criminality. Those officers made every possible effort to work collaboratively across agencies to avoid going down the criminal route with arrests. In some circumstances, however, it is sadly necessary to make arrests, particularly when members of the public, visitors, businesses and others are badly affected.
Will the Minister set out her thoughts on the Government’s approach to antisocial behaviour and criminality among young people, given that the respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill apply only to people over 16? That potentially leaves a gap for powers available to police and others in that regard. We need to ensure there is no lawlessness on our streets. Irrespective of the age of the perpetrator, we do everything we can to avoid arrests, but we must ensure that police have the powers they need.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
That was the final Back-Bench speech. With the forbearance of those on the Front Bench, I wanted to get in all hon. Members, given the importance of and interest shown in the debate. I would be grateful if they would bear that in mind in their responses. I call Luke Taylor, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Dowd. I also thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for calling this important debate. No one can live freely live under the fear of crime. Across London and in boroughs such as mine in Sutton, that freedom begins and ends with residents feeling safe to use their town centres and high streets. It is where people come together and shop, and in this day and age, it is one of the last truly public spaces left.
When our constituents cannot see police on their high streets, they do not feel protected and are left feeling powerless. Their sense of security slips and changes how they live their daily lives. High street footfall drops, shops close earlier, parents worry, and women are forced to plan their routes home with keys clenched in their fists. Londoners should feel safe in their everyday routines without being threatened by an illegal e-bike tearing across the pavement, the fear of their phone being snatched from their hand, or being forced to put up with antisocial, disrespectful behaviour.
Let me be clear: no matter what certain right-wing politicians say—fortunately, they are absent today—London is largely a safe city. Figures for serious crime in the capital are falling, which should be celebrated. The murder rate is at the lowest level in London since 2014 and violent crime in the city is down by 12% compared with 2024, though up by around 30% in 10 years.
Improving figures for the most serious crimes contrasts with an increase in more visible crimes such as shoplifting, up 19% in London this year. The same is tragically true for sexual assaults, which are up by more than 10,000 in a decade, from 16,100 in 2016 to 26,800 in 2025. All crime reporting in London is up from 87.1 per thousand in 2016 to 106.4 in 2025, all under Mayor Khan’s watch and Government funding deals decided by Conservative Ministers.
Those are sobering reminders that crimes that make life miserable—or, in the case of sexual assault, terrifying—are up despite the positive headlines. The lived experience of my constituents tells a far more uncomfortable story than the picture that the mayor and the Government want to paint. It is particularly heartbreaking for women and girls, who have faced under-reported violence on our streets for decades and had hoped that, as society finally begins to shine a spotlight on gendered violence, visible and proactive policing would finally rise to meet the challenge. Instead, they have to bear witness to the erosions of such policing.
Between 2015 and 2025, the number of Metropolitan police officers stayed almost static at around 32,000 full- time equivalents. As our cities become more complex, new crimes and dangers have developed and the population has grown by more than 500,000 people, the Metropolitan police has not. Just last year, under Sadiq Khan’s leadership and a Labour Government, the Metropolitan police lost more than 1,400 officers and staff—a cut of over 4%.
I expect the Minister will talk about decisions made by some of my predecessors up to 16 years ago as a reason for Labour’s failure properly to fund the Met this year, but the responsibility sits squarely on the shoulders of a Labour Government and a Labour mayor. For Londoners, those cuts are a kick in the teeth. Police officers should not seem a novelty. They should be spotted on the street and not thought unusual.
Luke Taylor
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for his contribution; he must have read my next paragraph.
CCTV cameras and facial recognition tech watching and monitoring us going about our business cannot replace a friendly face with a welcoming smile and advice on getting assistance for a lost phone or mislaid keys. I fear that as funding for the Metropolitan police continues to be stretched thinner and thinner, that reassurance will begin to all but disappear. Having walked the streets of Sutton with my local police unit, I have seen at first hand the strain caused by falling officer numbers. My high street team has been cut from 11 to four. They are doing extraordinary work, but they are being asked to cover more ground and respond to more incidents with fewer colleagues by their side.
Sometimes I fear that there is a dangerous strain of make-believe in this debate: the belief that police capacity can grow without the financial backing to support it. No one has been clearer about that than the Metropolitan police commander, Sir Mark Rowley. Last year he warned of severe consequences as the Met faced a £260 million funding gap. Even after emergency support reduced a much larger deficit, the pressures have not gone away, and policing capability in the capital continues to be eroded as we speak. Within the Met’s specialist teams, the flying squad, firearms teams and the Royal Parks police are all set to be cut, to say nothing of school liaison officers, who do some of the most important work in restoring and embedding trust in the police in the next generation and stopping the dangerous spread of youth violence at its root. Those units form the backbone of serious crime prevention in our capital.
In recent weeks, we have been told that structural reforms will save the day. There have been proposals for mergers to create mega-forces, which apparently will do more for less. Police reform without proper funding is not fixing the problem; at best, it is delaying it and at worst, it is putting greater pressure on the cracks that are already showing. The changes set out in the police reform White Paper must be done right. I want to press the Minister for clarity on what the reforms will mean, particularly for the Metropolitan police.
At a time when visible policing is so hard to achieve, we would expect priority to be given to those last vestiges of accessible law enforcement—police front counters. But no: having already lost police officers and stations and with a £260 million shortfall to plug, Londoners are now being asked to stomach the closure of counters across the city, leaving most of London a police access desert. The 12 complete closures and the loss of 24-hour counters in 25 other locations touch every part of London. A 24/7 counter in every borough gone—another broken promise from Mayor Khan.
When those counters close, people lose the sense that police officers are present and accessible in their community. We can all see and agree on that, so it beggars belief that just last week, both Labour and Green assembly members voted against Lib Dem proposals for a funded moratorium on these closures. How can they expect Londoners to put their trust in them if they will not back us on this most basic of campaigns? The Liberal Democrats across London are calling not just for this to be stopped, but for more properly funded police front desks in every community based in local hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls. That would allow people to report crimes and share information with the police face-to-face in convenient locations.
To conclude, I simply ask the Minister this: when can our police forces expect to see the investment they deserve? What assessment are the Government making on an ongoing basis of the impact of below-inflation funding increases on the viability of community policing? Why, when the Government claim to want to restore community policing, will they not intervene when their own party’s mayor is driving policing in the opposite direction in the capital?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate.
Town and city centres are the lifeblood of our local communities. They are crucial for people, local businesses and our economy, yet under this Labour Government it increasingly feels as though our town and city centres are being not supported but attacked—attacked by a jobs tax that raises the cost of employing people, by surging business rates that punish employers and enterprise, and by relentless pressure on pubs and small businesses, the very places that make our high streets sociable, welcoming and safe. The result is plain to see: businesses are closing. And when businesses are closing, confidence drains away.
Thriving town centres are not just about economics; they are about safety. Communities with busy, successful high streets are more likely to report crime, look out for one another and defend what they value. That brings me—
Matt Vickers
That brings me to Stockton, which has a great high street and incredible local businesses. I always encourage people to support Stockton, but I would be negligent in my duty if I did not acknowledge the challenges it faces—challenges that did not arrive overnight. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed the town centre to decline and become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. When disorder grew, enforcement weakened. When problems became visible, excuses multiplied.
The council’s priorities tell their own story. Instead of employing more civic enforcement officers or street wardens—the people who provide visible reassurance—the council has expanded layers of management on six-figure salaries. It has recently emerged that Stockton-on-Tees borough council spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in just three years. Money that could have gone into keeping the town centre safe was instead swallowed up by consultants and questionable spending decisions. Councils have a duty to spend public money wisely, and in Stockton that duty has too often been neglected.
At the same time, instead of using all the powers available through public space protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, the council’s soft approach has allowed far too much of it to go unchallenged. Worse still, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered itself as an asylum dispersal authority, taking on a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years, Stockton has had one of the highest ratios of asylum seekers to residents in the entire country. Those asylum seekers are largely housed near the town centre, placing pressure on accommodation, public services and integration, and leaving large numbers of lone men congregating in the town centre, causing understandable concern for residents and businesses alike.
The situation has been compounded by the council’s permissive approach to housing. It has allowed large numbers of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to cluster around the town centre. The result is predictable: people stop visiting, businesses close and crime goes unreported. That creates a doom loop, and Labour councils across the country have perfected it.
What we now see nationally is Stockton scaled up. Since the Labour Government came to power, there are 1,318 fewer police officers on our streets and more than 3,000 fewer people working in policing overall. That is not an accident: it is a choice. Police chiefs warn of a funding shortfall of £500 million. In my local force, the Labour police and crime commissioner says there is a £2.4 million gap—the equivalent of 40 police officers.
Even when offenders are caught, punishment is increasingly optional. Labour’s early release policies mean that criminals are back on the streets sooner—sometimes within weeks—so shopkeepers see the same faces returning, residents see the same behaviour repeated, and police officers see their work unravelled by decisions taken far from their communities. The consequences are clear: shoplifting is rising and the robbery of business property has surged. The Government tell us that crime is under-reported; if that is true, it only strengthens the case for more police, not fewer.
The Government point to measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, but targets mean little if officer numbers are falling. Warm words do not patrol streets. Conservatives believe that safety is not a luxury, but a foundation on which everything else depends. That is why we back our police. That is why we are committed to recruiting 10,000 more officers. That is why we support visible, proactive policing in the places that need it most.
Before the Minister tells us once again that a strategy is in place, may I ask a very simple question? Will she commit today that no police force will lose yet more officers as a result of the Government’s next spending review, or should communities prepare for even fewer police on the streets? That leads me to a second, unavoidable question: does she expect communities to feel safer when there are fewer police, criminals are being released early and Labour councils refuse to use the powers they already have to tackle antisocial behaviour, or is managed decline now official Government policy? Fewer police, early release and unenforced laws are not unfortunate side effects; they are policy choices, and our town centres are paying the price.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for his brilliant speech. Apart from anything else, I want to visit the Hairy Dog and see all the wonderful things that are happening in my hon. Friend’s patch. I thank him for telling the story of his very strong community and its resilience in the face of the challenges we all want to overcome.
I want to praise the Members of Parliament who have come to this debate to represent their constituents. We are all reading, with increasing fury, about the behaviours of the former ambassador to the United States, and it is the MPs in this debate who represent the very best of what politics is about. We are in this job because we want to make our streets safer and our communities better, and to bring pride to the people we represent, and that is what Members have done in this debate. The snake oil salesmen, like those from the Reform party, who go on television and tell us we are a crime-ridden nation do not come to these debates to have these discussions. I am afraid they do not have the answers. The MPs who are present to speak up for their constituents and to demand answers, to demand better and to demand more bring out the best of what politics is for and what we are all in this business for.
I also want to speak in praise of our police. I recently met the first responders from the Huntingdon attack. Such bravery is quite extraordinary, and we ask that of our police every day. They go out and face danger, and we should always thank them.
The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) seem to forget that as Opposition spokespeople they represent their party and the nation. They spoke mostly about Sutton and Stockport rather than actual national policies. I ask them to think about what their parties have done in previous years. I will take no lessons whatever from the Conservative party, which slashed 20,000 police and then, in a rush to bring them back, put them behind desks. For example, around the country we now have 250 warranted police officers who are working in human resources. We will put police back where they belong: on our streets.
I will give Members a couple of good updates before I tackle some of the challenges we must overcome. First, the knife crime statistics that came out last week show that since this Government came to power knife crime is down 8%. We have taken 60,000 knives off the street, knife murders are down 27% and hospital admissions are down 11%. The Government will not shy away from doing everything we can to tackle serious violence and knife crime. Violence is not inevitable; we will not accept it and we will keep bearing down on it. I thank all those who have played their part in tackling that epidemic.
As so many Members have eloquently said, we know that the epidemic of everyday crime in our communities drives a sense of a lack of safety. I can tell Members that there are now 2,400 more officers in our neighbourhoods than there were when we came to power. There will be 3,000 more by March, and there will be 13,000 more by the end of the Parliament. Our communities are calling out for officers to be in our neighbourhoods tackling crime and doing the things we ask them to do, rather than being burdened by bureaucracy, which we will take away through new technology in our police reforms. Officers and PCSOs are the people who will help us to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime.
Members asked me to respond on many issues, but sadly I do not have the time. It would be remiss of me not to point out to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) that London will have 420 extra neighbourhood officers on its streets by March, and has received a £180 million increase in its budget this year.
Many Members talked about retail crime, and we are making changes in the Crime and Policing Bill that will help on that. Through our big summer of action, and the winter of action we have just completed, we have seen real results when there is good working among retailers, police and the charitable organisations that help with, for example, drug addiction, which is a driver of retail crime. My area has seen a substantial reduction in retail crime thanks to the persistent offender approach, whereby we go after those people. Some 80% of retail crime is committed by 20% of offenders, and most of them have a drug addiction of some kind. We have to join the dots and make sure that we give people the treatment they need and that they face up to the crimes they have committed.
Some Members talked about organised crime, and violence reduction units were also mentioned. I am proud to say that we are funding violence reduction units this year to increase their effectiveness. They do an absolutely brilliant job. We of course have to tackle the issues that lie behind the crime and not just the crime itself.
Members talked about what was happening in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about the street wardens in Morecambe. Street wardens are an interesting model, as we have seen over the winter.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about taxi licensing. I have seen some good work with taxi marshals who help to identify unlicensed taxi drivers and to protect and support women and young girls, who do not feel as safe as we want them to when they are out in our communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about economic crime, which we have talked about previously, and he was absolutely right. Many Members talked about the increase in the number of vape shops or other shops that we know are actually laundering money. I know the police are dealing with that—I have been on a raid with them to tackle it—but my hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done.
Members will forgive me for not having looked once at my prepared speech. [Laughter.] The Government are doing many things that are designed to crack down on crime, but I want to end my speech in time for my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South to respond.
I had the honour of meeting the family of Danny, who was murdered in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He wanted me to meet the family, and I did. We all know the horror that crime can cause in our constituencies, whether that is everyday crime or the most horrific crime. The Government will not rest until we have tackled the issues that our constituents put us here to tackle. I thank everyone for taking part in the debate.
Baggy Shanker
It is great to speak under your chairship again, Mr Dowd. I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. I remind the Lib Dem spokesperson that the UK extends beyond London’s boundaries, and I remind the shadow Minister that the debate was about town and city centre safety—maybe he picked up the wrong notes.
Collectively, we have managed to highlight the serious issues that constituents across the UK want Ministers to hear. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for meeting the family of Gurvinder Singh Johal, as she did recently, and for her reassurance that the Government have already increased policing numbers by 2,400. I look forward to getting that number to 13,000 during this Parliament, as she says.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I thank everybody for their forbearance—everyone got in to speak—and the Front Benchers for their slightly truncated responses.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered town and city centre safety.
Taxation: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of taxation on small and medium-sized enterprises.
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I am grateful to colleagues for attending this debate. Small and medium sized-enterprises are the backbone of our economy. They create jobs, sustain local communities and keep our high streets alive. However, since the autumn Budget 2024, they have been met with higher taxes, higher costs and a Government who appear indifferent to whether they survive at all.
It is almost impossible to know where to start with this debate, given the Government’s complete failure on the economy and sustained neglect of business and enterprise. The Prime Minister speaks the language of growth, but lacks the backbone to take the decisions needed to achieve it. If the debate were simply an exercise in cataloguing failure, we would be here all day. Instead, I will focus on the real-world consequences of that incompetence for the small and medium-sized businesses that keep our economy moving.
In my constituency, I repeatedly hear the same message from business owners about staffing pressures, soaring energy bills and rising financial costs, which in many cases have more than trebled as a direct result of decisions taken by this Government. That is not anecdote; it is reflected clearly in the data. Research from Xero shows just how precarious the situation has become: two in five SMEs do not even know whether they were profitable last month. That is not confidence; that is business flying blind.
Since the 2024 Budget, Labour has made a deliberate political choice to increase the burden on retail, hospitality and leisure. Those are not marginal sectors—they are the lifeblood of our town centres, as major employers and key drivers of local economic activity.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Last week I was lucky enough to host a roundtable with some SMEs from Bromley, including the excellent Martin from the Crown and Anchor. They said to me that this Government’s policies, including the jobs tax, are restricting their ability to grow and to hire young people. Would my hon. Friend agree that abolishing business rates would give small businesses the boost that they need to thrive?
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I have held roundtables with hospitality businesses, which are saying the same thing as others: they want to see a cut in business rates. The Conservative pledge to entirely scrap business rates for businesses with bills under £110,000 is the right step and would be welcomed by business. I hope the Minister will take up that idea; good ideas should be taken up by the Government, but they seem to have a problem with doing that.
In mentioning business rates, my hon. Friend reminds me that the Labour party manifesto—which I am sure you read, Mr Dowd—pledged that
“Labour will replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way.”
That clearly has not happened, because businesses are being hammered.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I held a business rates summit in my constituency last week, and what came across is that in York we are seeing an average increase in business rates of 35% compared with the national average of 19.4%, so there is a geographical element to this issue too. Does he agree that we need to revise the whole system, not least because a profit-related tax or a turnover tax could bring in more revenue and cost small businesses far less?
Gregory Stafford
I hope the Minister is listening; this is a problem not just for constituencies in the south but across the country. It is not just Conservative or Lib Dem Members raising the issue—clearly Labour Members have the same problem. The Minister should look at all good ideas, but current Treasury orthodoxy is to carry on with what it is doing, and to tax anything that looks like enterprise, business or job creation, which will destroy our economy and harm our high streets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward, and he is absolutely right to outline this story. To reinforce the point, the Chancellor and the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland have rightly rolled back the proposed enhanced taxation because of its impact on tourism. However, that feels more like a stay of execution than a solution. This is happening everywhere, not just in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a great degree. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of small uplifts—in rates, national insurance contributions, the price of goods and so on—can no longer be absorbed by knife-edge profit margins, and that unless we stop these tax rises, which is the Government’s responsibility, our local economy will pay a deadly price?
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for, as always, bringing his experience from Northern Ireland. That emphasises the point that I was making: this is a whole-country problem. He is absolutely right that we are on a knife edge. We are at a tipping point for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and if they go under, the consequences will be dire. If one wants to speak Treasury speak, that means the Treasury will actually raise less money. The only way that the Treasury will raise more money is by freeing up businesses to expand, grow and employ more people. That is how we will get our economy going, not by taxing every single business until the pips squeak.
I turn now to hospitality, which has been a focus of mine since I was elected. It underpins community life and provides work for young people and for those who rely on flexible hours. Yet the Government slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40%—an ideological and damaging decision—which will be followed by eye-watering increases in rateable values from April this year.
UKHospitality data shows that the average pub will see its business rates rise by 15% in the first year, climbing to a 76% increase by year three. At the same time, online and out-of-town competitors are being protected. Distribution warehouses used by online giants will see increases of just 9% in year one and 16% by year three. This is not a level playing field; it is actively tilted against the high street.
The Government’s so-called emergency pubs relief, announced this year, does little to address the scale of the problem. It is a sticking plaster, not a solution. Just one in 20 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will benefit, and even then the average pub will still be paying £5,700 more in business rates than before.
Business rates are simply not being reduced, and those pressures are compounded by the changes to employer national insurance contributions introduced at the 2024 Budget. For the hospitality sector alone, that amounts to £1 billion every single year. More than 774,000 hospitality workers have been dragged into employer national insurance for the first time, disproportionately affecting part-time staff such as bar workers and waiting staff. Flexible work is being punished. Young workers are being hit hardest, and employing people is becoming more expensive at precisely the wrong moment. That is not pro-growth and it is not pro-work.
VAT policy has also failed small businesses. The £90,000 VAT registration threshold actively discourages growth and creates perverse incentives for firms to cap expansion. The Government have ignored repeated calls for a reduced VAT rate of 12.5% for hospitality, a policy that would support growth, improve competitiveness and align the UK with many of our European neighbours. The refusal to act is holding back an entire sector.
The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), is chuntering from his seat. I am sure he will be able to hold his own debate at some point to tell us all what is going on in his constituency. I suspect that, if he were honest, he would tell us about the impact that his Government’s policies have had on the sector, and how they are absolutely destroying his high street, as they are mine.
These pressures are not theoretical; they are being felt by real businesses across my constituency. For example, at Birdies café in Farnham Park, business rates have increased by 450%—from £290 to £1,600 a month—a change that has already cost the business a member of staff. Energy bills have risen from £300 to £400 a month to £3,500 a month, while rising wage costs and changes to employment law have forced the owner into rolling three-month contracts—a worse outcome for workers, driven entirely by the Government’s pressure and policies. At the Bat and Ball pub, business rates are doubling from £800 to £1,600 a month. Minimum wage changes have added £56,000 a year to its wage bill.
Across my constituency, community businesses such as the Antiques Warehouse, the Packhouse, the Bluebell pub, Serina, the Six Bells, the Healy Group, and Hamilton’s in Farnham; Acorns Coffee, the Dairy, Issaya and Smallworld IT in Bordon; Oliver’s café and wine bar and Davids menswear in Haslemere; Passfield Stores in Passfield; Little Latte in Tilford; the General Wine Company and Stedman Blower in Liphook; and the Greatham Inn in Greatham have all written or spoken to me and are facing the same relentless squeeze from Government tax and regulatory decisions. These are not failing businesses; they are community anchors being priced out by this Government’s policies.
These issues are not confined to hospitality. Yesterday I met representatives of Medicines UK to discuss the impact of Government policy on suppliers of generic medicines. They raised serious concerns about the extended producer responsibility packaging tax. Packaging is obviously mandated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for safety reasons, leaving companies with little ability to reduce their tax liability. As a result, costs are either absorbed or passed directly on to the NHS and therefore the taxpayer.
Peter Fortune
I know that my hon. Friend is talking specifically about businesses and enterprises, but on that last point, the decisions taken by the Government are also impacting charitable institutions. Indeed, I have met some in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill that are having to let charitable staff go, which is having a further impact on the NHS.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One perverse outcome of the many taxes that the Government have put on is that although the NHS is, rightly, exempt from some of these tax rises, those who operate around the NHS—for example, care homes, hospices and other charitable institutions—are being hit. Even GP surgeries are being hit. This is the nonsense that we are seeing from this Government: people taking policy off the shelf from Treasury civil servants without understanding the real-world impact that it will have on businesses, the charitable sector and, in general, our constituents.
As my hon. Friend suggests, these are taxes on the NHS by another name. Extended producer responsibility sits alongside the VPAG—voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—levy, which takes 10% to 35% of NHS sales from manufacturers. If the measures are taken together, the Government are heavily taxing lifesaving medicine, often at higher rates than in comparable systems overseas, with clear implications for supply and sustainability.
In my November debate on alcohol duty—which I am sure you read in detail in Hansard, Mr Dowd—I was disappointed by the Exchequer Secretary’s dismissal of the impact of tax rises on hospitality. Since October 2024, 90,000 hospitality jobs have disappeared. If that many jobs had gone from a car plant or an oil refinery, the House would be in uproar, but because it is pubs and cafés, Ministers look the other way. That is a scandal.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The Scottish Affairs Committee is doing an inquiry into the viability of high streets. We heard from a professor at Glasgow University who specialises in the subject, and he made an extraordinarily convincing case that Amazon is basically being subsidised by the high street—that Amazon is being hugely undertaxed and the high street is being overtaxed. Would the hon. Gentleman support me in asking the Minister to look into that subject and the cost of whether it is actually killing the high street?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It would be fairer to see some equity between the online providers and the retailers that are physically on the high street and that have to pay things like business rates. I can see the Minister has heard his point and, I am sure, will respond to it; whether the hon. Gentleman will get the answer that he wants, I am less certain.
To go back to my point, because it is pubs and cafés that jobs are being lost from, Ministers look the other way, which is a scandal. I urge Treasury Ministers to review the cumulative burden placed on small and medium-sized enterprises through tax and regulation. I will take any response from the Minister today directly to the hospitality roundtable that I am hosting this Friday with publicans, restaurateurs and café owners.
I will return to where I began. The Prime Minister talks about growth, but refuses to show the backbone required to deliver it. The Government’s failure on business and enterprise is not abstract; it is written into higher taxes, lost jobs and boarded-up high streets. If Ministers continue to ignore that, we really could spend all day listing the consequences.
With the spending review now replaced by an Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, the Government have eight or perhaps nine months before the next autumn Budget. I urge them to use that time wisely. Boost business; do not blight it. Support SMEs; do not punish them, because when local businesses fail, communities pay the price.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing the debate. I believe it is the second debate of his that I have had the pleasure of responding to in Westminster Hall and I look forward to many more in my time as Exchequer Secretary. I am grateful for his contribution, and I am sure the businesses in his constituency will be grateful to him for representing them in this place; it sounds like he has a fantastic set of small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency.
On the broader point of the impact of this Government on the economy, I believe the hon. Member was being too downbeat and gloomy. We have seen six interest rate cuts since this Government took office because of the stability that we have brought back. That is bringing down borrowing costs for businesses and improving the cost of living for families up and down the country. That means hundreds if not thousands of extra pounds in their bank account rather than going on their mortgage. Economic growth has increased—we outperformed the OBR forecast by 50% last year—and wages have increased across the economy faster in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years under the Conservatives. Higher wages and better living standards for people in our communities, in his constituency and in mine, mean that there is more money to spend in the shops to support our high streets.
The hon. Member raised a range of policies. I would gently say that some of them were implemented by his Government. For example, the extended producer responsibility for packaging was, I believe, a Michael Gove initiative. The Labour party in opposition learned the lessons of rubbishing the record of a previous Labour Government, and once we stopped doing that we found ourselves re-elected because people put their trust in us. I gently suggest that the Conservatives be careful what they wish for when they criticise policies that the Conservative Government introduced.
The debate follows two Budgets in which the Government did have to ask businesses and individuals to contribute more to support our public services. But we did all we could, particularly in the last Budget, which I was closely involved with in the Treasury, to keep the contribution we were asking for as low as possible by pursuing fair reforms to our tax system that were long overdue. I am happy to go through them in detail, but I will not do so for the sake of time and because it is slightly off topic. Those changes allowed us to provide support for businesses, for example in the business rates system. The main ask of the public was keeping income tax thresholds frozen at the end of the decade for a further three years in addition to the seven years for which the Conservatives decided they would be frozen.
This Government do back and value small and medium-sized enterprises. They are at the heart of so many communities; I am sure they are at the heart of your constituency, Mr Dowd, and those of all Members in this room. We value such businesses, their contribution and the hard work and graft that the people who set them up do to grow them, to expand to multiple premises, and to hire more people. The work that they do is fantastic, really valued and vital to the culture, life and vibrancy of our high streets and communities. Sometimes these small businesses are the only business in a village or a rural community, whether it be a pub, post office or café. We know how important they are to rural and coastal communities.
Mr Angus MacDonald
I have spent a great deal of my life looking at small businesses. There are 4.1 million sole traders or self-employed people in the UK and that £90,000 VAT restriction is a block on building businesses. Were it increased to, say, £250,000 and 10% of those businesses employed people, that would mean 400,000 youngsters in work, and the modelling that I have done shows that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would get a lot more money. I would be delighted to go through it with the Minister. If we want real growth from UK micro-organisations, I would really appreciate a chance to meet him to discuss this.
Dan Tomlinson
We do have one of the highest VAT thresholds among large economies in Europe and of course the Government keep all tax policy thresholds, rates and so on under review. I would be interested in the analysis that the hon. Member has carried out, though my understanding is that significantly increasing the threshold would not be revenue generating but would cost revenue for the Exchequer.
This goes to a point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon raised. He suggested that we should almost halve the rate of VAT for some businesses. The challenge and trade-offs that we must grapple with in government are not grappled with by those who want to see such significant cuts to VAT, because we have to make sure we maintain revenue to fund the NHS in the hon Member’s constituency, and fund local councils to fill in the potholes and provide the social care that constituents need.
Mr MacDonald
I met the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales this morning and am meeting the Federation of Small Businesses later. We have done all the modelling and I assure the Minister that our numbers are being checked out by all the experts. I think that the Government might be missing a trick on this one.
Dan Tomlinson
I am always happy to receive representations from Members on both sides of the House. I will look out for correspondence from the hon. Member in my very large weekend correspondence box, which I always enjoy on a Sunday evening.
Rachael Maskell
It might not have filtered through, but I have written to the Chancellor on behalf of many Labour MPs regarding concerns about small businesses and the fact that many of them will not receive the vital support that they need. They are very fearful of what is going to happen in just eight weeks’ time. Will the Minister look particularly at small businesses, which are not getting the relief and support that they need, and ensure that we are able to mitigate some of that? These businesses form a vital part of the whole economic ecosystem. If they are not growing and are instead shrinking then that will have an impact on our whole economy.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the representation that she provides in this place for the small businesses in her constituency—it is a wonderful part of the world. If my team have not been in touch already today, I am hoping that we can find time to meet next week for a conversation. I know that this issue is one that is really important to her. York is a fantastic, vibrant and growing part of our economy. I expect that some of what is happening here is that the businesses in her constituency have seen their values increase by more than others in parts of the country that have not been doing as well. That is why the Government have provided a range of support for businesses. I look forward to talking about that with her in the coming days.
We are fast running out of time, so let me turn to the topic of business rates, which Members have raised. It is worth noting that we are implementing significant reforms to the system. On the point around large online retailers, as far as I am aware, throughout the whole history of the business rates system—including the 14 years under the previous Government—the multiplier, otherwise known as the tax rate, for large online giants was exactly the same as that paid by a typical business on the high street. As part of fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reform the business rates system, we have introduced a really significant wedge into it: the multiplier for large online giants and their warehouses is now 33% higher than for a high street business.
I am aware, and we have had lots of discussions about it in this place, that that reform—the significant underlying reform to the business rates system—has happened at the same time as the revaluations since the pandemic have come into place, and at the same time as the Government have chosen to unwind, slowly and with significant transitional reliefs, the temporary pandemic support. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.
When the Conservatives stood for re-election, the OBR forecasts did not earmark any funding whatsoever for continued support within the business rates system for our high streets. The Conservatives say now that they would not have stuck with those plans, but had they done so—and they are the plans that they presented to the country before the election—the relief would have ended overnight in 2025.
Dan Tomlinson
Yes, and we extended the relief by a year, at a lower rate, and now, rather than ending it overnight, we have introduced significant transitional relief, so many of the businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency will see their increases, if they experience increases, being capped at 15%.
Overall, across the system as a whole more than half of businesses are either seeing their bills flat-falling or staying at zero, and this tax change—this 33% wedge that has been introduced to the system—is, in effect, a transfer of almost £1 billion in business rate liabilities away from the high street and towards the largest businesses, which have properties worth £500,000 or more. This transfer will benefit 750,000 smaller properties on our high streets.
Pubs have also been mentioned. We saw 7,000 pubs close over the 14 years between 2010 and 2024. I am aware that pubs, and indeed all hospitality businesses, experienced challenges, particularly in 2022 when inflation surged to 11% as energy costs went up. To be clear, that was in large part a result of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the impact it had on the global economy, but inflation did rise significantly, which impacted individuals and their bank balances. The Government understand that times are tough for businesses on the high street, in part because of that legacy.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon mentioned some statistics about pubs that are now out of date because of the change that was introduced last year; the 76% increase is not going to happen any more. In fact, three quarters of pubs, live music venues and other businesses affected by the changes that were announced last week—
Dan Tomlinson
Three quarters will see their business rates fall or stay the same this year. Then, those rates will be frozen for two years. The crucial point, which relates to whether it is delayed or not, is that we are launching a review of the methodology that is used to assess pubs. I am sure that this issue will have come up in the roundtable on business rates organised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) with businesses in her constituency, and in the engagement that other Members have with businesses in their constituencies.
Pubs are valued in a relatively distinct way: their takings are used to assess their value, rather than their floor space. That can be quite opaque for pubs. It can also mean that increases in their business rates can appear to be the result of higher takings but really just reflect underlying increases in higher costs, so they can feel like they are running to stand still. We will therefore look closely at the methodology used to value pubs, and hotels, and I hope that we can find a long-term—indeed, permanent—solution in time for the next revaluation, which will come in 2029, as planned.
I will respond briefly to the point that was made about the increase from £800 to £1,600. I urge the hon. Member to check with the particular pub that he mentioned, but I assume it will be the case—each business is different, and I should not comment on individual businesses precisely—that the 15% relief will probably apply there too now, so there should not be a further £800 increase. I note, of course, that there is an increase for that business, as he set out.
We are also publishing a high streets strategy. We will work on that in the coming months and it will be a cross-Government effort. Yes, the Treasury will be involved, but so will Departments such as the Home Office, so that we can support businesses that are struggling with shoplifting. We will also work with the Department for Business and Trade, and with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
I hope that I have responded to a range of points that were made in the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to it. In the coming months, in my role as Exchequer Secretary I will of course continue to engage with businesses—small and large—on the important points that have been raised today, to see what more the Government can do to support them as they seek to grow, to support employment in their communities, and to support the life and vibrancy of our high streets and town centres.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I assure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that I read his parliamentary contributions assiduously, side by side with the Labour manifesto—so there.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport in the South-East
(1 day, 7 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
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport in the south-east.
It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the many hon. Members here who hope to raise transport concerns with the Minister. I know from my experience that transport issues take up a significant proportion of our casework and inboxes. I also thank the constituents who have been in touch with me about transport since the election, particularly in the past few days when I was preparing for this debate.
How we move around our communities affects everybody. It is one of the most regular issues that comes up on doorsteps in and around Chichester. When done correctly, transport systems make people’s lives easier and support thriving local economies. When done badly, it is a noose around the neck of an area that has so much to offer. The south-east has much to be proud of with some impressive pieces of transport infrastructure, vital not only to our communities but to the nation more widely, whether it is the beautiful Ouse valley viaduct, our strategically important airports, the channel tunnel or the admittedly long overdue but now incredibly satisfying M25/A3 junction. I had the pleasure of driving through there at the weekend and enjoyed it immensely.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. As she may know, I have long championed the western rail link to Heathrow, which would enable speedy and sustainable surface access for the good people of the south-east—indeed, 20% of the UK population—without the need to go in and then out of London, getting people out of their cars. Does the hon. Member agree that, given that the Government prioritise investment in infrastructure, they should finally commit to that link, because it is the perfect example of a project that would deliver for people, the environment and the economy?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that he is much closer to the Government than I am and has a brilliant opportunity to have his concerns heard by the Minister. He is right to raise the nonsense of having to go in and then out of London to reach vital pieces of infrastructure.
I am sure many hon. Members across the House will wax lyrical about their transport woes today, but it will come as no surprise that the focus of my contribution will be the impact that poor transport infrastructure has on my constituency. The Minister knows that the A27 is one of the busiest trunk roads in the UK and the main arterial route for those travelling down to the coast all the way from Wiltshire in the west to East Sussex.
Months ago, I invited the Transport Secretary during Transport questions, to come and sit in traffic with me, and I have no idea why she declined. My point was that it did not matter when she came—what time of day or day of the week—I could guarantee we would be caught in congestion. The Transport Secretary did offer me a meeting with the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). I am grateful to him for sitting down with me so that I could explain the issue in more detail. If I were to pull up Apple Maps or Google Maps at this exact moment, there will almost certainly be a red ring round my city with traffic at a standstill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I find myself in a similar, frustrating circumstance to the one she indicates. In my case, it is the proposed Ballynahinch bypass, which would breathe new life into the town. Like the project mentioned by hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), it has been postponed repeatedly since I was first elected in 2010. Does the hon. Lady agree that infrastructure projects, such as she seeks for her constituency, will have major local effects, boost the economy, clear up long waits in traffic and create jobs? They must never be relegated to a dusty shelf where they have clearly been for the last few years.
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech in advance. I will go on to a lot of the things he has just raised. If it is bad today in my constituency, it is hard to imagine how much worse it is on a sunny day, when tourists for the Witterings queue for miles to reach our lovely sandy beach or Goodwood hosts an event that attracts visitors in their thousands.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about coastal roads. The A379, a glorious coastal road in my constituency, had already been damaged by storms in January, but last night huge chunks of it were literally washed into the sea. It is absolutely devastating, and I was shocked to be told by officials at the Department for Transport this morning that there is no national emergency fund for repairs to roads damaged by storms. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we see more intense and frequent storms caused by climate change, the Government need to ensure that they have funding ready to support communities like those around Torcross in South Devon that have been devastated by this damage?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend has shown me the photos of what has happened in her constituency, and I share her distress that a main road—an A road—has literally fallen into the sea. Our constituencies share the fact that we are low-lying coastal plains at the forefront of climate change. As we see more storm events, we are seeing the damage in our communities.
That brings me on to paying particular tribute to my residents living on the Manhood peninsula, who get completely trapped in the summer months because of congestion on the roads and are unable to get out of the area. Today, they are trapped because all the roads in and out of the Manhood are completely flooded. Georgia, a constituent of mine, left her job as a nurse because her commute was taking two hours, with one hour spent travelling just the handful of miles from Emsworth to Tangmere. Chris’s son has school transport, and has to leave an hour before school starts due to the traffic on the A259 on to the A27; again, he is only travelling a small number of miles.
Melanie is planning on packing up her successful mental health business because the gridlock is, perhaps ironically, negatively affecting her mental health. Shaun owns a funeral company, and he told me of the time he had to get out of the hearse to physically clear the traffic to get to the local crematorium on time. Daniel owns a home carers company, and he regularly reports that staff get stuck on the A27, which means that the people they care for in the community miss medicine times and hospital appointments, and the backlog means that people get seen later and later in the day.
I am in no doubt that the congestion on the A27 is strangling the city and putting off investment from businesses. It is stopping people shopping in the city or business parks and is impacting people’s daily lives. The A27 Chichester improvement scheme has a long history dating back to the 2000 south coast multi-modal study. Following several iterations, the scheme was included in the 2013 “Investing in Britain’s Future” White Paper and the 2014 road investment strategy. The scheme went to consultation in 2016, when 93% of respondents to a National Highways survey said that congestion was a problem on the A27.
However, in 2017 the Secretary of State removed the funding for any improvements along the Chichester stretch. There remains significant anger and frustration among residents that they were never given the opportunity to vote on a preferred model of road improvements, especially as the Chichester district has seen more than its fair share of house building over the past decade. If the Government expect areas such as ours to continue to sustain such an increased level of development, residents need to see the investment in infrastructure too. Instead, it seems that their local services, be it GPs, schools, roads or buses, are expected to manage the additional capacity with no extra resource.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for securing the debate and for the great speech she is making. She mentioned the role of buses. There tends to be an assumption made by people outside the south-east that we all have bus networks similar to those in London, but they would not have to go very far from London—to my constituency of Dartford, for instance—to find that the bus services become extremely limited, yet bus services can be such a driver of a better quality of life for people in getting to education and work or accessing other opportunities. Does the hon. Member agree that the extra money that the Government have given to county councils—in my instance, Kent county council has been given an extra £42 million to spend in the coming year on improved bus services—must be spent to provide better connectivity for all our residents, irrespective of whether they are in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire or other parts of the south-east?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
That intervention tested my legendary patience to its very limits, so just bear that in mind in the future.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention; he is right to mention that county councils should be using that money effectively to ensure that people across the constituencies that we represent can get to the places they need to. That is certainly not the case in my constituency, especially in more rural villages and hamlets.
Dr Chambers
It will be. In the rural villages in my constituency such as Colden Common, people rely on the bus service to maintain their independence. If the bus service goes, they cannot get to hospital appointments and they cannot stay in the house they may have lived in for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more than just an economic impact to having good transport; it actually allows people to live a full and independent life without relying on care?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Dr Chambers is showing how interventions should be done.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he allows me the opportunity to thank organisations that offer community transport, such as the Selsey Venture Club in my constituency or Contact 88, which help people get to the places they need to go when transport infrastructure is lacking.
I have met representatives of National Highways on multiple occasions since being elected, and I know that the original proposals for the A27 still exist in a drawer somewhere ready to be brought back to the table to address a road that does not function and remains in the top 10 nationally for casualties. National Highways has agreed to fund a study into the Fishbourne roundabout, which desperately needs addressing. That is due to report in the spring and I hope the Government will be forthcoming with funding for the proposed improvements, as it is such a dangerous roundabout. I am one of many who have nearly been involved in an accident on that roundabout and I fear there will be a fatality before long.
The A27 Chichester bypass remains part of a future road investment scheme and the Roads Minister has met me to hear my plea to fund its improvement. It would be great if the Minister here today could provide reassurance that funding will be attached to the A27 for that future road investment scheme—something all my constituents will be desperate to hear. If she is unable to commit to the level of funding required, will she please meet me and National Highways to explore alternative schemes to address how people move around in my area?
The Government are keen to get more people on to public transport to reduce reliance on cars in particular, but the increase in fares from £2 to £3 has had a significant impact on constituents who are trying to do just that. Cristina’s children get the bus to school every day. She encourages public transport, but the cost is £26 for a seven-day child pass and the young people do not always get a seat—it is totally unacceptable. If Cristina chooses to take her three children into the city for the day, the cheapest option is a DayRider. That costs her £17 for two bus journeys that last approximately 10 minutes each way. All this makes travelling by car by far the easier and more sensible option. That is why we are calling for the reinstatement of the £2 bus fare cap and for fees to be halved for under-18s.
At the same time, bus routes are being amended to cover new housing developments without any additional services being added, so routes take longer than they did and cost more—a perfect cocktail to disincentivise bus use. What steps are the Government taking to encourage more people to use buses and to ensure that in places with major developments, such as Chichester, adequate work is being undertaken to make sure that bus services for current residents are not affected? Importantly, what steps are they taking to make sure that public transport is a material consideration on new developments, rather than an afterthought?
There are some great examples of active travel in my patch, particularly making the most of the disused railway lines along the Centurion Way into the South Downs. The issue that councils such as West Sussex county council face is that funding for those schemes is often linked to performance-related measures set by Active Travel England. That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, with councils that are already delivering good provision being rewarded and provided with further funds, while those that struggle being left behind. Can the Minister say if the criteria linked to funding for active travel schemes will be reviewed by the Government so that areas like mine are not left behind with poor infrastructure because the county council has historically struggled to deliver them? There should not be a postcode lottery in active travel provision, and projects to create cycle lanes and footpaths take far too long from the ideas phase to the delivery phase.
I will briefly touch on rail. Chichester is not endowed with services that are quick, punctual and affordable. Last year, one in five Southern Railway trains arrived in Chichester late, despite an annual season ticket to London costing nearly £8,000. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a freeze in rail fares, so we were glad to see the Government provide that last year, but my residents are still paying well over the odds for the service that they receive, which is severely lacking. The service to London is dreadfully slow relative to services from cities that are similar to ours and at a comparable distance. That is partly due to infrastructure issues that have been ignored for years, such as the Croydon bottleneck, where the Arun Valley line joins the Brighton main line. Network Rail has said that that causes a ripple effect of delays across the system, prevents future expansion of the line and creates delays across the entire network when there is a failure in service much further up the line. It does not go down well in my constituency when people ask, “Why are there delays in Chichester?”, and I say, “Oh, because of something happening in Croydon.”
It is disappointing that there has not been a commitment to the relevant scheme, despite widespread campaigning by Members from across the House. Reliable services are vital if passengers are to see value for money and the benefits of choosing rail, but that is not currently being offered by Southern Railway. When the Government bring Southern Railway into public ownership, will they commit to reviewing a fast service for residents in Chichester and reconsider rail investment to deal with the Croydon bottleneck?
I hope the Minister has heard my plea today on behalf of my 120,000 constituents in the Chichester area and the south-east region, because they do not ask for much. They are playing their part in the Government’s growth agenda and seeing large-scale development in their area. All they ask is to move around their community safely and easily, which is becoming less of a reality every day. I do not expect a magic money pot to appear suddenly, or even in advance of the next funding round of the road investment scheme, but I do expect fairness. I hope that, when those decisions are being made, the Minister will remember that the previous Government promised something to my constituents and then took it away. That is simply not fair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob, although I can see that they know that already.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this very important debate. It would not be a debate about transport in our region if I did not use it to mention international rail services returning to Ashford International station. Last month was the 30th anniversary of the first ever international service calling at the station. For nearly a quarter of a century, daily services operated between the station and continental Europe, making it a vital link for residents and businesses in Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east to get to mainland Europe. Ashford was developed as an international hub, and its connectivity was a key factor in attracting businesses to my constituency and the wider area. However, during the covid pandemic, the decision was taken to suspend services to and from Ashford, and they have not restarted, despite the fact that they continue to pass through our station.
To mark the anniversary of the first service calling at Ashford International, I was delighted to join other local MPs, council leaders, business people and other local residents at the station in the latest part of our campaign to restore international services. The return of international services is much more than a transport issue. It is central to maximising our region’s economic potential and would be a major boost for jobs, businesses and economic growth. I know that the Government recognise that, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister, the Transport Secretary and the Rail Minister have all given their support to our campaign. The demand and support for international services are there, so I once again urge all operators that want to run services between the UK and continental Europe to work with local MPs, councillors, business representatives, the Government and other stakeholders, so that as soon as possible we can make Ashford International an international station again.
The perception is that because of our region’s close proximity to London, the south-east is prosperous and uniformly well off, but large parts of our region were forgotten about or ignored by the Conservatives when they were in power. The poor transport connectivity in the rural parts of my constituency is a good example of this. Poor connectivity contributes to economic underperformance by restricting access to jobs and causing increased reliance on private cars. That obviously has a disproportionate impact on those who do not have access to a car, such as young people, elderly residents, the disabled and those from lower-income households, especially in rural areas such as Hawkinge and the surrounding villages. Poor transport connectivity not only limits those people’s access to work opportunities, but impacts their ability to attend healthcare appointments or access local amenities.
That is why I have been prioritising the need for improved bus services across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. I recently had a good meeting with Stagecoach, which operates bus services locally. I was delighted to see the Government allocate £78.2 million in bus services funding in Kent over the next three years. The short-term funding cycle that has been in place until now has made it difficult for local authorities to make medium to long-term decisions about local transport infrastructure. It is good news that Kent county council can make funding decisions to give all my constituents an improved and more reliable bus service in both urban and rural areas.
One other area of transport infrastructure that Kent county council needs to act on is to urgently do more to deliver road improvements for residents. Potholes have been a blight on the roads in my constituency for far too long: they are another symbol of how the previous Government left things to decline. My constituents deserve to have road infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century, and I welcome that Kent county council has been allocated more than £274 million over the next three years. That record investment from the Labour Government gives KCC the long-term certainty it needs to save drivers in my constituency money on repairs to their cars and to make our roads safer.
I was concerned that, in the recently published ratings on how local authorities are maintaining their local roads, Kent county council received an amber rating. My constituents know that our roads need improving, and that rating confirms that the Reform administration at Kent county council has not delivered on my constituents’ needs.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about Hampshire county council’s amber rating? My constituents are extremely concerned about the money that repairs and accidents are costing them, and the traffic caused by this huge pothole problem. Like Kent county council, Hampshire also has an amber rating; is it not time that they used the extra money provided by the Labour Government to get on and fix potholes as a priority for our constituents?
Sojan Joseph
I was really pleased that our Government brought in the rating system so that we can hold local authorities accountable. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
Since being elected, I have written on multiple occasions to the Reform administration at KCC, as well as to their Conservative predecessors, to ask that they take the issue of our local roads seriously and do the necessary work to fix them. It is clear from the road maintenance ratings that despite record funding from the Labour Government, they have so far failed to do so. My constituents expect and deserve better, and I look forward to seeing tangible improvements.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. I can vouch for everything she said about the ring road around Chichester, which I have spent more hours on than I would rather. I agree that it has an impact on the commercial health of the city—it is off-putting to go anywhere in that direction. I was formerly a county councillor serving in Chichester, so I had to go there many times.
I also echo what my hon. Friend said about the pressure of new house building; in Horsham we also have many new estates. The section 106 funding goes towards roads within the estate or access roads, but it does not remedy deficiencies in the network as a whole—that is not what it was designed to do, and it does not do it. We have more and more housing going up along the same roads. In Horsham we have one dual carriageway running north to south, and that is pretty much it. The A29 is single-track and is severely overloaded already—and it will only get worse. I empathise with all the things my hon. Friend said. Horsham is also impacted by the Croydon bottleneck that she referred to. We suffer from delayed and cancelled trains as well, so I thank her for raising that issue.
I want to concentrate mainly on public transport, particularly buses. In my time on the council I was on the transport committee, so that is an area I campaigned on in the past. I know the severe pressures of budgets, so what I am suggesting to the Minister is looking at a number of budgets to do with public transport and possibly combining them.
The home-to-school transport budget in West Sussex has grown by over 100% in recent years, and the Government’s decision to un-ringfence funding and increase the distance cap from 20 to 50 miles is a welcome recognition that existing rules simply did not allow councils to meet their statutory duties. That particularly applies to special educational needs and disabilities pupils. In West Sussex, around £33 million is now allocated for home-to-school transport. The vast majority of that is on SEND provision and it is ballooning. At present, 63% of pupils are travelling via private taxi or minibus services rather than the West Sussex county council internal fleet. That fleet currently includes over 500 vehicles and represents a long-term investment by the council. It supports not just home-to-school transport but adult social care and transport for older residents.
I fully recognise that many SEND pupils do require individualised transport to meet their needs but, wherever possible, we should look at whether that could be delivered through internal fleets rather than outsourced contracts. Reliance on private providers brings higher costs, hidden inefficiencies and less resilience, while direct investment allows councils to build capacity and plan for the long term. In the meantime, however, we cannot ignore the pressure facing those private providers that are keeping SEND transport running. Providers in Horsham have raised serious concerns with me about the impact of national insurance contribution rises on their running costs. Some are questioning whether they can continue to offer these vital services at all.
Andy Mahoney, chair of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association’s SEND Transport Operators Group—that is some acronym—has been clear about the risk. The increase in employer national insurance will substantially raise costs for SEND transport operators, pushing already tight contracts into loss. If providers are forced to walk away, local authorities will be left struggling to meet their statutory obligations. The industry has calculated that a ringfenced emergency SEND transport grant of around £40m for 2025-26 would cover the shortfall across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is a modest sum when set against the disruption that would be caused if services collapse. The Government’s claim that the £515 million announced to offset NI rises for councils will address this issue simply does not hold, because that does nothing to address indirect costs passed on by private suppliers. That is why the Government should look at exempting smaller vehicles—those with fewer than 10 seats—from VAT when they are used for transport provision. Removing VAT would lower costs for providers, reduce pressure on council budgets and support more flexible, community-based provision. Cost saving is vital in the context of stretched local government finances.
The national Government already recognise remoteness as a factor in adult social care funding and they must do the same across other funding streams. County councils face an uphill battle otherwise, with County Councils Network estimates suggesting that 98p of every pound will be funded by residents rather than by central Government, compared to just 58p in metropolitan areas.
Rural bus services in Horsham have faced significant challenges in recent years. In particular I have raised concerns both locally and in Westminster on behalf of residents in Slinfold and Partridge Green many times. The No. 63 and No. 17 bus services, which serve those villages, have both faced damaging cuts. In Slinfold, residents like Lynne relied on the No. 63 bus to access Horsham town centre and the rail network. Good public transport links were a key reason for moving to the village in the first place. That service has been rerouted and no longer serves the village at all. In Partridge Green, residents have raised concerns for years about declining services and their ability to reach essential destinations. The removal of direct services to Horsham has cut people off from health services, the high street and basic utilities. Students no longer have a bus taking them to school or college, undermining access to education. Workers cannot commute between villages in Horsham, limiting employment opportunities. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, and that is one of the things we are looking at. It is a major reason why rural areas have lower productivity rates than urban areas, and it could be reversed.
At the Horsham District older people’s forum last year, one gentleman told me that the only way he could reach appointments in Horsham from Partridge Green was to walk over a mile to the neighbouring village on his crutches. What is most shocking in Horsham is that recent service cuts were made without consultation. Villages were given little or no warning. Community campaigns were strong, passionate and well organised, but of course the decision had already been made before anybody knew it was even being discussed.
The bus operator, Stagecoach, told us that there is no formal requirement to consult residents and that, where changes are driven by commercial necessity, consultation does not normally take place. However, there is nothing to stop West Sussex county council from consulting, particularly where amendments would result in the complete loss of a service for the community. Other county councils do that. That is why I tabled an amendment to the recent Bus Services Act 2025 to make consultation compulsory, and I regret that it was rejected by the Government—not least because residents, given the opportunity, can come up with alternative solutions that would work better for everyone.
This is part of a wider national picture. Back in 2012, only 59% of rural households had a bus stop within a 13-minute walk that had an hourly service. Since then, councils have been forced to make deep cuts, in some cases losing up to 43% of funding. Nationally, bus service provision has fallen by 28%. With economic inactivity almost 2.5% higher in rural areas, ensuring access to education and employment through public transport must be a priority. The Liberal Democrats are clear about what needs to happen. We want simpler funding streams for councils, a return to the £2 bus fare cap and the removal of VAT on smaller public transport vehicles. We need to look at co-ordinating all local transport needs and budgets, including schools, SEND, buses and community transport services. Yes, money is tight, but we can make the same money work harder.
Local councils face huge challenges. We must reduce reliance on private transport providers over time through sustained investment in internal fleets, but in the short term, we also need to work with private providers, offering tax relief where possible, and supporting them so they can continue to operate. We have to reverse the slow death of rural transport services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
If Members speak for about six minutes each, everyone will get in. I am going to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.30 pm, so Members should work on that basis.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
My speech is significantly shorter than six minutes, so we should be good. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing us a debate that is really timely, particularly at this time of year, because I am going to focus my remarks on potholes.
In my constituency of Mid Sussex, potholes are a daily hazard. They make journeys unpleasant and dangerous, they damage vehicles and they are a symbol of a road network that has been allowed to crumble for far too long. One constituent wrote to me that after walking their dog in the pouring rain recently, a car hit a water-filled pothole at speed and they were sprayed not just with filthy water but with shards of broken road surface. They told me,
“our roads are dangerous—simply because they are not being looked after properly”.
Another constituent described how a pothole had burst their stepson’s tyre, leaving him more than £120 out of pocket through no fault of his own. West Sussex county council acknowledged that it knew about the pothole— it even repaired it—but the claim was rejected because the inspection time limit had technically been reached. As the constituent put it,
“how can this be right that hard-working people suffer, through no fault of their own?”
That question goes to the heart of this issue. Families in Mid Sussex pay road tax, council tax and income tax. They should not be left footing the bill for damage caused by neglected infrastructure, nor should pedestrians, cyclists or drivers feel unsafe on roads that are meant to connect our communities and support our local economy. The problem is only getting worse. Burgess Hill and the surrounding villages are seeing significant new housing, yet road maintenance has not kept pace. People are rightly asking, “How will our failing roads cope with thousands more vehicles?” We need more houses, but much like our water system, we need to know that we have the infrastructure to support them first. Under the former Conservative Government, our transport system was neglected; up and down the country, families and businesses are paying more for less, and semi-rural communities across Mid Sussex can see that the roads they rely on are neglected and left to crumble.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that transport links are essential for our economy, for getting to work or school, for leisure and for exercise, which is why we campaigned in the general election for funding to fix 1.2 million potholes every year, and for long-term investment to stop the endless cycle of patch and repair. We welcome the Government’s £7.3 billion commitment in November’s Budget, but funding must be based on need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) said last year, too many councils with the worst roads are receiving less funding than those with roads that are already in better condition. That simply makes no sense.
In Mid Sussex, we want safe roads, fair compensation when things go wrong and a transport system that works. I do not think that is unreasonable. Banging on about potholes is sometimes described as being peak Lib Dem, but it matters to folk every day and it is critical to safety and to our economy. I know that I and my colleagues will keep being peak Lib Dem by fighting until our roads are brought back to the standard that the public deserve.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for bringing forward this important debate. As a fellow A27-suffering MP, I can attest to the constant traffic problems around Chichester, and I will touch on the impact they have on my constituency.
Over in East Sussex, transport is not a peripheral concern but the backbone of how communities earn a living, how people get to work, and how rural and coastal towns stay connected to the rest of the country. Right now, in a number of places in my constituency, that backbone is cracking. The A259 is the principal coastal route through East Sussex; it links Seaford to Eastbourne, serves Newhaven port, home of the excellent and valued daily ferry service to Dieppe, and connects two of the country’s key growth areas. It is an economic artery and it is under serious pressure.
The most serious bottleneck is the Exceat bridge. This is a single-lane bridge originally built in 1870, and it has been a known problem for years. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State confirmed the compulsory purchase order in October 2025, and that construction of a new two-lane replacement is planned to begin in the spring of 2026.
I will, however, be frank—the disruption that the work will cause will be very significant. The advisory diversions run through villages such as Litlington or Friston—with narrow lanes not designed for through traffic—and will be enormous. The official diversion is via the A27, but that is not credible. Particularly when traffic congestion reaches peak levels on the A27, traffic will divert through our small country lanes. We need a credible mitigation plan alongside a credible timetable, not one or the other.
Beyond the A259, the condition of East Sussex county council’s roads is a genuine concern. I do not want to get all peak Lib Dem here, but I hear constantly about potholes across my constituency, whether on some of our bigger roads or the C7 small road that stretches between Lewes and Newhaven, which is in a shocking condition, to the extent where it lost some of its surface during recent flooding.
Potholes, poor surfaces and patches that wash out within weeks of being laid all cost drivers money in vehicle damage and slow journeys, and on narrower roads create real safety risks, particularly when verges start to collapse, narrowing already narrow country lanes. Between 2022 and 2024, East Sussex county council paid out nearly £600,000 for vehicle damage caused by potholes. That cannot be a good use of taxpayers’ money.
I also note that the county council elections in East Sussex, originally due in May 2025, have now been postponed for a second year. The effect is that voters have not had the chance to hold their county councillors to account at the ballot box for over two years. Councillors serving seven-year terms is not democratic. On road maintenance—squarely a county council responsibility on almost all our roads—that matters.
I now turn to the A27, and I will be direct because lives are at stake. Just last week, on 28 January, a man was killed in a collision on the A27 near Falmer. Last September, an 18-year-old man died in a fatal crash near Wilmington. These are not isolated incidents; the A27 through this corridor sees frequent serious accidents, and the pattern is well established. I have spoken to Sussex police requesting a full breakdown of accident data on that stretch. I ask the Minister, does National Highways have a current safety review there, and if so, what is its timeline? Does the Minister plan to review the current up-to-two-year wait time for reports to be provided to National Highways following an incident by the police, which is causing a major lag in safety improvements, particularly where traffic conditions change—not least as they are affected by things such as housing developments? This delay creates a significant gap in the crucial data needed for road user safety.
That brings me to the issue of rail services, or lack thereof. There is currently no direct train from Seaford, the largest town in my constituency, to London. Every commuter, student or business traveller must change, typically at Lewes or Brighton. For a town of Seaford’s size, that is a significant barrier. I recently heard from a woman who lives in Seaford and works in London, like many of my constituents. She used to be able to get a direct train to Victoria station. However, that service was removed during covid and has still not been reinstated six years on. It can easily take three hours to get to London, due to delays and tight connections at Lewes. She told me that her colleagues in Manchester find it quicker and easier to get to their office than she does. That is unacceptable, and lets my constituents down on a daily basis. The Seaford to Victoria direct service must be reinstated immediately. Over time, this kind of friction drives people and businesses elsewhere. I ask the Minister to engage with Govia Thameslink Railway and Great British Railways as it develops, to make the case for a direct service.
I turn now to one of the most persistent issues during my time as an MP so far—parking in Polegate. The deeper problem is enforcement: Wealden district council has never decriminalised parking, so responsibility falls to Sussex police, who, understandably, have other priorities. The result is that pavement parking goes unchecked. That means that wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs are forced into the roads, pavements are damaged and the town centre feels less acceptable and less welcoming. That impinges on businesses and other road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians.
Scotland and Northern Ireland have acted on this issue and Wales is moving, but England is stuck in limbo. I would welcome engagement from the Department for Transport on a deliverable plan for Polegate that includes clear signage and ticketing, sensible resident permits and proper local enforcement powers, because pavements are for people, not vehicles. Key to reducing traffic and congestion is getting people out of their cars and on to public transport. However, so often public transport is too expensive. That brings me on to buses.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
My constituents have got in touch about a significant fare increase that they are experiencing with Southern Railway. The Leatherhead to London Victoria single fare at 8.51 am has increased 39.4% from £12.70 to £17.70. That is because of the introduction of contactless by Transport for London, who determine prices for peak and off-peak trains differently. Does my hon Friend agree that such discrepancy over pricing erodes confidence in our railways and undermines Labour’s plans to make rail more affordable?
James MacCleary
Pricing is one of the biggest barriers to people using the railways. If we want people to use the railways and move out of their vehicles then we have to make it affordable for them. Speaking specifically about buses, for many families in my constituency they are not a lifestyle choice—they are the only way that a child can get to school or college. Yet, from Monday 16 February, East Sussex county council will increase the under-19 freedom weekly ticket from £15 to £20—a one-third hike in one go. For parents already juggling the cost of living, that is not a marginal change: it is the difference between a young person getting the bus and being priced off of it.
Affordability is only half the problem. Too often, the network is unreliable and poorly designed. That is why I have been campaigning for a direct bus from Eastbourne to Lewes along the A27.
None of this is a luxury. Rural and coastal communities cannot be treated as an afterthought in transport planning. Too often, the south-east has been neglected and forgotten when planning or improving transport infrastructure. In the Chancellor’s first Budget, every single major transport project in Sussex was cancelled. After London, the south-east is the most densely populated area of the country and its biggest economic driver. However, as we frequently get grouped together with London—who are rightly allotted a comparatively large amount of funding—our figure is augmented, and the south-east rarely gets the funding that we so desperately need.
The A259 is, unfortunately, a perfect example for the south-east as an overcrowded region with insufficient infrastructure. There is a clear plan to improve it, but the Government have so far declined to release the funding, so it remains a disaster. The Minister kindly met with me on the issue of the A259 after I met with the Prime Minister, and maybe she will have some good news for me today. Who knows?
Poor roads isolate people, unreliable rail makes it harder to keep and get a job, and unsafe roads cost lives. These are matters of public safety and economic fairness. I want to finish by extending an invitation to the Minister and her colleagues to come and visit my constituency. It is a very typical example of the transport challenges in the whole of the south-east—a primarily rural constituency with small and medium-sized towns and a collection of villages. There are lanes, railways and an international ferry service, and we are within striking distance of Gatwick airport; yet we remain poorly connected and served, and it is holding back growth in our area.
If the Minister comes by train, she will experience at first hand the joys of a journey that is too often overcrowded and sets back Lewes commuters nearly £6,000 a year for a season ticket. However, if she prefers to come in the ministerial car, she will meet the potholes soon enough.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), not only for securing this debate but for the clarity with which she articulated the case for transport improvements across different modes, including both infrastructure and operational improvements.
I will focus on one particular infrastructure issue: CARS. Not the cars that the former Roads Minister is used to, but the Croydon area remodelling scheme—a train infrastructure project, as I am sure she will know. This is one of the most important commuter corridor projects not only in the south-east but in the whole country. It is a Network Rail-backed plan that is designed to add capacity, modernise a couple of key stations, improve track and signalling, and unclog the Croydon bottleneck, as was mentioned earlier.
What does that mean? Well, it centres on the so-called Selhurst triangle, in which so many trains running through to the south of England get caught up. Its inefficient layout bungs up the whole line, particularly for those who rely on the Brighton main line, but it also has a knock-on effect on other lines because trains are not able to get to stations on time, operators cannot get their stock back, and so on. This small bottleneck, with a radius of a couple of miles, causes cancellations, reduces frequency and leads to poor punctuality and slower journey times right across the south-east of England. When we think of what the Government are trying to do with their growth plan, and particularly things such as Gatwick airport expansion, it makes no sense not to invest in a project like CARS.
This needs to be put in context, because some of the infrastructure projects across the country that have been committed to cost tens of billions of pounds. We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds to get CARS off the ground and through phase 1, with a total lifetime project cost in the low billions. I know that will sound a lot to many people, but in the realm of infrastructure, this is really good value for money.
CARS has been raised for years as a project that should be invested in, and the last debate in the House was an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons)—not to be confused with East Croydon station—in which she made an extremely strong case, just ahead of the spending review, but we saw nothing about it in that spending review.
When I think of the opportunities that the scheme would unlock, I have to wonder why it has not been chosen. On its merits, it should be pursued. I think the Government have not invested in the project because, like the last Government, they have a strange aversion to investment in London and the south-east. I understand that there are deep regional inequalities in this country that need to be addressed, and we all recognise that there has been severe under-investment in other parts of the country.
However, the political consensus in recent years has been to pit the regions against each other, and almost to neglect investment in the south-east and London at the expense of projects elsewhere—not because of the basis of those projects, but because it is politically convenient to do so. I think the Government need to look again at which projects can deliver maximum value, to ensure that we are not making the regions race against each other by selecting each project on its merits.
I have already explained how investment in this small area around Croydon would provide benefits across the south-east of England, but we would be naive not to think that it would also create benefits right across the country. Where would the suppliers come from? The project would create jobs and business revenue for companies across the country, and that is only the direct effect. It does not include the indirect effects from improving the commuter experience into London—the capital city of this country—and the wider economic benefits that would be felt by all.
It has been suggested to me that the second reason for the delay in investment in this project is to do with covid and how commuter patterns have changed. We are already starting to see a snapback to previous behaviours. If we look at passenger levels, they are almost back up to pre-covid levels, and the reduced frequency and reliability of services are stopping people going back into the workplace as often as they would like. I hear that from my wife, who goes in once a week at the moment. She wants to go in more to see her colleagues, but she does not because she cannot trust the train that she needs to catch, so there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If we really want to get people out of motor vehicles and using public transport more, we need to build those services so that people can use them.
The benefits of the Croydon area remodelling scheme are clear: we would have faster, more reliable, higher-capacity rail services across one of the highest-growth regions in the country. There would also be a particular benefit to my constituency. The London borough of Sutton is one of the most poorly served by Transport for London. We do not have a single tube station or the London Overground service. We have a couple of tram stops, but they are in the far corner of the borough and do not really serve our residents.
This project could unlock the potential of the London Overground and metro-like services that the rest of London benefits from. We are really excited by that prospect. I urge the Minister to look again at the true merits of the project, how many people would benefit from it and the potential for economic growth across the country. I look forward to her response.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. It was really interesting to hear her mention the M25/A3 junction 10, which is in my constituency. It has taken many years and has caused all sorts of challenges to my residents. As it comes close to completion, it is good to hear from colleagues—it is amazing how many MPs are interested in that project—and regular users about the difference that the upgrades are making. I hope it will show the potential for major long-term infrastructure improvements, but the learning points must be taken, because we need to recognise the disruption caused to residents and the significant financial problems caused to local businesses and the Royal Horticultural Society.
There are many issues in my constituency that I could raise, but I want to focus on Guildford town, which demonstrates the enormous opportunity and the significant strain facing transport networks across the south-east. Guildford is a thriving economic hub. It is home to a world-class university, a rapidly expanding research park, a major regional hospital and a highly productive local economy that continues to attract talent and investment, but that success has created real and growing pressure on our local infrastructure. Road usage is exceptionally high, and congestion continues to worsen. Some residents tell me that it takes them an hour and a half to travel the hundreds of metres between the research park and the hospital junction. Too many feel that, despite the congestion, they have no real alternative to relying on their car.
We have dual pressures. We have the strategically important A3 and A31—I imagine many Members have travelled down that major artery—and the concentration of employment, education and housing growth has not been matched by increasing public transport capacity. That is not just a local complaint or anecdote; the challenge is recognised at a national level. The Wessex Corridor study, commissioned by Network Rail, explicitly identifies the corridor between Reading, Guildford and the wider south-east as experiencing rising demand, constrained capacity and major unrealised potential. The study makes it clear that without targeted intervention, housing growth, employment expansion and limited rail capacity will lead to worsening congestion, increased car dependency—which we absolutely do not want—and a missed opportunity to shift journeys on to sustainable modes of transport.
That brings me to the long-standing case for Guildford West railway station, which would serve the research park, the Royal Surrey, the University of Surrey and the surrounding communities. The community has been waiting for it for well over a decade. It would demonstrably have an enormous impact on congestion, access to important services and our local economy, and it would make an environmental difference by shifting everyday travel patterns away from car dependency and towards sustainable transport.
I am committed to getting an answer on the scheme for local people and businesses. Just last week, I was pleased to bring together key delivery partners, including Guildford borough council, Network Rail and South Western Railway, to discuss the viability and next steps. Despite the overwhelming case for Guildford West station, delivery remains painfully difficult. Network Rail does not fund new stations, Department for Transport funding has become more restrictive and, although the Government have set ambitious housing targets, there is no dedicated centralised funding pot to deliver the transport infrastructure required to support the homes we are building. Local government finances are stretched to breaking point, and councils are being asked to plan for growth without the funding or power to deliver the infrastructure that it demands. No matter how much local need or enthusiasm there is, there is simply not enough money to deliver the projects that are needed.
Of course, we must remember that sustainable transport is not just about rail. Too many residents are forced to drive simply to reach the station because bus services, ticketing systems, cycle routes and secure bike storage remain fragmented or inadequate. We should also remember the disproportionate impact on disabled people, low-income residents, students and young people—anyone without access to a car.
I close by asking the Minister a couple of questions. What are the Government going to do to support communities such as Guildford that have been formally identified as critical growth corridors? Why is there no centralised funding mechanism to link mandated housing growth with the transport infrastructure needed to sustain it? How can areas like Surrey realistically unlock growth without clarity on governance, funding or long-term support? My Guildford constituency has great opportunity, but it needs Government help to unlock transport projects to support economic and community growth. I hope the Minister has heard my comments, and those of colleagues, and will respond positively to this request.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing and leading this debate. She and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), got a train together 18 months ago to arrive in Parliament for the first time. From that day on, I knew my hon. Friend would be a strong advocate for Chichester, and for tackling her constituency’s transport problems in particular. She has certainly done that this afternoon.
I chair the APPG on South Western Railway, and I have spent a significant amount of time tackling issues on the South Western Railway network that affect the south-east so seriously. I have been particularly concerned about the network’s deterioration since nationalisation. I hope the Minister will comment on the fact that we want better transport connections, not worse, as we nationalise our railway companies. And better transport connections are not what my constituents in Woking and the wider south-east are receiving.
I am pleased that South Western Railway’s managing director and others have appeared before MPs to answer our questions, and particularly to listen to our constituents’ concerns. Their engagement has been positive, and I hope we can move forward together. However, an APPG should not be one of the only meaningful routes for parliamentary scrutiny of a nationalised operator. I hope the Minister will take action to ensure that MPs can hold our new public sector railway companies to account.
Moving on to the wider railway network, I will be visiting Woking’s signal box on Friday. I am worried that I will see the poor-quality infrastructure faced by commuters, which is why our trains into London Waterloo are constantly cancelled and delayed. The infrastructure and signalling equipment at Woking date from when I was born. It has not had any major updates since then, which is appalling. If we are to grow our economy and decarbonise our transport network, we need reliable public transport. I hope the Minister will agree investment for Woking’s signal box and its signal network—it is a regional hub for our railways.
Woking was founded on the railways, and it is a key commuter town into London. We are under 30 minutes from London Waterloo. Despite other Surrey towns having a contactless tap-in and tap-out system, Woking does not, and we deserve to be in the 21st century. I urge the Government to introduce tap-in and tap-out at Woking to stop hundreds of people a year being fined and caught out by tapping in at London Waterloo but being unable to tap out at Woking. That injustice is not acceptable any longer.
Regarding other parts of our public transport network, I have heard calls from many colleagues to reintroduce the £2 bus fare cap, to get people back on to buses that have struggled so much since covid. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I fully endorse them. The £2 bus fare cap was vital, and it should never have been increased so significantly by this Government.
My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) said that their areas have seen significant housing growth, yet bus routes have not kept up with demand. In my area, that is also true. In Old Woking, a new development was built, which was great. The developer agreed, following planning conditions, to invest in bus stops and infrastructure to support the development and its transport implications. In particular, it tried to decarbonise the development. It built bus stops, but since then, not a single bus has used them. We need joined-up thinking if we are to grow our economy, provide the housing we need and improve our transport network. I hope that the Minister ensures that buses finally use those bus stops, and that that never happens again in the south-east.
I will move on to the subject of our highway network. Unfortunately, my constituents have to cope with Surrey county council’s incompetence in managing our highway network. We have not had an election since 2021, because the Government postponed their elections this year. Since 2021, under the Conservatives’ watch, the number of complaints about potholes has gone up by 106%. The council now has to pay out almost £250,000 a year in compensation because it does not fix things, and it is endangering lives.
Thankfully, we are moving to a new local authority, which will give my constituents a chance to vote out the Conservatives, who have mismanaged my local highway network so badly. I hope that the Minister will meet the new West Surrey council to understand its concerns. I am very concerned that highway spending from central Government does not take fully into account how well used our roads are—whether that is by high-usage vehicles or others. Surrey and the south-east have a significant footprint. Our roads are well used, but that is not properly taken account of in the funding formula.
Like my colleagues, I am aware of the investment that has taken place in the M25/A3 junction, which is finally, eventually, coming to a conclusion. I recently visited Woking scouts at Birchmere scout camp, which is on the edge of the M25/A3 junction. They have had to put up with disruption for years, and now their quiet, secluded scout camp is surrounded by unreasonable and potentially unsafe noise. I have urged National Highways colleagues to support them to recover from what they have gone through, and to compensate them for that. I hope that the Minister agrees, and that she agrees to look into it.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
On my hon. Friend’s point about National Highways, the A21 runs through my constituency. It is the road between London and Hastings, and it is single track for most of the way, between halfway through my constituency and Hastings. That is a problem and a bad investment. It is a well-trafficked road. I wonder if it reflects my hon. Friend’s view of National Highways to say that there has been a staggering degree of incompetence around simple things such as cutting back the hedges so that the road remains safe on bends. That is not done to the standard or frequency required.
Mr Forster
I agree with my hon. Friend. National Highways is far too slow at tackling issues. Only this morning, I had to report a chunk of debris fly-tipped on National Highways land, which has been there for ages. It is far too slow to tackle simple things such as that, to invest in our highway network, which is so strategically important in the south-east, above all other areas.
The M25 runs through my constituency, and residents of Byfleet and West Byfleet have to cope with unbearable noise from the concrete surface of the M25 in that area. I have pressed National Highways to take action to reduce that noise, and I hope that the Minister will agree that it is about time it did so.
Liberal Democrat colleagues have spoken this afternoon about their transport issues in the south-east. I did not realise that the Liberal Democrats dominated the south-east as much as we do! We have had no Conservative Members speak at all; they clearly do not care about tackling our potholes or trying to make our roads safer and trains more reliable. I am pleased with, and proud of, the team around me who have pressed their constituencies’ issues this afternoon.
In the south-east, spending on public transport is roughly a third of that in the north-west. That is not acceptable. That unfair funding formula is why we are raising these issues, and I hope the Minister will agree to tackle that in the future. In particular, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), whose A road fell into the sea this morning and who found that there is no national emergency funding. One road in Surrey has a sinkhole that has closed that road for over a year now; it has cost the county council more than £2 million and has still not re-opened. We need emergency funding to step in in those rare, exceptional situations, and I hope the Minister will take that point away.
Whether it is for my constituents in Woking who deserve safer roads without potholes or my commuting constituents who deserve a reliable bus service and trains that get them there on time, I hope the Minister will listen to my pleas, and those of my colleagues, for investment in the south-east so that we can have our fair share of transport spending and grow our economy together.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on introducing this important debate. I have a direct solution to her problem of traffic queueing up to access the wonderful beaches at the Witterings. There is an alternative: those road users could stay on the road to Southsea, jump on the hovercraft and visit the wonderful beaches in Ryde, Bembridge and Sandown on the Isle of Wight. She is welcome to put my offer to her constituents in her next newsletter.
The south-east is a great economic engine of the UK. It is home to 7.6 million people and 368,000 businesses, and contributes £228 billion in gross added value to the UK economy. If the south-east slows down, Britain slows down. Its connectivity is therefore essential to supporting the economic growth that the country needs, which has been so lacking in recent months. As we have heard, the region hosts some of the most strategically vital transport infrastructure in the country: Heathrow, Gatwick, Southend, the M25, the M4, the Eurostar, the channel tunnel and the ports of Dover and Southampton. The Dover strait alone is the busiest shipping lane in the world, with more than 500 vessels passing through every single day. Responsible for more than 60% of the UK’s trade with Europe, the south-east’s geography makes it fundamental to the success of British trade, too.
To ensure that we can maintain connectivity, the Government must reverse their approach of imposing ever increasing costs on our transport infrastructure. Those costs are inevitably passed on to passengers, like national insurance increases and business rates. Earlier today, a Delegated Legislation Committee approved the emissions trading scheme for the maritime sector, which will add costs to domestic ferry services to the Isle of Wight. Scottish islands will be exempted, but not our own island in the south-east of England. As we have heard, there has been a long-standing assumption that, because the south-east is perceived to be prosperous, it can somehow cope with less spending or, at least, tolerate greater disruption. That approach is misguided. As many Members from the south-east would acknowledge, that is often London-focused, ignoring the areas around Greater London.
We know that east-west connectivity across the south-east remains weak. Productivity suffers when journeys are slower, freight is delayed and supply chains are less reliable. Spending decisions should not be judged on crude, per-capita formulas but on whether they reduce congestion, cut journey times, increase productivity, support net zero and strengthen economic resilience. Nowhere is that clearer than on our roads, yet our road network is being allowed to deteriorate. The one-off cost to clear the national road maintenance backlog is estimated to be £16.8 billion, and would take 12 years to complete.
In 2024, the Department for Transport reported that 4% of local A roads, 7% of B and C roads, and 17% of unclassified roads that should have been maintained were not. New Road in Brading in my constituency is closed for one month, and buses will not visit the town, notwithstanding the fact that there is another road and viable route into it. That raises another issue many of our constituents experience: the frustration that when roads do get upgraded, closures are often badly planned and key transport, such as buses, which constituents, particularly those who need to access healthcare or have mobility issues, rely on, is not adequately catered for.
Instead of fixing the roads we already have, the Government’s instinct appears to be to make driving more difficult. Only recently, plans were quietly published on the Government website that encourage narrower roads, under guidance from Active Travel England. Narrower roads risk slowing traffic, increasing congestion, making overtaking more dangerous, delaying emergency services and inflaming tensions between motorists and cyclists. That is not pragmatic transport policy, and it risks costing the economy billions of pounds. As Edmund King of the AA rightly said, UK roads
“have evolved since Roman times”
and they
“require…give and take which can’t just be ironed out by regulations.”
Those plans come on top of decisions such as the introduction of charges at the Blackwall tunnel after nearly 130 years of free use, which is yet another example of the Mayor of London making it more expensive and difficult to drive, particularly affecting those with no realistic alternative. Motorists already feel heavily taxed, heavily restricted and increasingly ignored.
Turning to rail, East West Rail is a project that both Labour and the Conservative party have supported and funded in principle, but delivery has been painfully slow and deeply disappointing. Despite being completed in late 2024, services remain unused; East West Rail has admitted to the most basic of design failures. The Government have set out their support for East West Rail, but prospective passengers understandably want the service now. In October 2025, the answer the Department for Transport gave to a parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) offered no clear timetable. Passenger services to Bedford are now not expected until 2030, with Oxford to Cambridge services delayed until the mid-2030s. That is not the progress that our constituents want and deserve.
I will again touch briefly on maritime transport. The Government have proposed that they support my constituents to access cheaper, more reliable ferry travel by setting up a local group with an independent chair appointed by the Department for Transport, which is progress, and which I welcome. However, at the same time, the Government are putting cost on to the Isle of Wight through their emissions trading scheme. That is not an example of the mission-led Government they claim to be, nor an example of joined-up Government. They have exempted ferries to Scottish islands from the scheme, and that is an example of the pervasive view that the south-east will somehow cope, where other parts of the United Kingdom should have a special exemption.
Ports and ferry routes in the south-east are critical national assets, yet ferry services remain uniquely under-regulated and expensive. Rail and bus operators face obligations on pricing, performance and transparency, but ferry operators do not. Cross-Solent ferry operators are unregulated and controlled by private equity interests that fund overseas pension funds. That would not be acceptable in any other form of public transport, and it should not acceptable in ferry transport. That imbalance harms communities and undermines connectivity.
Integration across road, rail and maritime transport is essential if we are serious about resilience and fairness, and I urge the Government to give the maximum possible powers to new mayoral combined authorities to ensure joined-up, integrated transport, regardless of whether that transport is currently regulated or not. The south-east does not need grand gestures or experiments in public transport. It needs practical spending and proper maintenance directed towards how people actually travel—fix the roads, stop penalising motorists, and deliver infrastructure properly, effectively and efficiently. That is how we will keep the south-east and the UK moving.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate, and thank all hon. Members for giving us a tour of the south-east and of its residents’ concerns. I welcome this opportunity to highlight all the important work that this Government are doing and have already done to deliver transport improvements in the region.
Of course, we are aware of the importance of the region to the UK and how it helps to drive the country. It adds £200 billion annually to the economy, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and is home to the nation’s two largest airports, vital port links and more than 300,000 businesses. That is why we have taken important steps to support and enhance transport in the region, backing airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow, and committing to deliver the vital lower Thames crossing—the most significant road building scheme in a generation.
I understand hon. Members’ disappointment that two major A27 schemes were cancelled in 2024, as both were rated poor value for money and unaffordable. As hon. Members know, the status of pipeline schemes, including the Chichester bypass, will be confirmed when road investment strategy 3 is published next month.
This Government will be investing over the coming years in major road schemes in the south-east that will bring real benefits to local people, including by unlocking housing, supporting economic growth and tackling local congestion pinch points, which many hon. Members have drawn attention to. We have approved funding for schemes, subject to the necessary business case approvals, in East Sussex, Brighton, north Thanet and Bognor Regis to Littlehampton. In addition, we are also shortly due to announce the outcome of our major road network programme review, which will provide clarity over other major road schemes in the south-east. The new structures fund is intended to deal with precisely the sort of unforeseen problems affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).
The Government are also committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on the railways by creating a unified and simplified system that puts passengers first, rebuilding trust in the railways and, in doing so, helping to build up local economies. The new passenger watchdog, which is probably being debated at this very moment in the Railways Bill Committee upstairs, will be a powerful champion for rail users and will hold Great British Railways to account. Publicly owned Southeastern is driving forward a £2 million station improvement programme that benefited more than 100 stations between March 2024 and March 2025, and is investing a further £2 million in fleet improvements.
As the hon. Member for Chichester confirmed, the Government froze rail fares this year for the first time in 30 years. I am sure that the Rail Minister will be very familiar with the bottleneck in Croydon and will be happy to write to hon. Members to respond to the points raised, including by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I am sure that the noble Lord the Rail Minister will also be happy to write to the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) on her station proposals.
This Government have recognised the importance of listening to what local government needs. We are simplifying local transport funding to bring decision making over local transport closer to the people who use it and to empower local leaders to drive change in their communities. We are providing all local transport authorities with multi-year consolidated funding settlements, delivering our commitment in the English devolution White Paper to simplify funding. Those consolidated local transport settlements will give those authorities greater freedom and flexibility to make the strategic decisions that best impact their areas.
I welcome the determination of the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) to bang on about potholes. Our roads matter to us all, whether we are drivers, bikers, cyclists or pedestrians, and the previous Government left our roads in a parlous state. That is precisely why the spending review settlement includes a record £7.3 billion investment in local highways maintenance funding over the next four years, including £1.5 billion in the south-east region.
Crucially, that four-year funding certainty gives councils the confidence to plan ahead, move away from costly short-term fixes and invest in proper, preventive treatments that stop potholes forming in the first place. That is a major step towards delivering smoother, safer roads for everyone who depends on them. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) noted, the Government’s rating system enables local people to hold their council to account and ensure that they are using the additional funding effectively to make a visible difference to all road users.
We also reaffirmed our commitment to invest in bus services for the long term, confirming more than £3 billion from 2026-27 to 2028-29—including £369 million in the south-east—to support local leaders and bus operators across the country in improving bus services for millions of passengers. We are giving local authorities the power and funding to address precisely the issues that hon. Members have raised: lost services and the need for new routes to serve housing growth.
The Government are also providing funding to investigate the use of franchising in rural areas. That will be combined with our recently announced active travel grant of £626 million across the UK, with more than £133 million going to the south-east; our record investment in the local transport grant, which sees all south-eastern authorities’ funding increase year on year; and electric vehicle infrastructure funding to create a large funding pot for all local transport authorities so they can decide what to spend it on in line with their priorities.
Active Travel England, which the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned, works to support local authorities to improve their capabilities and benefit from the additional funding that we are investing. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) said that pavements are for people, and I could not agree more. That is why this Government have acted where the previous one failed to. On 8 January, we announced that we will give local councils new powers to crack down on antisocial pavement parking. I remember, alongside a former Chair of the Transport Committee, looking at some of the problems in his area and on the south coast where parking was not properly enforced.
I also want to pick up on the important concerns about SEND transport raised by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I am sure he knows that the Department for Education, which leads on that point, is currently carrying out a review of home-to-school transport along with their wider review of SEND. He is right that we need to work across Government to ensure that we make the best use of the funding available.
In conclusion, this has been a wide-ranging debate; I have taken so many notes, and I am trying to pick up as many points as I can, but I am conscious that I will not have addressed every issue raised by hon. Members. I hope I have been able to demonstrate that south-east authorities have been given record amounts of funding to deal with their local transport issues and they have the flexibility to direct that funding towards the things that local people are most concerned about. To help to bring all that together in a coherent approach that sets out our ambitions for transport in the UK, we will shortly be publishing our integrated transport strategy.
I will also mention our recently published road safety strategy. In 2024, 192 people were killed and 4,754 were seriously injured on roads in the south-east. Our ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035 will aim to drive that number down. We want to work in partnership with all authorities and stakeholders in the region. I extend my thanks to the chief constable for Sussex, Jo Shiner, who is also the National Police Chiefs Council lead for roads policing, for her work in enhancing road safety to keep those in the south-east and across Great Britain safe on our roads.
I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Chichester for giving me the opportunity to discuss transport in the south-east region. I apologise that, as the Minister for Local Transport, I am no longer the Minister for Roads—that is my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood)—but I am sure he will be interested to read this afternoon’s debate and respond to any points that I have missed. He, I, and my ministerial colleagues are always happy to receive invitations to visit hon. Members’ constituencies, and I look forward to future opportunities to see more of this vital and very beautiful region.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive comments at the end of this debate. I also thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging debate on all the topics that touch on transport in the south-east. I am especially glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) was here to talk about ferries; if I am ever in a room with him and he does not mention ferries, something does not feel quite right. I am glad that he had the opportunity to raise his specific concerns relating to the Isle of Wight.
I reflect on how, when they talk about their frustrations, residents are often told that this Government are investing additional money. They talk in large figures that sound incredibly impressive, but when residents cannot see that investment—when they are still sat in traffic, day in, day out; when they are not seeing their local bus services improve or their county council deliver investment into active travel strategies—it leaves a bitter taste in their mouths. All those figures mean nothing when they still cannot travel from A to B and see their mum who lives on the other side of the constituency, get to work or drive their kids to school. When we talk about these transport issues, the figures can sometimes make us lose sight of the impact on people struggling day to day.
Local authorities getting additional money is all well and good. However, we see councils such as West Sussex county council deciding to cling on to power with their very fingertips, cancelling elections twice—two years in a row—meaning that its cabinet will end up serving a seven-year term—that is incredibly frustrating for people in my local area, who do not get the opportunity to hold it to account when it has failed us in addressing the potholes crisis and active travel.
Finally, the Minister mentioned that she would happily visit any constituency, so I extend an invitation to her and the new Roads Minister to come and sit in traffic with me around Chichester. She can come any day: I guarantee I will be able to find us some congestion so that she can see the impact it has on my constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport in the South East.
Educational Outcomes: Disadvantaged Boys and Young Men
(1 day, 7 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
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered educational outcomes for disadvantaged boys and young men.
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I am pleased to have secured a debate on this important topic today.
Last week, I had the pleasure of joining some truly inspiring parliamentary colleagues to launch the Labour group for men and boys. The group is based on one simple premise: for too long, the Labour party—and progressives more widely—have not been confident enough to speak directly about some of the specific challenges faced by men and boys growing up in Britain today, and it is time to put that right. The Labour party is rightly proud of its deep traditions in championing equalities causes, and has made great progress in everything from the barriers women have faced in the workplace to accessing the right and appropriate healthcare—and there is far more to do on both of those.
However, at times, that agenda has led to a shyness on our part about being equally confident in speaking up about some of the challenges that men and boys—and particularly disadvantaged men and boys—can face throughout this country. That is simply wrong-headed. It not only does a deep disservice to the men and boys across Britain who are held back by some of those barriers, but leaves the field open to far more toxic voices that seek to pit women’s equality and male advancement in opposition to each other, rather than recognising that they are two sides of the same coin and are deeply progressive causes that, together, any progressive should be comfortable championing.
Within all that, the topic for today’s debate, the achievement of young men—and particularly disadvantaged young men—in education settings across the country, is an important cause. The statistics could not be more stark: the Centre for Social Justice highlighted that across early years settings, when we look at the Government’s target of readiness for school, boys constitute the entirety of the gap to where we would like to be based on their progress. At GCSE level, men achieve on average half a grade lower than their female counterparts, while at A-level, across their best three grades, men will again often achieve a grade and a half lower on average.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The west Somerset side of my constituency bears many of the hallmarks of a forgotten coastal community. In Somerset, 7.5% of young men aged 16 and 17 are not in education, employment or training, which is significantly above the national average in England. Does the hon. Member agree that when young people grow up without the educational infrastructure, networks and opportunities that others take for granted, it shapes their outlook profoundly? It is little wonder that that leaves them feeling neglected and undermines their sense of aspiration.
Alistair Strathern
The hon. Member is absolutely spot on. She highlighted a number of important themes that I hope to touch on later in my remarks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. He is absolutely right, and this is a massive issue in Northern Ireland, as I said to him earlier. There are a number of young Protestant males who do not achieve, are disadvantaged when it comes to free school meals and come nowhere close to achieving educational standards. Our Government back home have put a policy in place to try to address that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should work on this matter collectively with the regional Administration? If there is a disadvantage, not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, it is time to work on that together.
Alistair Strathern
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the particular challenge faced by disadvantaged young men. While there has rightly been a lot of focus on challenges holding back all boys and men across education—the Education Committee was due to hold an inquiry into that during the previous Parliament—the compounding impacts of socioeconomic inequality and gender are often less explored.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
On average, disadvantaged boys are already behind in vocabulary and communication by the time they start school. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a targeted, UK-wide speech, language and communication strategy focused on disadvantaged boys, not just in our constituencies but right across the UK?
Alistair Strathern
The hon. Member is spot on in drawing attention to the fact that a lot of these problems have early roots, and that our interventions must be as focused as the challenges that we are seeking to address.
Boys’ Impact found that when looking at early years settings, only 30% of boys on average seem to be making a good level of progress, compared with 88% of girls who are not eligible for free school meals. When it came to GCSEs and getting grades 5 to 9 in English and maths, Boys’ Impact found that men, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds and eligible for free school meals, were achieving half the level of those who were not eligible for free school meals.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Redditch was a town built on unionised workers, needle making, aerospace and engineering, and that heritage matters. Too many boys now leaving schools in my area leave without a clear vocational route into decent jobs. Does my hon. Friend believe that the industrial and skills strategies should be place based, with apprenticeships funding, employer-college partnerships and union involvement, so that education in towns such as Redditch can lead directly to rewarding jobs?
Alistair Strathern
I completely agree. I know that my hon. Friend is a big champion of some of these issues, for the benefit of Redditch and well beyond. Some of the important steps that he has highlighted are fundamental to tackling some of the challenges that we are looking to address here today.
It is clear that there is a case for action, but what should we be doing? It is regrettable that although the Education Committee intended to set up an inquiry into this issue in the last Parliament, that has yet to be picked back up in this Parliament. I think a renewed focus by the Select Committee on this topic would be especially welcome, particularly if it explored where the compounding impact of socioeconomic factors, along with gender, is further holding back young men and boys across education. But we should not need to wait for any such inquiry to act. Given the wealth of evidence that we have been talking about today and that other Members have thought to highlight, it is important that the Government set out their own plan and strategy to treat this priority with the urgency that it deserves.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
About 90% of children in higher-income households can get a dyslexia diagnosis when needed, compared with only 43% in lower-income households. Does the hon. Member agree that not identifying neurodiversity has a huge impact on education outcomes for disadvantaged young boys and, to start changing that, we must roll out universal screening for neurodiversity to all primary school-aged children?
Alistair Strathern
The hon. Member is spot on in highlighting the fact that, particularly when we are talking about boys’ lack of achievement, ensuring that we identify the full suite of needs they have early and put in place appropriate interventions is vital. It is an often overlooked fact that 70% of young people with education, health and care plans across the country are boys. The gendered aspect to some of the special educational needs and disabilities challenges faced right across the education system will be fundamental to ensuring that we get our reform agenda right.
The heartening thing for the Government should be that there is lots of good practice to build on. When I look back to my own time in teaching, which I assure you, Sir John, was not a catalogue of universal great practice to be learned from, and think about some of the young men where I was able to have the impact I wanted, it came down fundamentally to one thing—the quality of the relationship I was able to build with them. That observation might seem so simple as to be banal, but in Westminster discourse and in policy making, we can often overlook this simple fact. When dealing with vulnerable and isolated young men, who often feel quite alienated, relationships are everything.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Chris Edwards and Peter Beeching at Brighton Hill community school in my constituency? They have set up the GOAT Boys scheme—the greatest of all the boys’ schemes—standing for growth, ownership, attitude and tenacity. It is a mentoring scheme designed to tackle that very issue—to ensure that every child has a trusted adult outside their family, to build resilience, purpose and connection and help to tackle the educational attainment gap, which this debate is all about. Will my hon. Friend join me in endorsing schemes such as that? It has already signed up 70 pupils locally and 50 schools nationally. Would he encourage similar schemes elsewhere?
Alistair Strathern
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. It was a real pleasure to meet Chris, his constituent, at an event as part of the Lost Boys Taskforce work earlier in the year. They are doing really inspiring things. I hope that together we can better showcase those and build on some of the successes we have already seen in relation to the Government’s youth strategy, which recognises the importance of trusted adults at its heart.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. Even one intentional male role model can transform boys’ engagement at school, yet 2.5 million children in the UK grow up without a father figure. The “Lost Boys” report from the Centre for Social Justice shows boys falling behind girls at every stage of education, with Northern Ireland facing very stark outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a need to promote more role models, so that boys can thrive in education and beyond?
Alistair Strathern
The hon. Member puts the point incredibly well, and I hope to be able to touch later on some of the powerful schemes available to already deliver some of these role models. They do not always have to be parents; that is not always going to be available for every child we seek to support.
When we consider these vulnerable young men, it is sometimes little wonder that they feel mistrustful and alienated from the system. They have reasons for that. All too often, media and social discourse can paint them sometimes as problems or, even worse, as abusers in waiting rather than recognising the real strength and assets they could be and often are to our communities. Indeed, research by Boys’ Impact found that those narratives can be incredibly pervasive in media commentary about young men’s achievements and, worse still, are believed by a significant minority of teaching staff, too, with all the impact we would then expect in terms of how comfortable young people feel in those classrooms, and their sense of belonging and willingness to engage.
We have to put this right. We need to put a strength-based relational model connecting with young men across the education system back at the heart of our work. There have been some really good examples of delivering that already, not just those already mentioned by hon. Members. It has been a real privilege to work with groups such as Football Beyond Borders and Beyond Equality to see at first hand the inspiring work they are already doing in schools across the country to demonstrate the impact that relational practice can have, giving young men space to define and talk through on their own terms what it is to be a man in Britain today, and what their aspirations for a good, progressive life could look like.
It is little wonder, seeing the incredibly moving and powerful impact that these interventions can have, that they have been held by so many school leaders, but the really important thing to note is that these interventions are scalable. Boys’ Impact has shown through its 16 hubs across the country, working with hundreds of educational leaders and organisations, that by rolling out strength-based relational approaches to working with disaffected and disadvantaged young boys, we can have really powerful impacts, improving attainment, attendance and a sense of belonging. We should consider and learn from that as part of our wider approach to curriculum reform and the schools White Paper.
It should not just be the mindset that we need to change. We also need to learn from specific interventions that can have a meaningful impact. Other Members have rightly highlighted the importance of role models. When working with disaffected young men, we know that family figures, father figures and community figures can have powerful impacts in transforming their life chances for the better. That is why we should look to learn from models like Australia’s powerful dads’ clubs, which convened dads across 250 schools in Australia to provide greater support, greater engagement in their child’s learning and activities such as read-along clubs and after-school sessions, which help support fathers to take a more active role in their child’s development, with all the powerful impacts based on the Fatherhood Institute’s work that we would expect for that young person’s attainment, achievement and sense of self.
It is important to recognise that not every young person will have a father figure available to them, but the encouraging thing is that it should not matter when it comes to establishing positive male role models. Lads Need Dads is already doing inspiring mentoring work in schools across the country to show the value of bringing in volunteers to work as peer mentors for young men, particularly with a focus on literacy. At a time when we know that reading for pleasure is far less common among young men than it is among women, and literacy is so important for underpinning so much of success in early years and beyond, those types of interventions have shown that it can be a powerful tool in driving up literacy and engagement with reading among young men, and also improving young men’s own sense of self and belonging by providing them with that important male role model as an effective peer mentor.
The Government’s wider work to encourage more male role models in early years settings and primary settings is to be encouraged. We know the gender disparity in workforces has been allowed to fly under the radar for far too long, so I am glad to see it achieving a central role in the new workforce strategy, but we need to build on that. We also need to recognise that there are a wider range of factors that can sometimes hold back boys’ success. As Richard Reeves put it, sometimes when dealing with young people, particularly at an early age, rather than seeking to address their needs we can simply see them as “malfunctioning girls”.
The Institute for the Science of Early Years rightly points out that when young people, particularly very young people, lack access to the exercise and activities they sometimes need to burn off steam as young men, it can lead to their misbehaving in ways that are too often construed as misbehaviour, rather than actually just simple failures to self-regulate. Again, there are lots of interventions in early years and primary settings that are leading the way in showing how we can address this. Greater use of outdoor active learning and daily miles have been shown in primary and earlier settings to help improve boys’ sense of belonging, behaviour and engagement. As we think further about how we can forensically break down these barriers for young boys’ achievement, I would like to make sure we consider those tools, too, as part of our work in early years and primary settings to make sure we really are setting up every young man to succeed.
I could go on for far longer than I have time for today, talking about examples of great practice. It has been inspiring to hear so many examples from colleagues in the room. There is a wealth of evidence out there. It is deeply compelling about the need to act, so we have simply no excuse not to. I hope I have left the Chamber today in no doubt about the urgency of the issue and the need to address it, but also no doubt about the fact that it is a deeply progressive cause that Labour colleagues should feel a real strength in championing. It is central to our mission to break down barriers for disadvantaged young people who would otherwise be set up to succeed, which is the underlying reason why I am a Labour politician. We have a great chance to put things right. Inspiring colleagues from across the House are looking to support us, and I look forward to working with the Minister to make sure we succeed.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
We will now hear brief contributions from a couple of Back Benchers who have gone through the proper process and notified both the mover of the motion and the Minister.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing this incredibly important debate.
Education should be the great leveller in this country, but for too many disadvantaged boys and young men it is drastically falling short. I was genuinely shocked by how poorly boys in Staffordshire are doing, particularly once they reach secondary school, but the warning signs start early. At the end of primary school, 79% of boys meet the expected standard in science, compared with 86% of girls. Although the gap sounds small on paper, it is the start of a stark trajectory that we see repeated again and again as boys move through their education. By the time they reach their GCSEs, the picture is deeply concerning. In 2024, just 36.3% of Staffordshire boys achieved grade 5 or above in English or maths, and that figure had fallen from the year before. Behind every single one of those percentage point drops is a young man whose life, aspirations, opportunities and future are being narrowed.
Research from the Higher Education Policy Institute shows that boys who fall behind in education are more likely not only to struggle at school but to face poorer outcomes in life. Boys who disengage from education are less likely to progress into further or higher education, and are more likely to experience economic inactivity. The report also warns that a combination of underachievement, weak employment prospects—which my hon. Friend spoke about—and social marginalisation can leave some young men more vulnerable to political alienation.
When boys struggle with learning, their difficulties are too often labelled as behavioural problems, leading to sanctions instead of support and a widening of the gaps. Targeted support too often arrives late, once the disadvantage has become entrenched. I ask the Minister, what more is being done to identify and support disadvantaged boys early, before those small gaps turn into lifelong barriers?
Disadvantaged boys and young men have talent and potential in abundance. If we care about boys’ education, we must stop being surprised—like I was—by those outcomes, and start acting earlier and more robustly.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for securing this debate and allowing me two minutes to speak.
I was a primary school teacher for 25 years and an early years practitioner, and I have seen very young children become disengaged with education—especially boys, who are already on a pathway to not showing us what they are capable of. Part of my role was to be a forest school leader, and I worked with small groups of challenging boys who were causing disruption in classrooms—not learning, and disrupting the learning of others. We used to work outside, building ambition, resilience and concentration through physical work, tree climbing and exploring. The boys and girls in the forest school—although it was predominantly boys—were given a sense of autonomy over their learning and control of their lives. The transformation of those disadvantaged children was significant. Teachers in the classroom afterwards said that their concentration, behaviour, attainment and even attendance had improved while they were taking part in those courses.
I attended Harrogate Army foundation college with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and was absolutely blown away by the stories of 16 and 17-year-olds—predominantly boys—who told me that they had dropped out of school, sometimes years ago, had no GCSEs, spent their days playing games, watching YouTube or getting into a bit of bother, and now were up at 6 and passing exams. They had never considered that possible, and they were physically fitter than they had ever dreamed. There are many studies linking physical activities such as running and forest school to better attainment and improved concentration.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin. Does the Minister believe that in order to address the decades-old issues with the gaps in boys’ attainment, we need to consider evidence from when they have engaged and succeeded, and reconsider the environment in which we are asking them to learn by taking a more creative approach to education that meets their emotional and physical needs?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. As the mum of two boys—and two boys with two mums—I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for securing this valuable debate. His powerful speech made a clear case for the importance of supporting boys to succeed in our education system. I congratulate him on the launch of his new group on men and boys and hear his powerful argument that this is a progressive cause. I have no doubt that he was an excellent teacher and role model for the boys in his class. He made lots of powerful arguments in his speech, including about the importance of strength-based relational work when talking about Football Beyond Borders, Beyond Equality and Boys’ Impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) talked about the GOAT Boys scheme as another good example of work that is happening across our country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) made a powerful argument about the importance of early support for disadvantaged boys. Boys deserve that support early, and should not just be discounted as having behavioural problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) talked about the importance of physical activity and the importance of the fantastic scheme that she visited for the armed forces where young boys who have dropped out of school have found the opportunity to contribute and find their place in the world. I thank everyone for their contributions.
We know that there are far too many inequalities in our education system and we have heard today some of the data about working-class boys. Removing barriers to opportunity in education is the driving purpose of my Department. This Government stand for excellence everywhere across education and care, for every child to break the unfair link between background and success, and to deliver opportunity for all. The foundation of our mission is to ensure that every child has the best start in life because, as we have heard today, what happens in children’s earliest years makes the biggest difference to their life chances. On average, 40% of the overall gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers had already emerged by the age of five. Higher proportions of girls achieve a good level of development at the end of reception year compared to boys.
In our plan for change, we set an ambitious milestone for this Government: that 75% of children—a record number—will start school ready to learn by 2028. Our “giving every child the best start in life” strategy sets out the immediate steps to do that: making early education and childcare more accessible, improving quality in early education and reception classes, and expanding and strengthening family services.
Once young boys are in school, every child and young person deserves an education that meets their needs—one that is academically stretching, where they feel like they belong and have the opportunity to achieve and thrive no matter their background. However, we know that the current school system is not working for all pupils. Too many are not being included, particularly working-class children, children with special educational needs and disabilities, and every child who could be stretched to go further. That needs to change, which is why our upcoming schools White Paper will set out our vision for a system that delivers educational excellence for each and every child.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin has asked for a strategy for boys in the educational system, and I am sure that the Minister for School Standards would be happy to meet with him to understand how our vision can best support boys to succeed in school. One area where we are really keen to encourage the participation of boys is our National Year of Reading. That campaign is aimed at everyone, because the decline in reading enjoyment is an issue across all sectors of society. However, there is a focus on boys aged 10 to 16, as data shows that only one in four boys say that they enjoy reading. To help reach teenage boys effectively, we have recruited a wide range of celebrity ambassadors and partners who many boys follow and engage with. That is alongside £28 million that we have committed to drive standards in reading and writing, particularly for those who need the most support, including boys, who underperform in English.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin also spoke about the importance of role models, and what better role model is there than an inspirational teacher? As part of our drive to recruit 6,500 expert teachers, we are particularly keen to see more male teachers teaching, guiding and leading the boys in their classrooms. We want the profession to attract excellent male teachers who stay and thrive. Of course, that is just as important in the early years, too.
It is also important that we support boys to have strong mental health and a broad and positive understanding of masculinity. As part of that work, we will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school by expanding mental health support teams. That will give every child and young person access to early support to address problems before they escalate. Our revised relationships, sex and health education guidance also supports pupils to challenge harmful gender stereotypes.
When our young people leave school, we remain determined to break down barriers to opportunity and widen access to high-quality education and training. That includes our renewed focus on young people who are not in education, employment or training, where we know that the proportion of young men aged 16 to 17 has been higher than that of young women. That is one reason why £34 million has been committed to the NEET prevention package set out in the post-16 education and skills White Paper, including a new risk of NEET indicator tool to help local areas identify and support young people before they disengage. That is backed up by the Government’s £820 million investment in the youth guarantee to support young people to develop skills, access opportunities and transition into meaningful employment.
In closing the debate, I would like to underline this Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers for all and ensuring that all disadvantaged boys and young men receive the support, education and opportunities they deserve. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin for introducing this important debate, and all my other colleagues for their excellent contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024
(1 day, 7 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
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024.
It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John, and it is a pleasure to introduce this debate. It concerns the use of animals in scientific research and the most recent Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report for 2024, which was published in December 2025. The subject is important to me, to many of my constituents and possibly to up to half the population of these islands who have the pleasure—nay, the privilege—of sharing their lives with a pet.
I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who leads the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, as well as to the work of Animal Free Research UK and its chief executive, Carla Owen, who is in the Public Gallery and was behind the Herbie’s law campaign. Herbie has unfortunately passed, but the campaign lives on. I also want to thank Cruelty Free International, which continues to champion the ending of animal research worldwide.
In this debate, I want to focus on the weak oversight of the regulations, which has led to shocking failures to protect animals from undue suffering; that has been highlighted in the Home Office report. The findings show just how much we are failing to prevent animals from suffering when they are used in scientific experiments, due to the incidence of non-compliance with the law or with licence conditions. The report focuses on numerous incidents from across 2024, which sadly included animals that have starved to death or drowned. Other animals were put into waste bags by mistake and others were kept alive beyond humane endpoints. The incidents in the report make for upsetting reading. I am a supporter of phasing out animal experimentation in medical research, and I believe this transition should be completed urgently. The very least we can do in the meantime for those animals used in laboratories is to ensure their welfare and minimise their suffering.
It is important to put the issue in context. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures using animals took place in UK labs: five animals used in research every minute of every day, representing a decrease of only 1.21% from 2023.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Given the more than 2.6 million procedures and the small year-on-year decrease, does not progress on replacing the use of animals in science remain only incremental? What is needed is a truly transformational shift. Does the hon. Member accept that, unless urgent and ambitious progress is made, public confidence will continue to be undermined on this issue?
Seamus Logan
I completely agree; that is the point that I am trying to draw out.
There were 2,646 procedures on dogs and 1,936 on non-human primates. Examples include non-human primates being subjected to invasive brain surgery and deprived of fluid to induce them to perform behavioural tasks and mice being given psychostimulant rewards such as cocaine or amphetamines—and this, under licence conditions. However, the ASRU report highlighted instances in which compliance with these licence conditions was not followed; there have been failures to provide adequate care and failure to provide food and water, which are the most basic welfare needs of animals being held in laboratories across the UK.
In one very distressing incident, it is reported that a mother was removed from its cage and killed, resulting in unweaned pups starving to death. In 2024, there were 146 cases of non-compliance in British laboratories, a 16% decrease from the 169 cases reported in 2023.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for rightly bringing us this debate. He is right to say that many people are concerned. Between 2018 and 2022, only 12% of animal welfare convictions in Northern Ireland resulted in a custodial sentence. Councils and enforcement bodies need greater funding to gather evidence, because evidence is critical for successful prosecutions. Does he agree that one takeaway from the report he refers to is that we can and should do more to protect animal welfare where possible, and the Government need to raise the priority for it?
Seamus Logan
I completely agree, although the hon. Member is addressing the wider issue of animal welfare, while my focus today is on this report. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right.
I was talking about non-compliance. The cases involved more than 22,000 animals, including mice, rats, fish, cows, sheep, frogs, guinea pigs, bats, dogs, non-human primates, cats, a hamster and a rabbit. I might add that those are the reported incidents; 68 establishment audits were conducted for the report but only 3% of cases of non-compliance were identified by audits and 69% were self-reported. That can hardly be described as a robust inspection system. In 75% of cases—three quarters—the only sanction was “inspector advice”.
The ASRU is responsible for licensing animal experiments in the UK, to protect animals in science and ensure compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That means following the principles known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement. In other words, use non-animal methods where possible, reduce the number used to a minimum and refine procedures to minimise suffering. I know from visits undertaken by the APPG, which I referred to earlier, that there is a growing use of laboratory-grown human tissue in experimentation, which we need to support as parliamentarians.
The UK Government have stated:
“The Home Office is in the final stages of delivering a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform to further strengthen the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU), ensuring confidence in the regulatory system and maintaining robust compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.”
Those reforms include increasing the number of full-time inspectors by March this year, but I would argue that that internal reform does not go far enough. The incidence of non-compliance shows that increasing the number of inspectors alone may not result in meaningful change.
I mentioned that 2.64 million procedures are taking place each year. We cannot rely solely on a few more full-time inspectors to turn the situation around; I note that the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying. Labour’s publication last November of its strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternatives to the use of animals in science is very welcome, but meaningful change will not occur without a series of more robust measures.
I believe that the difficulty is that the UK is in danger of falling behind other international partners—in the European Union and, interestingly, in the US, which is speeding forward within three to five years to remove the requirement for animals to be used in research. It is strange that we appear to be falling behind internationally in this instance. Although the strategy is committed to increasing funding for human-specific technologies, founding a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and setting up a cross-Government ministerial Committee to oversee implementation, it contains no timeline for phasing out all animal experiments.
We on the APPG on phasing out animal experiments have discussed implementing Herbie’s law as a practical pathway to phase out animal testing, in collaboration with the scientific community. Legal experts have prepared a draft of Herbie’s law, entitled the human-specific technologies bill, describing how Government could ensure progress and how scientists could be supported, with detail on setting up an expert advisory committee to give specialist advice on animal replacement. I think I speak for many attending the debate when I say that we are keen to see an end to animal suffering in medical research.
The ASRU report’s findings are a stark reminder of what is at stake for animals when the law is broken, when licence conditions are not followed or when measures to ensure compliance are not as robust as they could be. The UK has an opportunity not only to secure our position as a global leader in animal protection and scientific innovation, but to end animal suffering in scientific research. That can be ensured only through a full transition from animal experimentation across the next decade. The ASRU report is a stark reminder that until that transition is in place, we will continue to fail animals in laboratories across the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob, but I can see that four Members already know that.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir John. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the 2024 annual report of the ASRU makes for very grim reading. The 146 reported cases of non-compliance with the legal requirements of licensing conditions highlight an ongoing failure to prevent appalling animal suffering in laboratories. As he said, those include extreme cases of animals drowning or starving to death. It is shocking that the ASRU continues to grant scientific licences to allow animals to be deliberately deprived of food and water.
Other worrisome incidents include cases of two cats and four dogs being kept in substandard facilities, including a pen that was too small, and another dog that was kept alive longer than authorised, resulting in significant unnecessary suffering. Two primates were also reported to have been left without food overnight, and another two were injured while caged. In total, the ASRU report identified at least 542 animals dying or being euthanised following issues of non-compliance.
The report’s detailed accounts of the suffering of 22,000 animals is in stark contrast to our much-lauded identity as a nation of animal lovers. Our national reputation as a world leader on animal welfare legislation, particularly in relation to the use of animals in science, is in real jeopardy. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, we are falling behind.
Despite its content, I welcome the report. If Britain is to remain a world leader on animal welfare, transparency around breaches of animal welfare standards is critical. It ensures accountability and allows both the public and lawmakers to routinely assess the adequacy of existing enforcement. Having read the report, I can only conclude that the ASRU is in urgent need of reform. Despite issuing 15,626 licences at the end of 2024, the ASRU had only 8.2 full-time equivalent inspectors. With the number of licences granted per inspector at its highest since 2012, there are serious concerns about the capacity of the ASRU to ensure effective compliance. Just 68 establishments were inspected in 2024, and only 10 of those inspections were unannounced. What steps are the Government taking to reform the ASRU and improve the resourcing of its audits?
With 69% of non-compliance incidents in 2024 being self-reported, I worry that the extent of welfare breaches goes far beyond this, and I worry about the culture in our scientific institutions around safeguarding animal welfare and preventing undue suffering. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on this pattern of self-reporting and outline what steps the Government are taking to support a culture of safeguarding animal welfare in licensed organisations.
The adage that prevention is better than cure fits well here. Although enforcement needs strengthening and is an ongoing concern, the best way to manage the risks to animals through non-compliance is to stop animals from being used in scientific testing. As the hon. Gentleman said, the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement —are already a legal requirement under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Nevertheless, the embedding of this approach needs strengthening.
I welcome the Government’s new “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its recognition of the need to strengthen the ethical review approval process to ensure that animals are used only when there is no alternative, in line with the findings of the Rawle report. The commitments in the strategy are ambitious, but we can go further. Embedding in the law the targets to phase out routine tests, prioritised as parts of baskets 1 and 2, would provide absolute certainty to both the scientific community and campaigners of our commitment to end the use of animals in testing. Such a step could also crowd in wider investment in UK scientific research, strengthening our position as a global leader in the development of animal-free testing methods. I therefore urge the Minister to commit to introducing Herbie’s law and enshrining the targets committed to in recent strategies in legislation.
The 2024 report must be a catalyst for change. We must bear down on those who continue to neglect their responsibilities to uphold animal welfare with better enforcement and harsher penalties. While doing that, we cannot and should not neglect the fact that the only long-term solution to this avoidable suffering is to end animal testing once and for all.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I add my appreciation to everyone he mentioned at the start of his excellent speech. I do not know of a bigger animal lover than my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and I thank her for all the work that she does with her excellent APPG.
As I said in a different debate yesterday, everything comes down to:
“what kind of society do we want to live in?”—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 17WH.]
This topic is no different.
Currently, we live in a country that tolerates and sanctions experimentations that lead to pain, mutilation, intense suffering and, ultimately, the grotesque and very avoidable deaths of animals in laboratories. Over 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK in 2024. That figure shocked me. It is utterly appalling. Like the Minister answering for the Government here today, as Labour candidates, we stood on a manifesto that committed to working towards phasing out animal testing. However, in 2025 it was approved that over 5 million animals would be used in experiments over the coming years. That simply has to change.
In a debate last week I made an intervention regarding passing Herbie’s law. If we are going to meet our manifesto commitment, passing Herbie’s law really is a must. We should move towards more modern, relevant and human-specific technologies for both the animals’ sake and for people needing treatment or who will do so in future.
As I said, it is a question of what kind of society we want to live in. The moral case is surely reason enough. It is basic human decency to know that there should be an end to animal experimentation. As with everything, for things to change for the better, there must be the political will to make it so. I implore the Minister and our Government to get behind Herbie’s law. It is the right thing for the animals, it is popular and by adopting it we would be making a genuine difference and change the country for the better.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this important debate and setting out the arguments so well.
I declare my interest as chair of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research. As some Members may already know, I have been a vegan since 1993, and this is a topic that I feel very passionate about. I have spoken on this issue several times and it does not get any easier. In a previous debate on testing on dogs, I quoted a debate from 1927, in which it was said:
“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]
It is sad to think that we are still debating this topic almost 100 years later.
As a Scottish MP, I was particularly concerned to see that in 2024 over 200,000 experiments were carried out on animals in Scotland. That was an 8.2% decrease from the previous year. However, it compares to Wales, which had a 16.7% decrease in experiments from 2023. Although I welcome the decreases, they must definitely be much quicker.
As we have heard today, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report from 2024, showed that 189 animals experienced adverse welfare outcomes; 54 of those cases were due to failure to provide adequate care, and nine were due to failure to provide food and water, sometimes for up to five days. Those cases of non-compliance are particularly concerning, and we also need to look at how well standards are being enforced in testing facilities—as we have heard already today. Given that almost 70% of cases were self-reported, this just is not good enough. We must look at another way of doing this.
I was glad to see the Government’s strategy on replacing animals in science come out last November. In particular, I welcome the £75 million of funding for new testing methods and the establishment of a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. However, I was disappointed to see missed opportunities around, for example, the forced swim test and the LD50 test. It is vital that timelines are introduced to enable a true phasing out of animals in medical research. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. We come from different political traditions, but on animal testing we are united.
I often receive emails and letters in my constituency inbox about animal rights and animal testing. It is an issue that is important to the people of Stockport. I am the last Back-Bench speaker in the debate, and all the points I wanted to make have already been covered, so I will keep my remarks brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who is a good friend, for all the work she does on this issue. Sir John, I invite you to join the plant-based parliamentary group she runs in addition to all the other work she does for her constituency and her APPG roles. I am sure you would be very welcome at the next meeting.
Sadly, the reality is that in 2024, 2.64 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Britain, including 2,646 procedures on dogs and almost 2,000—1,936—procedures on non-human primates. These figures are significant, and they are the figures we know about. Because of the lack of resources, many—including myself—would argue that more procedures and testing may be going on illegally that we do not know about. This is an important issue.
I am proud to have been a Labour candidate in the 2017, 2019 and 2024 general elections. We stood on a manifesto commitment to work towards phasing out animal testing. Sadly, in 2025, almost 5 million animals were approved for experiments in the coming years. The Government need to pay attention to this issue and prioritise tackling it.
The point about Herbie’s law has been reiterated by pretty much everyone who has spoken. The Government should work towards introducing that law in legislation as soon as possible, without delay. All 650 MPs in this House of Commons would be proud of Britain’s heritage when it comes to innovation, medical research and technological research. We should harness that for animal-free and humane testing. The UK has an opportunity to be a global leader in this field and to cut out the senseless suffering that goes on. More than 92% of drugs that show promise in animal testing currently fail to meet clinical tests and benefit patients, mostly for reasons of poor efficacy and safety that were not predicted by animal testing.
I place on the record in Hansard my thanks to Animal Free Research UK, the charity that has done so much work on this issue. I am in the process of reading a fantastic book called “Rat Trap” by Dr Pandora Pound, who is involved in the Safer Medicines Trust. I look forward to learning more about the work that organisation is doing. Once again, this debate is important. The figures are quite stark and I hope the Government will take urgent action.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this really important debate today. I congratulate all the speakers who have participated. I thought they all made powerful and useful contributions to the debate.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East powerfully highlighted some of the horrific and unacceptable treatment of animals in research. The Liberal Democrats are champions of animal rights, and I am proud to speak on behalf of the hundreds of animal rights campaigners from my constituency today. I must add a special mention of my constituent from Bude, Steph Jones-Giles, who is a true animal rights champion and has spoken to me about this on many occasions. I see Isobel Martin from Animal Free Research UK in the Gallery; she is also an excellent advocate on this issue.
Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats believe that this country should expect only the absolute highest standards of animal welfare in the scientific experimentation and cosmetic industries. We want to get this country back on track as a world leader in this area and take concrete steps to raise animal welfare standards and get the balance right. The latest annual report by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, the subject of our debate, shows a number of welcome steps and intentions facing the right direction of travel. It rightly places a strong focus on avoiding the use of animals in scientific testing wherever possible.
I am proud that we Liberal Democrats are at the forefront of raising these issues. Lord Clement-Jones, a colleague from the other place, is applying the right pressure to ensure that regulation in this area remains precise and adequate, with encouragement to properly prevent and punish any non-compliance that causes undue harm to animals, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members today. However, it is alarming to read, in the latest report, of the 146 cases of non-compliance in 2024. As many Members have pointed out, those are only the cases that have been reported. Although marking a drop in cases compared to the previous year, those were largely failures to provide proper care such as food and water to the animals being tested on, as we have heard, and to adhere to the strict licence conditions.
Those countless cases of malpractice involved more than 22,000 individual animals, with most being mice. It is a truly shameful statistic. In October 2024, the Regulation Unit made some welcome reforms by increasing their team of full-time inspectors and establishing a new governance board for the unit for greater oversight, which has made a welcome and positive impact.
On a wider point, I am proud to have voted against the draconian measures that were put before the House just over two weeks ago, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We stood firm against expansion of the Public Order Act 2023, which bans legitimate and peaceful animal rights protests and criminalises those activists demanding better welfare for animals involved in testing. I reiterate that once more: I am talking about peaceful campaigners who are raising genuine ethical concerns being treated like terrorists under the guise of threats to our national security. Time and time again in years gone by, the Conservative party undermined our right to peaceful protest by introducing sweeping, overreaching powers that go far beyond what is needed to maintain public safety. The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour before the current Government and their Conservative predecessors imposed those totally unnecessary extra measures.
I will briefly refer to some hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) highlighted the starvation and injury of primates and, again, the possible under-reporting of non-compliance in the self-reporting system we find ourselves with, which means we may have only scratched the surface of illegal animal abuse. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) highlighted the 5 million animals that are to be used in experiments in the coming years, and made a powerful case for Herbie’s law. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) has been a long-standing champion on this issue; I think I am already a member of her APPG but, if I am not, I will make sure to join. The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) mentioned how experiments have been made on more than 2,500 dogs and 1,000 primates, and, again, highlighted the cases that have not been reported.
Liberal Democrats are unapologetic in wanting to see minimal use of animals in scientific testing and the phasing out of testing altogether wherever possible and as soon as possible. We urgently call on the Government to provide greater funding into viable alternatives. In her response, will the Minister commit to a full, new animal health and welfare Bill that looks at the wider issue of animal welfare and delivers a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard animal wellbeing in this sector? As part of their ongoing reset talks with the European Union, will the Government sign a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible to ensure closer alignment on standards and quality with the trading block? Finally, will the Government commit to solidifying minimum standards for all imported food, so that our own animal standards are met by every other nation looking to do business? That would prevent our British farmers being undercut by poorer-quality foreign imports that do not have the same standards.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate and all Members who have spoken in it. There are few issues that reflect our values as a society more than how we treat creatures in our care. Many people in our communities and across our country rightly feel strongly about this, and it is clear from the debate that Members from all parties share concerns for animal welfare.
Animal testing should be a last resort, only when there are no viable alternatives. That was the view of the last Conservative Government. We did not just talk about the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement—but legally embedded them into the fabric of our regulatory framework. We backed that with £90 million in research and a £27 million further fund called the CRACK IT Challenges innovation scheme, as well doubling annual investment to £20 million for the 2024-25 fiscal year. We also refused to vote for bans on protests outside animal testing sites. Can the Minister confirm whether the levels of investment that we left in place have been maintained, and what steps are being taken to accelerate the development of alternatives?
Turning to the annual report, these are figures that warrant rigorous scrutiny. I welcome the fact that the number of animals experiencing adverse welfare outcomes has fallen, but the statistics on non-compliance make for very difficult reading. As we heard, there were 146 cases of non-compliance across 45 different establishments, with 63 of those involving a failure to provide basic care such as food, water or suitable facilities.
The unacceptable instances highlighted by Members are harrowing: unweaned pups starving to death after their mother was killed; mice left without water for five days; and live animals accidentally placed in waste bags. Those are not administrative oversights; they should be criminal acts. Those animals are supposed to be protected under our regulatory system, but concerningly, 75% of cases are resolved with inspector advice alone. Does the Minister agree that a letter of reprimand is not a sufficient deterrent for such a profound failure of care?
We must ensure that sanctions are not just administrative slaps on the wrist but robust measures that prevent recurrence and punish wilful neglect and cruelty. Just last month, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) asked directly whether a letter of reprimand was adequate. The Minister’s answer referred to a compliance framework, but did not address whether this sanction was sufficient. Will the Minister before us today commit to reviewing the effectiveness of current sanctions?
On staffing, while I know the Government have committed to increase inspector capacity by March 2026, capacity is currently lower than the average over the last 10 years, so I urge a focus on adequate recruitment. Turning to the 2025 strategy, the proposed three-baskets approach provides a welcome road map. It is right that the Government move quickly where mature technology exists, such as in skin-irritation testing, and aim for total replacement in 2026.
However, I sound a note of caution: we must ensure that we do not see countries with lower regulatory standards becoming industrialised for animal testing. Some products will continue to require animal testing, and we must not rely on animal suffering being exported and happening elsewhere, because that will be under worse conditions beyond the reach of British regulation. It would be not a victory for animal welfare but an abdication of responsibility. Can the Minister also share what steps have been taken to ensure that products imported into this country have been developed to adequate standards?
We all want to see the day when animal testing is no longer needed, but until that day comes, we have a duty to ensure that every procedure is justified, every harm is minimised, and every failure of care is met with the full force of a robust and well-resourced regulator, not a written rap on the knuckle.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.
It is important to start by reflecting on the horror of some of the stories we have heard and some of the cases that have been reported regarding animal treatment. I question whether anybody in this House would want that to continue. I suspect we are all united in wanting to phase out animal testing as quickly as possible. It is understandable that there are Members of this House who are pushing the Government to go much faster than we already are, but we are all heading in the same direction and trying to get the same outcome. It is right and proper that campaign groups, Members of Parliament and others continue to push us to do everything we can, because we need to do that.
The transparency of the report was important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) said, we need to understand picture, and the more information and data we have, the more we can see where the challenges are. I agree with that point; we need more transparency in the system to make sure we get to where we went to be as quickly as possible.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), said, our laws are unequivocal that animal testing cannot be authorised where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative exists. That is the law, and we need to make sure it is implemented. It is a fundamental principle for us all, in terms of the care that we have for our animals and the need to avoid unnecessary harm. As the shadow Minister also said, at the moment, despite rapid progress in science, there are not validated alternatives for every area of research and safety testing.
Ruth Jones
The Minister says there are not alternatives, but there are. The forced swim test is a classic, as is the LD50. These need to be phased out; we do not need them any more. I gently encourage the Minister to tell us how we can phase these out as quickly as possible.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her persistence with me; I expect her to continue to be persistent. We can go faster with some things than others, and I will come on to the strategy that the Government have published, which has been broadly welcomed across the House. We want to go as fast as we can in the work that we do. Obviously, we are focusing today on the animals in science regulation unit, and the annual report that it published. It is not actually a statutory responsibility for it to publish that report, although maybe it should be, so I welcome its publication.
Navendu Mishra
The Minister is making an important speech. I am pleased to learn that pretty much everyone in this debate shares the vision of phasing out animal testing. I have two questions: first, does the Home Office have enough resources for tackling illegal and unethical animal testing; secondly, would she work with the MPs in this debate to make that report a statutory requirement?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for jumping on something I have said and holding me to account for it, which is very good. We had a similar debate to this one last week or the week before, and what came out of it—I will come on to this—was an understanding that the regulator is going through a period of reform and increasing capacity. Good things are happening in that space, but there is concern among MPs that that is not going fast or widely enough.
In the last debate, I suggested that we should meet as a group of MPs with the regulator, have these conversations and try to flush out some of the things that MPs are concerned about. The MPs who were taking part in that debate had not had the opportunity to have those conversations with the regulator, so I took back as an action that we should sit collectively and have that conversation, which I am happy to do. The reason I am not directly giving my hon. Friend the immediate response that he is asking for in terms of changing the statutory responsibility of the regulator is just because it does not sit within my remit. I want to make sure that hon. Members are satisfied that we are going as fast and as far as we can, and perhaps a meeting with the regulator would be useful on that front.
The reform that I had begun to talk about, which is overseen by my noble Friend Lord Hanson in the other place and was agreed last year, has involved an increase. Members have rightly said, “Are there enough people focused on doing this work?” We have seen an increase in inspectors from an average of 14.5 full-time equivalents in 2023 to 22 by March 2026. By expanding its capabilities, it is able to do more; the conversation that we would want to have with the regulator is about whether it is satisfied that is enough, or whether it thinks we need to go further.
The two-pronged approach of this Government is, first, to phase out the use of animal testing. I pay tribute to the campaigners pushing for Herbie’s law and I absolutely understand the need for pace and for us to be held to account to go as fast as we can. The strategy to phase out the use of animals, alongside a beefed-up regulator, is the response that this Government are taking. We want to maintain public confidence in our animal testing processes and in our research. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said—I have now quoted her three times; I need to stop quoting her so much—we do need to make sure that the life sciences industry, which is important for this country, is not pushing animal testing abroad and that we maintain our standards here.
I heard the message from Members about the fear that we might fall behind our European Union and US colleagues in this space. I am very interested in working across Government with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Lord Vallance, who are leading on the phasing out of animal research work, to push as hard as we can and look abroad. I will take that back as another action and speak to my colleague Lord Vallance—I suspect hon. Members already have—to make sure that we are learning the lessons from other countries and not falling behind; that, in fact, we are keeping pace.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister will no doubt have highlighted the work of the Government. I know the Government are committed to phasing out animal testing, but the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report highlights the horrors that we unfortunately have in the system. Does she not agree that we need to work at pace to ensure that alternative methods are explored and implemented?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am renowned for my generosity in the Chair and I am extremely open minded about how debates are conducted, but it is not really appropriate to come in two thirds of the way through and intervene when everyone else took the trouble to get here at the beginning. We are all busy, after all.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course we need to go as fast as we can.
The strategy that the Government have published includes establishing a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and 26 commitments for delivery or initiation across 2026 and 2027. It includes a commitment that from this year
“we will publish biennially a list of alternative methods research and development priorities to coalesce UK scientists around these areas and to incentivise partnerships between research organisations”.
In our most recent debate on this subject, we talked about this being an opportunity for UK science and technology to be innovators in this space and push forward new science. We want to go as fast as we can, and we will move as quickly as the science allows. Our commitment is clear: we want to work in step with the scientific community to reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals in research.
As hon. Members know, we have a three-pronged regulatory framework. It requires a personal licence—about 13,000 people have one. The procedures must form part of an approved programme of work, which must be licensed, and the work must be carried out in a licensed establishment. Our licensing is robust, in terms of the processes that people must go through before they do something as serious as test on animals. Even before a proposed project to test on animals reaches the regulator for consideration, it must undergo multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure it is justified and ethical, including from funders and animal welfare and ethical review bodies at scientific establishments. That is important.
On the work of the regulator, the transparency that we want to deliver and the changes that we have pushed through, we want to ensure we get this right. My noble Friend Lord Hanson commissioned the Animals in Science Committee—an expert committee that advises the Government on animal protection—to provide recommendations on improving the accessibility of the publicly available animal testing project summaries, and proposals are now being considered. That reflects our commitment to openness, accountability and continuous improvement.
Several hon. Members spoke about the point at which audits are made and checks are carried out. They are concerned about self-reporting. I heard that in the previous debate, and I have heard it today; that is an important part of the conversation that we need to have with the regulator. There is an important question about whether we are doing enough unannounced audits, and I am committed to going back and testing that. With the support of hon. Members, we can look at that properly.
As lots of Members said, 2.5 million procedures were conducted in Great Britain in 2024, so this is a big landscape and we need to get it right. I recognise the potential for error and wrongdoing. I want to ensure that hon. Members and campaigners are as satisfied as possible that the regulator is doing what it needs to do. There is a programme of reform under way, and we need to test it and see whether it is enough. I am committed to speaking to Lord Vallance. If any Members want to come to a meeting with the regulator, they should let me know; that will be important.
The fact that the Government have put £75 million behind the programme to phase out animal testing shows that we are putting our money where our priorities are. I know that hon. Members across the House will welcome that, but of course we need to go as fast as we can. In that vein, I again thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate and holding the Government to account on these very important issues.
Seamus Logan
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—a colleague who is no longer here once referred to him as the Member for aloha—and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns).
I also thank the Minister for her very thoughtful response. I cannot think of many topics on which there is such a tremendous cross-party alliance, which has included the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and many Labour Members. As the Minister said, virtually no MP would disagree with our intent here, so that is very encouraging.
I am particularly interested in a couple of the Minister’s comments. She said that where a non-animal alternative exists, no approval should be given—absolutely. She drew attention to the need to move as quickly as the science allows. I am sure the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, noted her invitation to meet Lord Vallance to discuss these issues. That would be very welcome indeed.
It simply remains for me to mention my own little pet cockapoo, Lola. Anyone who knows anything about dogs know how sentient and clever they are. They have an amazing vocabulary, and they can count. The only thing they cannot do is speak—more’s the pity—although that is maybe not a bad thing in some ways. I will conclude by thanking everyone who took part, and the members of the public who attended.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and others might like to know that there is some evidence to suggest that bees can count. I speak as a beekeeper.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Animals in Science Regulation Unit annual report 2024.
Other Correction
Liam Conlon
Railways Bill
The following extract is from the Public Bill Committee on the Railways Bill on 20 January 2026.
Liam Conlon
I am a member of the unions ASLEF, Unison and GMB.
[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 4.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon):
Government Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Plan
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s work to address the challenges posed by per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often known as forever chemicals, and to announce the publication of the UK Government’s PFAS plan.
PFAS represent a global and long-term environmental challenge. Their persistence, mobility and widespread historic use mean they are now found throughout our environment, including in water, soils, wildlife, and some consumer products. Although PFAS deliver important benefits in areas such as clean energy technologies, medical devices and essential safety equipment, we must take proportionate and science-based action to minimise their harmful impacts on both public health and the natural environment.
Today, the Government are publishing the PFAS plan, which sets out a comprehensive framework for how the UK will monitor, manage and reduce the risks from PFAS across society and the environment. The plan has been developed collaboratively with the devolved Governments and reflects a shared, UK-wide commitment to protect people and nature while supporting innovation and economic growth.
The plan establishes a clear long-term vision—to reduce and minimise the impacts of harmful PFAS on public health and the environment, while supporting the transition to safer and more sustainable alternatives.
To achieve this, the plan sets out co-ordinated action across three pillars:
Understanding PFAS sources—Understanding and identifying the sources of PFAS including where they originate from.
Tackling PFAS pathways—Accounting for the movement of PFAS around society and the environment.
Reducing ongoing exposure—reducing and managing ongoing exposure to PFAS for people, animals, and the environment.
The plan marks an important step towards a more co-ordinated, transparent and proportionate approach to managing PFAS across the UK. It will provide a platform for action across Government, industry, and others.
As a commitment in the environment improvement plan, progress on delivery of the PFAS plan will be incorporated into the statutory reporting cycle, ensuring regular scrutiny and accountability.
I will place a copy of the PFAS plan in the Library of the House and it will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1297]
Separation Centres Review
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I wish to inform the House of the publication of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres and the Government’s response to his findings.
On 12 April 2025, convicted terrorist Hashem Abedi launched a horrific attack on prison officers in the separation centre at HMP Frankland.
Separation centres are specialised, high-security units within a prison that are designed to house the most dangerous and influential extremist or terrorist prisoners, preventing them from radicalising or influencing others in the mainstream prison population.
Following this incident, on 15 May 2025, the then Lord Chancellor appointed Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to consider the circumstances of the attack at HMP Frankland and lead an independent review into whether separation centres remain fit for purpose. Mr Hall was tasked with providing recommendations that could be implemented to reduce the likelihood of any such incident occurring again.
Before the review concluded, this Government took immediate steps to strengthen staff safety. The Prison Service commissioned a review to assess whether protective body armour—also known as stab-proof vests—should be rolled out to staff. On 3 June, the Government confirmed that stab-proof vests would be made mandatory for officers working in separation centres as well as close supervision centres, where the most violent and disruptive prisoners are placed. Staff in separation centres already have access to a range of protective equipment, including helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons, shields, body-worn video cameras and PAVA pepper spray for use as required.
Over the past decade, around 230 recommendations have been made through independent reviews and inspections into how we manage the threat posed by terrorism in prisons and probation. Our assessment is that the vast majority have been effectively implemented and those that remain outstanding do so for clear and justified reasons with each kept under active and ongoing consideration.
The Government have now received Mr Hall’s most recent review, and we will take forward his further recommendations as part of our ongoing programme to strengthen the management of terrorist risk within our prisons.
I want to place on record the Government’s thanks for his careful, forensic, and thorough work.
Mr Hall has found that the principle of using small units such as separation centres to separate certain prisoners from the main population remains a sound one. However, he has identified various areas for improvement, and his report sets out 13 recommendations aimed at simplifying and strengthening the operation of the separation centre regime.
The Government are supportive of the report’s recommendations, accepting all 13 and in some areas committing to going further. Mr Hall’s report and the full Government response provide comprehensive information on these recommendations. By way of summary, Mr Hall’s recommendations are grouped within the Government response under four key themes.
The first theme addresses staff safety and risk management and covers recommendations 1, 9, 10 and 11. Collectively, these recommendations aim to create a safer, more resilient environment for both staff and prisoners. The Government recognise that some of the most dangerous terrorist offenders will seek to exploit vulnerabilities, making it essential that staff are equipped to identify and disrupt threats proactively. We will continue to invest in the tools, training, and support necessary to enable staff to manage terrorist risk confidently and safely. The Government remain unequivocal in their commitment to protecting prison staff and have already taken decisive steps to address these risks. We are delivering a comprehensive review of separation centre staff training, led by operational and clinical experts and supported by specialist learning and development teams. This review will ensure that all separation centre staff receive bespoke, evidence-based training tailored to the unique risks and challenges of managing terrorist offenders in high-security environments.
The second theme addresses system design and leadership and covers recommendations 2, 3 and 5. Mr Hall’s review identifies a clear opportunity to transform the way separation centres are governed and operated. The Government agree that the current model must evolve. To achieve this, we will implement a comprehensive redesign programme, developing a tiered separation centre system allowing movement between tiers based on rigorous new risk assessments. We are also committed to improving the quality of referrals for separation centre placement, including through developing a dedicated team with the required drafting and analytical expertise to produce high-quality, defensible referrals. This redesign programme will mark a step change in how separation centres are governed, ensuring stronger leadership, clearer accountability and more consistent delivery across the estate.
The third theme addresses the policy and legislative framework of separation centres and covers recommendations 4, 6, 7 and 8. Mr Hall’s review highlights the need for significant modernisation, noting that procedural and legislative requirements have constrained flexibility and exposed the system to litigation. The Government are committed to ensuring policy frameworks support, rather than hinder, effective risk management. We have already made significant progress in improving the defensibility and clarity of our separation centre policy framework and will go further to ensure it is robust and responsive to operational realities. This Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights, however, commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges highlighted by Mr Hall that article 8 can pose for separation centre decision making. We are therefore strengthening our internal processes, so they are clear and resilient to challenge, allowing staff to focus on managing risk and protecting the public. In parallel, we will consider whether new legislation is required to better protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from litigation on article 8 grounds, exploring the full range of options to deliver this, while being clear of the need to remain compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.
The fourth theme focuses on improving the collection and use of intelligence in separation centres and covers recommendations 12 and 13. Mr Hall’s review identifies a timely opportunity to enhance this function, noting that current intelligence collection practices are overly bureaucratic and insufficiently focused. The Government have already taken significant steps to improve how intelligence is gathered, analysed, and used across the prison estate. The launch of the new counter-terrorism training package in April 2025 marked a significant milestone and aims to equip staff with the skills to identify and report terrorist behaviours more effectively. The training package is already helping staff to recognise and report relevant behaviours. We are committed to reviewing and improving intelligence collection practices, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and ensuring that intelligence reporting is purposeful and directly supports operational decisions. These changes will help create a more agile and responsive intelligence environment within separation centres.
Taken together, these four themes, and the action we will take in response to them, form the basis of Mr Hall’s report and the Government’s response. I will place a copy of Mr Hall’s report in the Library of the House, and the full Government response will be laid before Parliament today.
This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to protecting the public and ensuring our prisons are equipped to manage the most dangerous offenders. The steps we are taking in response to this review, as set out in this statement, will strengthen security, protect staff, and reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure within the prison estate.
[HCWS1298]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships will know that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments, debated in the last session, concern trustees’ duties and protections, the design of the savers’ interest test, the risk of regulatory herding and the proportionality of the penalty regime.
I start with the operation of the savers’ interest test and exemptions for many future asset allocation requirements. Amendment 140, from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would remove the provision that an exemption, once granted under the savers’ interest test, applies only for a period specified by the authority. In practice, this would allow an exemption to become open-ended. Amendment 141 would prevent schemes from being required to change their asset allocation while an application or appeal under the savers’ interest test is pending and it would secure the ability to apply for an exemption for up to three consecutive years.
We need fair and transparent procedures when exemptions are granted or withdrawn. But the Government’s intention is that exemptions should be capable of adapting to changing circumstances rather than becoming de facto permanent exclusions. Market conditions, whether in terms of fees or the availability of suitable opportunities, can and do change. A permanent exemption, as Amendment 140 would allow, could end up entrenching a competitive advantage for particular providers long after the original justification had fallen away.
On Amendment 141, many of the procedural safeguards that the noble Baroness seeks are already enabled by the Bill. New Section 28C allows regulations to set time limits for decisions on savers’ interest applications, to specify the period an approval lasts, to set rules around withdrawals and to require advance notice to be given. Those are the right vehicles for detailed processes to be determined—by regulators and in consultation with industry. The powers do not cap the number of times that an exemption can be renewed, so I assure the noble Baroness that multiyear relief will already be possible where justified.
Turning to trustees’ duties, Amendments 146 and 147, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, address how these new powers sit alongside fiduciary responsibilities. Amendment 146 would say expressly that nothing in this chapter overrides or diminishes trustees’ duty to act in the best financial interests of members. I entirely agree about the importance of that duty. But, as I have said, the Government would not be proposing these powers if there were not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see today in the market.
In the last session, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, challenged me on the strength of the saver benefits, referring to analysis by the Government Actuary’s Department, which, in illustrative modelling for DWP, found a 2% uplift in a typical saver’s pension pot from a hypothetical private markets allocation. That analysis is just one of various reports that show the benefits of diversification and the potential for higher risk-adjusted returns from a more diversified portfolio. Some of that evidence is referenced in the DWP paper to which the noble Lord referred. As another example, a British Business Bank report identified a potential uplift of 7% to 12% from a 5% allocation to venture capital.
There is a fair degree of consensus around this in the pensions industry. Indeed, the Mansion House Accord explicitly cites the potential for higher risk-adjusted returns as its core justification. The fact is that we are an international outlier. Meanwhile, Australian and Canadian pension funds are investing in the UK, owning airports, roads and telecom companies, making the most of the opportunities available to invest in this country while seeking good returns for their savers.
When it comes to the reserve asset allocation power, as noble Lords know, before it can be exercised, the Government must publish a report on the likely impact on savers. Where asset allocation requirements are in place, the savers’ interest test allows a scheme to seek an exemption if it can show that compliance would cause material financial detriment to members. Crucially, nothing in the Bill disapplies trustees’ existing duties of loyalty, prudence and acting in members’ best interests. These continue to apply.
Our concern with Amendment 146 is that it could cast doubt on the binding nature of any requirements introduced under these powers by implying that trustees can simply disregard them wherever they assert that they are acting in members’ interests. The right place to consider scheme-specific departures is the savers’ interest test, which is overseen by the regulator.
We do not agree with Amendment 147 for similar reasons. It seeks to create a broad statutory safe harbour from penalties or consequences for trustees who fail to meet asset allocation requirements where they believe that they are acting in members’ best interests. The Bill already recognises that there will be circumstances where exemptions are justified and provides a structured route to secure them. A blanket safe harbour would risk undermining that framework.
Amendment 148, which is also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would place a new statutory duty on trustees to have regard to systemic risks, including economic resilience and climate change. I very much agree with the noble Baroness that such risks can materially affect long-term pension outcomes, and trustees should take them seriously. Our concern is that a new open-ended duty, using terms such as “systemic risk” and “economic resilience” without detailed definition, risks increasing legal uncertainty and costs for trustees without clear benefit. Our preferred approach is to work with the sector on strength and guidance for trust-based private pensions, clarifying how trustees can take account of systemic and sustainability risks within their existing duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pressed me last Monday on the timings of this work. I can confirm that the work is already under way and that an initial round table, with representatives from across the pensions sector and led by the Pensions Minister, took place yesterday. The Pensions Minister has confirmed that he will be convening a technical working group to take this work forward and that there will be a full consultation on the draft guidance later in the spring.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also asked whether that guidance would clarify the application of the reserve power. The guidance is not conceived as part of our implementation of these reserve powers, which, as I take every opportunity to remind the Committee, may well never be exercised. Rather, its purpose is to address inconsistent interpretations of investment duties across the trusteeship landscape and support everyday investment decision-making. As noble Lords may well be aware, there has been an active area of discussion within legal and financial circles for many years. The recent work of the Financial Markets Law Committee has played an important role in shaping the debate on the extent to which factors such as climate change, quality of life in retirement and sustainability should be considered in investment decisions. Building on that, our forthcoming statutory guidance is intended to provide clear and practical support to trustees on how these factors should be taken into account, ensuring confidence and consistency.
Amendment 142 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, deals with a concern about what happens if qualifying assets were to perform poorly, an issue also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, last week. This amendment would require the regulator to indemnify schemes against costs or liabilities if members’ returns are worse than they might have been without any mandated allocation. I recognise the question, but I say again that the Government would not be proposing these powers if we did not think change from the status quo was in savers’ interests. These powers would only ever be used following a statutory impact report and with the savers’ interest test in place.
As I have said previously, trustees continue to be responsible for investing in their savers’ interests. That means savers would continue in all circumstances to be protected by the core fiduciary duties of trustees to act with loyalty, honesty and good faith to savers, and trustees would continue to be subject to a duty to invest in savers’ best interests, in line with the law. We expect that duty would certainly apply to the selection of individual investments in a portfolio; to the balance of different asset classes in a portfolio, including the balance between private asset classes; and to any decision to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. If a provider felt the asset allocation requirement was inappropriate for their circumstances, we would expect their existing duties to guide them to submit an application for exemption to protect their savers’ interests.
There are also, I must say, some significant drawbacks with this amendment, which is not dissimilar to Amendment 167—we are going to cover that in the next grouping, so I apologise if I end up being a little bit repetitive then. An indemnity of this kind would in practice mean that taxpayers and levy-paying firms would underwrite individual schemes’ investment decisions. That would create serious moral hazard and encourage excessive risk-taking, on the basis that any losses could be socialised while any gains would accrue to the scheme. It would also be very hard to operate in practice. Identifying the portion of any loss attributable specifically to the qualifying assets, as distinct from the wider portfolio or market factors, would be highly contentious.
Amendment 150 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State avoids mandating or promoting investment in ways that create herding and to emphasise diversification in guidance. I entirely agree that we must avoid perverse herding effects. At present, DC schemes’ exposure to private markets is relatively low. As that changes, the breadth of potential qualifying assets, infrastructure, property, private equity, venture capital, private credit and others, together with the requirement for a prior report to Parliament, should help to mitigate herding. But while we will need to be alert to this, we do not believe an additional statutory duty is needed. Indeed, schemes will continue to be subject to existing rules and regulations in this area, such as the Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005, which require the assets of trust-based schemes to be
“properly diversified in such a way as to avoid excessive reliance on any particular asset”.
Amendment 149, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would ensure that listed investment companies and trusts can be treated as qualifying assets on the same footing as other collective vehicles. We have had many an opportunity earlier in Committee to discuss in detail the matters relating to investment companies, so I will not rehearse arguments made previously. But, as I said last week, the design of this reserve power is deliberately aligned with the commitments made by industry under the Mansion House Accord. I have circulated to noble Lords links to the relevant Q&A materials, which I mentioned last Monday in Committee, and which can be found on the websites of Pensions UK, the ABI and the City of London.
The noble Baroness has asked periodically who is responsible for the approach taken to funds. I cannot speak to individual decision processes; what I can do is to echo what I said last week. The signatories self-evidently supported the scope that was eventually drawn, but so did the Government—we have been quite clear about that. Based on my knowledge of the conversations in which the Government were involved, I can also say that government support for this position was not in any way the result of pressure on the Government from signatories or the representative bodies, so the idea that this is some sort of anti-competitive move by the pensions industry is completely misconceived. Instead, it simply follows the logic—
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I do not think I was suggesting that it was an anti-competitive move by the pensions industry, but there are segments in it that are advantaged by it. The other concern is that the meetings that took place prior to the signing of the Mansion House agreement were very particular to certain types of organisation; I have yet to know of any that really had interests in listed investment companies or of any of them that were invited. Perhaps the Minister does not know because this is not her field, but I have to say, I am very concerned that this has been a secretive consultation, not a public consultation, among a selection rather than among the many.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to say any more than I have now. The noble Baroness has made a series of complaints about cartels, secrecy and lack of integrity—all kinds of things—none of which are merited. I simply felt that I needed to put something on the record to counter that, and I do not have anything to add. We have made it clear that these were iterative discussions with the industry, looking at what was going to happen specifically in relation to the accord, and I have made the Government’s view on that clear.
On enforcement, Amendment 145, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has added her name, probes whether the maximum penalty of £100,000 per employer in new Section 28I is proportionate. We have worked closely with the regulators and benchmarked against comparable penalty regimes. The intention is to set a maximum that is meaningful as a deterrent to wilful or repeated non-compliance but is not routinely applied. I assure the noble Baroness that it is a cap, not a fixed sum, so the regulators will take account of the facts in each case; in practice, the potential loss of qualifying scheme status for auto-enrolment is likely to be a far more significant consequence than any fine.
We are keen to work with schemes, trustees and providers to ensure that any future use of the reserve asset allocation powers, were that to come to pass, is carefully targeted, evidence-based and consistent with trustees’ duties. We believe that the Bill provides the right framework, including the savers’ interest test, the requirement for a prior report and a proportionate enforcement regime. In the light of all that, I hope that noble Lords can withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for summing up, albeit that there has been a delay of some two working days. I thank everyone who has spoken. I offer a particular thank you to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, for lending their support to Amendments 140 and 141.
I note that, in summing up, the Minister said—it was in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I think—that statutory guidance will be issued. I make a plea: could that be made available before Report, or certainly before the Bill receives Royal Assent, to enable trustees to have sufficient time to prepare in this regard? I do not know whether we have a date for that.
In relation to Amendments 140 and 141, I could not have put it better than my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott did in summing up when she said:
“They make the framework that the Bill creates more robust, transparent and defensible”.—[Official Report, 26/1/26; col. GC 287.]
Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate these two amendments, as well as this group of amendments per se, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Pension value protection for default arrangements investing in qualifying assets(1) This section applies to a Master Trust scheme or a group personal pension scheme where—(a) an individual’s rights have been accrued wholly or partly through automatic enrolment, and(b) all or part of those rights have been invested in a default arrangement which includes qualifying assets in accordance with any agreement or policy statement made by the Government concerning minimum or expected allocations to such assets.(2) Upon the individual becoming entitled to receive retirement benefits under the scheme, the trustees or managers must obtain an actuarial assessment of—(a) the net investment return attributable to the qualifying assets held within the default arrangement over the period during which the individual’s rights were so invested, and(b) the net investment return that would have been achieved over the same period had those assets instead been invested in a prescribed benchmark fund.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), “prescribed benchmark fund” means a diversified, low-cost equity index fund of a description specified in regulations.(4) Where the actuarial assessment shows that the return attributable to the qualifying assets is lower than the return of the prescribed benchmark fund, the Secretary of State must, in accordance with regulations, secure that a payment is made by the Department for Work and Pensions to the individual equal to the difference, within a timeframe determined by regulations.(5) Regulations under this section may make provision about—(a) the form and content of actuarial assessments,(b) the appointment and qualifications of actuaries,(c) the methodology for attributing returns to qualifying assets,(d) the manner and timing of any payment under subsection (4),(e) cases in which no payment is required, including where differences are de minimis, and(f) the recovery of costs from prescribed pension schemes or prescribed persons.(6) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the operation of this section, including guidance on the protection of members who remain invested in default arrangements throughout their working lives.(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for paying the difference (if any) between returns on investments into qualifying assets held within default arrangements and returns on the same investment, had they been invested in a “prescribed benchmark fund”, meaning a diversified, low-cost equity index fund.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharkey sends his apologies; he is at a funeral and will read Hansard with great attention. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for supporting me on Amendment 167. I think it is the first time in 15 years that I have degrouped an amendment to stand by itself, but I can see no other way to ensure a clear answer from the Government: will they put their money where their mouth is?
The Committee has discussed qualified assets and, while I do not intend to repeat the discussion, I hope that everyone understands how high risk a portfolio of such assets is. The Financial Services Regulation Committee, in January, titled its look at the private equity markets as Private Markets: Unknown Unknowns. Some 75% of firms invested in by venture capital fail. Complex infrastructure is both high risk and illiquid; we can think HS2, the Elizabeth Line—four years delayed and £4 billion over budget—and Hinkley Point, which seems to run out of money time after time. If someone with a substantial pension wants to invest in such assets, that is fine with me, but the Mansion House Compact —or accord, I do not care which terminology is used—covers only auto-enrolment default fund pension schemes. These are vehicles for those with the narrowest shoulders, with low incomes, small pensions and little financial knowledge. The downside risk for them means poverty.
The Government have assured us, and those pension savers with the narrowest shoulders, that under the Mansion House Compact, and by putting 10% of their pensions into qualified assets, they will be winners—to quote the Minister on the first day in Committee:
“with an average earner potentially gaining up to £29,000 more by retirement”.—[Official Report, 12/1/26; col. GC 205.]
No warning of the downside was mentioned and clearly, to the Minister, the downside does not seriously exist. I challenge that. I am always very wary of promises of low-risk, high-return investments.
The Government have argued that the Mansion House Compact, combined with the provisions in this Bill, brings great benefits because risk can in effect be eliminated by the structures that have been introduced and the use of large providers. I want to challenge some of those shibboleths. Large providers have explained to me that they can enhance pensions and use qualified assets safely through lifestyle investing, where more is invested into high-risk assets early in the life of the pension, switching later to low-risk investments. If I lose £100 in the first year that I save in a pension, the loss is compounded through the life of the pension and I will have thousands less to get me through retirement. If I lose £100 the day before my pension matures, I lose £100. Early losses are never made up by later gains because they in no way enhance the performance of other assets in the portfolio. If you lose on A, there is no sudden guarantee that you will gain on B. Lifestyle investment is a marketing tool to sell schemes to the financially anxious.
The Government and the Minister argue that the risks in qualified assets can be mitigated away through diversification. For a fund fully invested in good-quality assets, such as the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500, I see the argument for diversification to manage risk, but diversification loses its effectiveness in high-risk portfolios, as everyone should have learned from the collateralised debt obligation scandal that triggered the financial crisis in 2008. Let me illustrate with an extreme example. I go to the casino, maybe several casinos. I play the slot machine, roulette and blackjack. I am beautifully diversified. But we all know that I will still lose my money.
The Government’s case that pensioners with the narrowest shoulders should be 10% invested in qualified assets really depends on assumptions that it makes about asset allocation. The argument is that the pension companies involved would employ the best experts to pick winners among those qualified assets. Some experts are better than others, though I note that they all will find statistics and present them to show that they have the Midas touch.
I note the analysis of the Government Actuary’s Department, which shows that over time and on average—that is a key word—virtually every model portfolio tested delivers similar results. But there is a catch, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pointed out last week—the GAD’s conclusion underscored its uncertainty. It said that
“there is considerable uncertainty, particularly with the assumptions for projected future investment returns”.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also quoted from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which made the point even more forcefully. I could not work out what the mean looked like when I looked at that work done by the government department. Obviously, the mean really matters because an average can be made up of a few big winners and a lot of small losers. It is the losers in the high stakes game of qualified assets that worry me.
I am not attempting to stop the Mansion House Compact and the Government’s plan to put 10% of the assets of auto-enrolment default funds into qualified assets even though they are unlisted, opaque, high-risk and illiquid. My amendment would simply require the Government to provide a safety net for those who are in no position to live with the downside in these investments.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, last week said that
“the inevitable corollary of mandation”,
which is where he was focused,
“is responsibility for the outcome”.—[Official Report, 26/1/26; col. GC 284.]
But I regard the Mansion House Compact as very much a government-driven agreement designed by the industry to head off even more coercive action and so I think that the same principle applies: “responsibility for the outcome”.
My amendment is simple:
“Upon the individual becoming entitled to receive retirement benefits under the scheme, the trustees or managers must obtain an actuarial assessment of—
(a) the net investment return attributable to the qualifying assets held within the default arrangement over the period during which the individual’s rights were so invested, and
(b) the net investment return that would have been achieved over the same period had those assets instead been invested in a prescribed benchmark fund”.
In the amendment, benchmark fund
“means a diversified, low-cost equity index fund of a description specified in regulations”.
If the benchmark fund would have performed better, the Government make up the difference to the pensioner. The calculation, despite what the Minister said, is very simple, requires no new data and can be crafted straightforwardly. Pension schemes would just code it into their normal reporting.
If the Minister and the Government are right, and investment in qualified assets, as structured under the Mansion House Compact and in this Bill, benefits and does not harm pensioners in auto-enrolment default schemes—those people I described at the beginning with the narrowest shoulders and least able to take risk—it costs the Government absolutely nothing to sign up to this protection provision. If the Government believe their own words, accepting my amendment means taking no risk at all for the Government or taxpayer. My amendment only costs the Government money if they are wrong in the promises that they are making. The amendment would certainly give peace of mind to the poorest pensioners and strengthen their confidence to save and to invest.
We all want auto-enrolment to better serve low earners, but that requires shaping policy around the capacity of low earners to take risk. I ask the Government to put their money where their mouth is and provide the pension value protection described in my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be here last week for Amendment 142. I am grateful that the Minister responded to it regardless of that. I have added my name to Amendment 167. I will try to be very brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has explained it with her usual clarity, and the amendment covers some of the same ground that we debated in the last group—although it attacks the problem from the other direction.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I possibly touched on this issue in the wrong group, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has indicated, I raised, in essence, the same points in the previous debate.
I am in favour of mandation, but what worries me is that the Government do not seem to understand—and have never acknowledged—the consequences, which have been set out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. There are consequences if the Government tell people how to organise their retirement income and if, having told them how to proceed to achieve a good income, it subsequently turns out that the Government are wrong. As I said last week, they will not necessarily be legal consequences, but political consequences and moral consequences.
I draw attention to the Financial Assistance Scheme, which we are going to be debating later this week. It was established because the Government had to acknowledge their failure to introduce the appropriate law and protect people, and they lost income. That is an exact precedent for where we are now. That Government had a responsibility to protect those people and failed to do so. After a vigorous campaign by those who had been affected, and the threat of losing a case at the European court, which was possibly more influential on the Government, they had to act. It is not wild speculation that the Government will end up having to meet these moral and political consequences; it has already happened. The Government have to face up to what they are proposing here.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support this amendment in principle. I share the concerns just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the risk of mandating a substantial proportion of any pension fund to be invested in what is, in effect, the highest-risk end of the equity spectrum, which is meant in other circumstances—if you ask the Pensions Regulator and so on—to be the risky bit of investment.
The Government may need to think again about the consequences of potentially being so narrow—of course, in the Bill, we do not even have the exact definition of what the assets are going to be in terms of these unlisted opportunities—because the opportunity set for risky investments that can actually benefit the economy is a lot wider than seems to be indicated in the Bill. Surely the more diversified the portfolios, the better risk-adjusted returns members can expect. I hope that the Government will give the Committee a more precise understanding of their expectations for the types of assets and for the consequences of being automatically enrolled in a scheme that invests in private equity assets or other unlisted assets that end up failing completely—as has happened so frequently with that type of investment in the past.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat the long list of government missteps on a global, international stage from those politicians who have interfered with people’s retirements. Safe to say, it represents moral hazard.
There is a mismatch between the long-term investment needs of people who are saving for retirement half a generation ahead—in particular, the youngest members of our workforce—and the short-term political wants of those who might direct. Politics is transient. MPs come and go, but the hangover from bad decisions lasts a long time. The 1997 changes to dividend taxes have cast a long shadow that has deprived millions of a secure retirement. We should have learned that lesson but, no, we have not. Mandation risks repeating that mistake all over again and benighting a new generation of youngsters who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement. There is already generational unfairness in the system. Mandation will perpetuate it again. It should have no place in the Bill, yet here we are discussing it.
I align myself fully with the proposers of these amendments and hope that, even at this late stage, between Committee and Report, the Government will look at this matter once more. Mandation should not be part of the Bill because of that simple moral hazard. MPs and the Treasury love to tell people what to do, but they will not be around to pick up the pieces when, or if, it all goes wrong.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 167, which was tabled and spoken to eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by many noble Lords. This amendment touches on a set of concerns that we raised at Second Reading and to which we will return in considerably more detail in our debate on the next group.
For the sake of brevity, at this stage, I will confine myself to the central point of principle. The issue here is not simply asset allocation but where risk is placed and who should take it when investment decisions are shaped by government direction, rather than trusty judgment. The mandation power introduced by the Bill is targeted narrowly at automatic enrolment default funds—the schemes that are relied on by those who are least likely to have made an active choice and are least able to respond if outcomes are adversely affected. That targeting matters. Mandation does not apply evenly across the pensions landscape. It does not touch defined benefit schemes, self-selected funds, SIPPs or bespoke arrangements but falls with notable precision on default savers—those who depend most heavily on the neutrality and integrity of the system to act on their behalf.
Amendment 167 raises a legitimate question about protection and accountability in that context. If default funds are required to follow mandated investment decisions and if those decisions underperform a simple, low-cost benchmark, should the consequences fall entirely on members who neither chose the strategy nor, in practice, have the capacity to respond to it? Of course, it may be said that members are free to move to another fund, but that response lacks behavioural realism. Automatic enrolment defaults exist precisely because many savers do not actively choose, do not regularly review and do not feel equipped to intervene in complex investment decisions. How can we put them in that position?
For a significant proportion of members, remaining in the default is not an expression of preference but a reflection of constraint, limited time, limited confidence and limited financial literacy. Behavioural realism tells us that these savers will not simply move in response to policy changes, however well signposted. To place the full downside risk of mandated investment decisions on that group is therefore not neutral; it is a deliberate allocation of risk to those least able to manage it. The noble Baroness’s amendment is therefore not an attempt to eliminate risk but to highlight the asymmetry that mandation introduces and the absence of any corresponding safeguard for those most exposed to its effects.
These issues around mandation, choice, fiduciary duty and the position of default savers run through the architecture of the Bill. We will return to them in much greater depth in the following group. For now, I simply underline that the concerns raised by Amendment 167 and all those who have spoken are not isolated. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will take note of the concern laid out to them today and do the right thing.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for explaining her amendment, which would in essence introduce a requirement for the Government to establish a framework for compensating savers in the event that they lose out financially because they were invested in assets that they would not have been were it not for the use of these powers. I am sorry to say that because we have just discussed a similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in the previous group, some of my arguments may sound a little familiar, but I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me.
First, as I have said, the Government would not be proposing these powers if there was not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see in today’s market. That is the Government’s view. I mentioned in the last group that there is a range of evidence out there which goes to this point. I cited one example of it; there are others cited in the DWP paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred. I pointed out that we are an international outlier in this matter, so that is the Government's view.
The reason we are doing this, once again, is that we believe that it is in the interests of savers to have a small, risk-adjusted diversification within the context of a portfolio; we believe that it is the best thing for savers. DC pension providers themselves have recognised that a small allocation to private markets can offer better risk-adjusted returns as part of a diversified portfolio. The noble Baroness has offered one view as to why people are not doing this. In our view, many providers have so far not done it not because it is necessarily in savers’ best interests not to do it but because of competitive pressure to keep fees low or because of a lack of scale, among other reasons.
Secondly, if the Government ever came to consider exercising these powers, they would first have to publish a report considering the impact of the proposed asset allocation requirements on savers. Crucially, that is an opportunity to confirm that bringing forward the requirements is in savers’ interests, based on the circumstances at that time. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that there is also a report required after the powers are used and within five years. Thirdly, if the Government ever did implement the requirements, the legislation provides for a formal process under which providers could apply for an exemption based on evidence that meeting the requirements would cause savers “material financial detriment”.
Crucially, savers will continue in all circumstances to be protected by the core fiduciary duties of trustees. Specifically, trustees would continue to be subject to a duty to invest in savers’ best interests, in line with the law. This comes down to the fact that the Government are not mandating trustees to invest in any particular assets. Were these powers ever to come about, the trustee duty would apply, as I have said, to the selection of individual investments in a portfolio, to the balance of different asset classes in a portfolio, including the balance between private asset classes, and to any decision to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. If a provider felt that the asset allocation requirement was not appropriate for their particular circumstances, we would expect the existing duties to guide them to submit an application under the savers’ interest tests.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
If this is such a good idea, why not just mandate it for all pension funds?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The Bill as a whole is trying to pursue scale and is trying to mirror what the Mansion House Accord did. I have been through that argument many times. We are seeking solely a reserve power to act as a backstop to an industry-led decision. The industry itself has decided to go in this direction. It is a simply a reserve power, and the reason why we are using it is that we know that there remains a risk that people will not all follow through on it because of the excessive focus on cost and the competitive advantage that may come from backsliding on that. I fully accept that the noble Baroness does not agree, but those are the Government’s arguments. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it has been such an excellent debate that I will be extremely brief. I am troubled by two things. One is that the Minister does not seem to realise that this is not voluntary action by the pension industry. It is because it sees it as the only way to avoid actual mandation, not because people have sat down and said, “All these years we have been getting it wrong; now we have had a conversation with the Government and we’re going to get it right”. That is not what is going on here.
Secondly, I am troubled that the Minister does not understand the consequences of the level of risk that is embedded in these qualified assets. She is perfectly satisfied that, if they go wrong, the damage falls on the people with the narrowest shoulders. To me, that is seriously incomprehensible because, for those people, the consequence is frequently going to be poverty.
I ask her to sit back and think about this. The Government are right to encourage people to save for pensions, but they also need to understand that, when people have narrow shoulders, low incomes and limited financial knowledge, they are not in a position to take the kind of risks that she is, in essence, saying that they should be taking and, if they take them, they are guaranteed winners. If she believes that they are guaranteed winners, then simply step in and provide the protection that I am talking about, which would cost the taxpayer nothing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to encourage new entrants to enter the pension scheme market.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 168, I shall speak also to Amendments 169 to 171 in my name; I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to three of those four amendments.
Last week, I promised the Minister that we would return to the issues of new entrants, competition and innovation. I make no apology for returning to these themes, because they are fundamental to a healthy pension provision market. The Government have decided that they wish to accelerate the consolidation of pension providers into a smaller number of larger players because they believe that this will enhance the returns that pension savers will get. I think that that is arguable, but I am not going to relitigate that case today; some of us tried to make it last week, and I know that we will return to it on Report.
Instead, I want to focus on how that market can be future-proofed so that it will deliver for savers in the long term. The Government should be interested in this because I am fairly sure that they will not want to contemplate a further significant market intervention, such as the one in this Bill, a few years down the line when they find that the performance of the oligopolists they have created starts to disappoint.
I know that the value-for-money regime in the Bill might well deal with the worst performers, but getting rid of poor performers will not be good enough to make the pension provision market develop in a positive direction. For several reasons, the pension provision market is one where customer choice is not a force for significant change, so we have to look elsewhere. Healthy markets are those in which innovation can challenge existing market norms, often by identifying underserved or badly served customers and by using technology to transform cost bases. Competition within established markets is rarely enough to achieve disruption, which is why the focus has to be on new entrants. This is the story of practically every business sector. It certainly encompasses all aspects of financial services, and pension provision is no exception; for example, cloud-native pension platforms are potential current disruptors in the DC pensions space.
We have already had some conversations about new entrants in the context of the new entrant pathway and the transitional pathway. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I have tried to argue that new entrants are going to struggle to survive because of the rules of the two pathways, because of the timescales involved in getting from innovation to significant size, and because of the interaction between the financing of growth and the requirements of the scale provisions. I still live in hope that we will be able to persuade the Minister about that.
Three amendments in this group are aimed at the provisions in Clause 42, which concern default arrangements. The aim of my amendments is to ensure both that new entrants are encouraged and that competition and innovation can thrive. Clause 42 is, astonishingly, headed “Regulations restricting creation of new non-scale default arrangements”. Unsurprisingly, my Amendment 168 takes aim at this notion of restricting new non-scale default arrangements. It would replace the purpose of the regulation-making power, which is to restrict the ability of a pension scheme provider to begin operating a non-scale default arrangement, with the more neutral “in connection with”. I could have gone further—indeed, I probably should have gone further—and replaced “restricting” with “encouraging”, or at least something more positive.
My central proposition is that new pension providers should be welcomed with open arms and not be assumed to be something to be squashed. It may well be that not all new entrants are successful—the Bill has provisions that will allow them to be consolidated if they are not—but starting with the presumption that they are bad news and need to be controlled and restricted is completely wrong. Amendment 169 would add some words to Clause 42(2)(f) so that the regulations on new non-scale default arrangements can confer a function of encouraging competition on regulators. The wording is almost certainly not quite right but, for the purposes of Committee, I am trying to ensure that the regulators can be given a role in creating and developing competition in the markets in which pension providers operate.
It gets a bit complicated here. As I read it, the Pensions Regulator has no function, power or objective in relation to pension provision markets, including competition. This is in stark contrast to the FCA, which has a strategic objective to ensure that the markets it regulates function well. It also has an operational competition objective and a secondary objective to promote competitiveness and growth. It is quite possible that the FCA’s statutory objectives will, in effect, ensure that they act in a pro-competition way when exercising powers granted under the regulations in Clause 42. I hope the Minister can tell the Committee how the Government see Clause 42 of this Bill interacting with the FCA’s existing statutory framework.
It is, however, clear that TPR operates in a wholly different statutory framework, which is undesirable, as later amendments will explore, and could lead to different outcomes under this Bill in the different pension provision markets that they regulate. I ask the Minister how the Government can justify one regulator having quite clear competition and pro-market powers while the other regulator does not. Will this produce different outcomes in the exercise of the powers?
Amendment 170 would add a new subsection (2A) to Clause 42 so that the regulators
“must have regard to the desirability of encouraging innovation”
in pension provision. While the FCA’s legislation does not specifically reference innovation, as I have explained, it has several references to competition and competitiveness, which are generally interpreted to include innovation as a key driver. TPR’s legislation has nothing about innovation. I believe that, as a minimum, the regulator should have something like a statutory “have regard” duty to innovation to ensure that it keeps that in sharp focus as it carries out its regulatory functions in relation to new providers.
Lastly, Amendment 173 would require the review of non-scale default arrangements, which Clause 43 requires, to consider the extent to which non-scale default arrangements contribute to competition, which I hope is self-explanatory. I hope the Minister can also explain the timetable for the Clause 43 review, since no timing appears in the Bill, which itself is a rather extraordinary way to legislate.
The contrast between the type of regulation that this Bill is trying to create and that in the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority more widely is stark. For some time, both the PRA and the FCA have had a special focus on fostering start-ups. They have regulatory sandboxes to allow innovative ideas to be tested outside the normal regulatory framework. Just today, they have announced new arrangements to help scale-ups to achieve their potential. This Bill feels positively prehistoric in its approach to squashing new entrants into the market and I hope that the Government will think again. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I would like to add my voice in support of Amendment 168 and the other amendments to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has spoken.
It seems quite counterproductive for legislation to discourage innovation and the introduction of new types of investment based on different strategies in order to widen the choice available to the trustees of our pension funds. Anything that seeks to restrict new entrants is by definition counter competitive and likely to lead ultimately to worse, not better, outcomes.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I just want to touch on some basic principles here. As we go through the Bill in Committee, I go back to look at the whole basis of what the Government are trying to do, which I broadly support.
However, it essentially says here that members should benefit from these reforms and get better outcomes and greater value for their pension and invested funds. Therefore, although in general I agree with the first of these amendments, if one looks further into Amendments 172, 173 and 174—which I want to concentrate on here—they remind us of the interesting power balance we seem to be developing. I am somewhat concerned, as a trustee of a fund, that my accountability has always primarily been to the members, to achieve the outcomes that the Bill suggests should be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke a few minutes ago about responsibility of government. Of course, the responsibility of trustees has been enormous, and is very important as a protection for members but also as a barrier between the way investments take place and the way regulation takes place. I was investigated myself when I first became a trustee because I was appointed by a company and under Section 72—I think it was, at that time—of the Pensions Act, the regulator checked to see whether I was too closely connected to the company. It is true that I was a good friend of the company directors and so on, but I had to prove that I would act in a dispassionate manner and that I would do the very best for members at all times.
Of course, however, in doing that chore, I have had issues regarding the position of the regulator and the relationship between the regulator and the PPF in determining the nature of investment the trustees have made. The balance of trustees’ investments has always been a critical factor in reporting—as has been necessary—to the regulator and to the PPF. This is all essential stuff. Therefore, in view of the mandation proposals and looking at Amendments 172, 173 and 174, all of which refer to important elements, I have one question. How will this future relationship be in existence for the benefit of the members? Amendment 172 talks about informing members, and one of the criticisms of trustees—sometimes coming from members, or sometimes from the regulator—has been that not enough information has been provided to scheme members for things that have been done on their behalf. Is the process we are now looking at really going to allow for that information to be objective and put to the members appropriately by the people who ought to do it—the trustees?
Value for money for anything that is mandated is a decision to be made, and we had that debate in the last group. I am concerned about that, too.
Finally, on the question of the reduction of members’ choices—trustees inevitably inform their members of the options available to them—a genuine and legitimate choice must be available to members at all times. If that is not the case, it is very difficult for trustees to perform their duties and not fall foul of what will still be a very heavy set of regulations on the choices that they make.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, one of the astonishing things about the Bill is that it not only stops choice but puts under statute a connivance between the regulators and that old boys’ club of large operators that run investment money in London.
The effect of this connivance is to weaken returns, increase costs, damage competition among funds and weaken the UK economy. It does that because—although you would not know from the Bill—the City of London is, by any measure, one of the world’s top three financial centres. That did not happen by itself. Three hundred years of innovation, progress, capital and scale, starting in Lloyd’s Coffee House in the 1700s, and continuing with the Rothschilds and the big bang 40 or 50 years ago, made the United Kingdom and the City of London a financial powerhouse. It created a tax gusher. That happened because people were able to use their intellect and talents to innovate to turn small acorns into large oak trees in so far as financial management is concerned.
All that is at risk. That is why I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would re-establish the principle that you have to allow the creative destruction in a market economy to advance returns and service and add competition, all of which this Government would sweep aside. It is that sort of macroeconomic approach.
Of course, it also fetters people’s ability to make their own decisions in an adult way. I accept that after someone’s house, their pension may be their second largest asset. But that is not the same in every case, and there are people with sophisticated needs and requirements who ought to have that choice. That choice should not be foisted upon them, because it gives you those weaker returns, increased costs and damaged competition.
I am entirely in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and, once again, I call on the Government to have a fresh look at this, not least because the Prime Minister has identified fintech and all those sorts of innovative sectors—those start-ups in Shoreditch—as one of the large opportunities where this country can show competitive advantage. That would be snuffed out if these provisions in the Bill were implemented through regulation or other methods.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that I am not keen on Chapter 4 of the Bill, which appears to allow the state to trample on and prevent the establishment of smaller funds, and, if necessary, requires their assets to be moved, presumably to another fund. “Squashing new entrants” was the telling phrase used by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance.
I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and have added my name to most of them. It is essential to permit the regulations to be pro- competitive rather than over-exclusionary, and for the review required by Clause 43—the timing of which we are yet to hear about—to consider the competitive landscape for pension scheme provision.
It is also important that the regulations made encourage innovation, as Amendment 170 would. The substantial £25 billion minimum provided for in the Government’s reforms seems set to deter such innovation—innovation that is characteristic of smaller, growing operators. We have heard that, at length, on several days, but we have not yet received an adequate answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has already raised some good points about other risks that may arise from the proposed arrangements.
My noble friend Lady Noakes rightly suggested that the Pensions Regulator should be made to consider the competitiveness of new entries. I share her praise for the fintech sandbox, although I would say that that was a long time ago—indeed, when I was a Treasury Minister about 10 years ago. I am, however, less sure about the FCA’s overall success. I have therefore added my name to my noble friend Lord Younger’s stand-part notice, which questions the need for Clause 45. The Government’s Explanatory Notes are far from helpful and the implications of this clause are unclear. Why does it extend the FCA’s supervisory jurisdiction to default arrangements under Chapter 4? What, if any, new delegated powers are being given to it?
I have encountered a lot of problems with the FCA over the years. The truth is that I have not found it business or fund-friendly. It presents itself as the champion of the consumer, but adds cost, delay, bureaucracy and uncertainty in a way that often raises prices and returns to the very consumer that it was set up to protect. I am therefore of the view that its role should be minor and constrained. What is the background and rationale for this clause? We need to know more if we are going to support it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. It might take 300 years to get it right, but we do not have 300 years; we are trying to get it right in the course of a few meetings, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us the view from the coalface with regard to the decisions that trustees have to take and about trustees working on behalf of their members. The key concern, which is why I support these amendments, is that the default should be shaped around members’ needs and outcomes, not regulatory convenience or market consolidation by default.
The amendments in this group emphasise the importance of competition, innovation and transparency. They highlight the need for clear member communication before defaults are subject to mandation, for a value-for-money framework to be in place first and, I am afraid, for Ministers to justify why mandation is limited to automatic enrolment defaults. The amendments seek to put some meat on to what this Bill is meant to do. They are, I think, necessary to make sense of the precautions that are needed if this Bill goes forward.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee will think that it makes sense if I begin with the four amendments in this group tabled in my name. I start with our probing stand-part question on Clause 45. This is a short clause, but an important one. It makes changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The purpose of the question is simply to understand the practical effect of those changes, particularly in the context of the wider programme of consolidation and reform of assimilated European Union law.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who I am pleased to say is in her place and has spoken so eloquently, may feel a certain sense of déjà vu, having spent a considerable time on the Front Bench examining precisely these issues. My questions to the Minister are therefore straightforward. What, in practical terms, does Clause 45 change in the operation of the Act?
I start with some fairly basic questions for clarification. Will further secondary legislation be required to give effect to these provisions? If so, do the Government have a timetable over which they envisage this process taking place? How does this clause interact with the statutory instruments recently considered by the Grand Committee as part of the wider reform programme? This is a live and important area. As assimilated European Union law becomes domestic law and increasingly interacts with our financial institutions, the FCA and other relevant regulators, it is essential that Parliament has clarity on how these changes fit together and where accountability lies.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who always throws out good challenges. I welcome the opportunity and hope that I can persuade her with the answers I am about to give.
Let me say at the start that the Government’s objective is clearly to move to a market of fewer, larger providers so that savers can benefit from better governance, greater investment sophistication and lower costs. The measures in the Bill, together with the review and the regulation-making powers in Clauses 42 to 44, are carefully calibrated to reduce fragmentation or preserve the scope for innovation if and where doing so demonstrably serves members’ interests. That is the key.
I accept that much of the fragmentation is a product of history, but we have seen, in the pensions investment review and the responses that came back to the consultation, that master trusts are creating multiple default arrangements. We do not want to see the same issues arising over time as exist in GPPs, where members are in too many default arrangements that do not offer value. The point I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, is that this is about members’ interests and returns for members. We are trying to address the multiplicity of default arrangements that do not serve members because they offer poor value.
Amendments 168 to 170 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would aim to broaden—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, the Division Bells are ringing. The Committee will therefore adjourn for 10 minutes.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as I was saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described so well, the aim of her Amendments 168 to 170 is to shift from measures aimed at restricting the creation of new non-scale defaults towards a wider remit to encourage competition and innovation; I will come back to that in a moment. In addition, her Amendment 171 would expand the statutory review under Clause 43 to examine the extent to which such non-scale defaults contribute to competition.
Although we share the noble Baroness’s desire to see a vibrant, innovative market, we want these characteristics to operate alongside, not separate from, scale. Our concern is that the changes would leave too many default arrangements in place, entrenching fragmentation and preventing members benefiting from scale. Inserting a competition function into this regime would significantly extend the remit of the Pensions Regulator; again, I will come back to that in a moment.
The Government’s view is that there is no tension between scale and competition. Scale enables meaningful competition on quality and on long-term returns. I am sure that noble Lords will have had a chance to read the impact assessment on the Bill—it was green-rated, of which we are incredibly proud—which estimates that between 15 and 20 schemes may operate in this market after the conclusion of the transition pathway in 2035. We think that, by any measure, that represents a market within which successful competition can function; I do not think it would pass the oligopoly test that has been suggested.
However, we also need to remember that a key ingredient for competition is competitive charges for employers. Nest has helped lower charges through its public service obligation. It is important that employers continue to have access to pension products that offer low-charge options; Nest and others will play a key part in that going forward. We see no reason why competition for market share would not continue as it has done in the past. The drive for it is clearly still there.
The new entrant pathway places innovative product design at its core. The aim is to create a space for new solutions while maintaining a strong baseline of member protection. Our view is that, although we understand its underlying intent, we do not believe that Amendment 170 would add greatly to the opportunities for innovative schemes to remain in the market that are already set out in the Bill. Our new entrant pathway will place relatively few additional requirements on new schemes beyond those that exist today.
I agree that, alongside the innovation and competition that will come from existing schemes, there must be space for new market participants—the disruptors. We want to enable them to come to market, but there also needs to be confidence that they can grow to scale—over time, of course—and can deliver good outcomes for members. We recognise that a new scheme cannot come with scale and will need time to build up, obviously, but we need new entrants to demonstrate their plan to build scale.
Innovation is a good indicator of a scheme’s ability to grow. The noble Baroness described what is happening, but the truth is that there is a weak demand side, and it is already difficult, as we have seen, for a new entrant to gain traction. We do not seek to limit innovation, but we want regulators to focus on what innovation can deliver for members and its impact on scheme growth and member outcomes. In short, the Government support innovation that improves outcomes, but we do not want to perpetuate sub-scale defaults at the expense of savers’ interests.
On Clause 45, it might be helpful if I set out the purpose of the clause—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister moves on, entry is essential to innovation. The idea that the big firms or any regulators are going to be able to decide the right path for the innovative future is picking winners, and it does not work in my humble business experience.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, we want innovation. That is what I have just tried to describe. TPR has made innovation the central pillar of its corporate strategy. It launched an innovation service, and it has had the industry test innovative ideas and proposals such as new retirement products and the like. That has been up and running for some time. We want innovation but we want innovation that will serve member interests.
The noble Baroness asked about TPR and competition. While TPR does not have a statutory objective in competition, it does actively consider it, and it forms part of its strategy. Competition has been part of its evolution in a changing landscape; it started off in a world of single employer schemes and it is now in a very different world with a market that has moved towards master trusts and an authorisation supervisory framework. Value for money is a key enabler to drive transparency and competition in the market, and TPR plays a direct role in delivering that for the sector alongside the FCA.
Clause 45 amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 so that the FCA has the necessary powers to monitor and enforce the default arrangement requirements and support the review of non-scale default arrangements on a consistent footing with TPR. In practice, that will mean gathering relevant information for the review, considering applications for any new non-scale default arrangements and—should regulations require it after the review—assessing consolidation action plans.
To make the distinction, Clause 42 relates to restricting new default arrangements for schemes in the market. It aims to reduce fragmentation that does not serve member interests but allows new arrangements to meet member interests. It does not restrict new entrants to the market. Clause 45 allows new regulations to set out the powers for both TPR and the FCA to approve new default arrangements and will work with both regulators to ensure there is alignment and co-ordination between them. In short, Clause 42 introduces the restriction of new default arrangements without regulatory approval and Clause 45 gives the FCA the powers to do this in relation to its functions on FSMA. I hope that has cleared it up.
Lord Willetts (Con)
In the light of what the Minister has said, I am even more struck by the significance of Amendment 170. Given that there is going to be this change in the regulatory regime in terms of the FCA, I do think that Amendment 170 is the crucial one. It absolutely is not inconsistent with the Government’s objectives of scale—I have a lot of sympathy with trying to promote scale—but it just ensures that whatever the appropriate authority is, there is also scope for innovation. The more the Minister talks about the power of these clauses, the more I think the case for this amendment gets stronger.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We may disagree on some of the approaches to the market, but we want innovation, so I do not disagree with the noble Lord on that. However, we want innovation that serves member outcomes, and that may mean different approaches to understanding what innovation does. We do not want innovation to pull away from scale.
The noble Baroness asked about timescale. The intention is that the review will be carried out in 2029, but it will need to follow the introduction of the VFM framework and contractual override measures for this to work. That was set out in both the final Pensions Investment Review and in the pensions roadmap, which the Government published. Hopefully that is helpful.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Can the Minister explain why that timescale has not been put in the Bill? I cannot think of another review that has been written into law without a relevant timeframe being attached to it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I think because it has to happen. It has to follow VFM; the pensions road map has set out the connection and the order in which things will happen. My understanding is that it is because it follows that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate. The big difference between what I have advocated and what the Minister has set out as the Government’s position is that she is describing what they hope to achieve by consolidation in the current market, but what I was trying to get at was future-proofing that market.
Markets stagnate unless they are subject to the kind of pressures that ensure that they continue to develop. I mentioned that customer choice is one that we can largely discount in the context of this particular marketplace. So we need to look for the other classic ways in which markets improve themselves over time, which is why I look to the role of new entrants and innovation. The Minister seemed to suggest that that could occur between these new larger players that have been created, but I believe that is fundamentally wrong because those players have a lot of investment in systems and infrastructure, and they are not very interested in significant disruption. That is not an absolute rule, but if you look at the experience of the telecoms industry, media and almost any other industry, you get disruptors from outside the marketplace. That is why in financial services we have fintechs disrupting the financial service marketplaces at the moment in many different ways.
Unless we are absolutely clear that we can facilitate that process of market disruption—it is to the long-term benefit of savers, because the markets will deliver those long-term benefits—we need to ensure that those markets stay vibrant. The pension provision market could easily seize up, broadly, with a smaller number of larger players dominating the pension provision market but not being subject to real competitive pressures because of all the hurdles put in the way of organisations that want to enter the market, whether via the new entrant pathway relief or via the regulations under Clause 43, which will squash them.
There is a fundamental difference between us on this side of the Committee and the Government. I am not at this stage challenging whether getting to a smaller number of larger players is the right answer—I accept that for the sake of argument—but I am concerned with making sure that the pension provision market itself has the right incentives within it to ensure that it remains relevant for the purposes of improving and protecting savers’ returns in the long term. I have to say to the Minister that we will return to this in one way or another on Report because it is a really serious issue.
I am absolutely not convinced that TPR’s arrangements—there is no reference to the pension provision marketplace in TPR’s powers and responsibilities—can be set alongside the FCA, which has to operate in a clear pro-competition environment. I do not think that is the right approach either, and I am not convinced about TPR’s approach to innovation, which is again about the existing players in the market rather than how you encourage new players. That has been done pretty successfully in the context of the FCA and the PRA for banking and insurance markets, by positively hand-holding new entrants and helping them through the whole process so that they can operate against the big boys. It is important that we allow little players to come and challenge the big players, because that is what produces the benefits in the long-term for consumers—for savers in this instance. I of course withdraw the amendment but, as I indicated, we have a fair way to go in this area.
Baroness Noakes
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether the “best interests” test is the correct test to use.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 175 is a probing amendment about the best interests test, which is a part of the power to make unilateral changes to FCA-regulated pension schemes in Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for adding her name to this amendment.
The FCA requires the firms it regulates to comply with a consumer duty, which means that firms must act to deliver good outcomes to retail customers—in this case, those within pension schemes. The duty was introduced after a long period of consultation and is intended to replace a lot of rules-based consumer protection measures. This Bill, on the other hand, goes in the opposite direction by requiring the FCA to layer some specific rules in relation to the best interests test on top of the consumer duty.
My amendment, in effect, asks the simple question of how the best interests test relates to the consumer duty. In what ways does it differ from the consumer duty? If there are differences between the two, the Government need to be clear about what they are. Alternatively, they need to require the FCA to make it clear what the differences are, and the Bill does neither. Can the Minister say why achieving better outcomes for the members affected by the unilateral change is necessary? For example, if members are being transferred to another scheme using the power in new Section 117B, why is it necessary to go beyond good outcomes?
In addition, transferring members who will be better off, while leaving behind those who are no worse off, may mean that over time some groups will be stranded in uneconomic schemes because they are the last man standing. How does the Minister think that this will work if there are several transfers over time and each taken in isolation was better for some but no worse for others, but cumulatively there is a detriment for those left behind? In practical terms, how is this meant to work in practice? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I inform the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 175A for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I support the general issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has raised. Of course, if this whole clause were deleted, the amendment that I am seeking in addition would disappear.
I want to speak to my amendment which is about new Section 117D(2), which says:
“The best interests test”, in relation to a unilateral change, is that it is reasonably likely that effecting it will”,
change. I do not like the words “reasonably likely”. We have to examine what “reasonably likely” means in legal terms.
Reasonably likely is a threshold of probability that is lower than the civil standard of “more likely than not”. More likely than not means above 50%, so reasonably likely means less than 50%. Having “reasonably likely” means that lower than 50% might have a better outcome, which is unacceptable. I find it hard to believe that that is what is intended. When you look at a phrase such as “reasonably likely”, you would think that the reasonable is somehow enhancing the likeliness, but in legal terms it is not. It is taking away from it. Therefore, I hope that that can be looked at and that the Government will address that issue.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I have just a short comment. The Minister needs to explain why existing protections are insufficient and how this power will be constrained in practice. The concern is that lowering the evidential bar for intervention risks undermining legal certainty, which we have before intervention, and then trust in the scheme governance. An override of contractual terms should be firmly evidence-based and used sparingly. When there is a contract and we are saying that the contract could be overridden, we need to know with some facts in what circumstances it can be overridden for some wider purpose which the Government think is needed. I do not think that is proven as yet.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment 175, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. This amendment relates to new Section 117D, the best interests test as set out in Clause 48. This new section establishes the test that must be satisfied before a unilateral change can be made. It requires a provider to reasonably conclude that such a change is reasonably likely to lead to
“a better outcome for the directly affected members … (taken as a whole)”
and to
“no worse an outcome for the other members of the scheme”,
also taken as a whole.
Many of the questions that my noble friend and the noble Baroness have raised reflect concerns that have been put to us during scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, there remains uncertainty about what, in practice, is meant by a better outcome, and how that judgment will be assessed, evidenced and challenged. I say again, as we have said on different parts of the Bill, that we believe we need definitions and clarity.
We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response on this point. The clarity and robustness of the best interests test are critical, particularly where changes may occur without the explicit consent of individual members. If that clarity is not forthcoming, this may well be an issue to which we will need to return.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others for their contributions. Clause 48 inserts new Part 7A, on
“Unilateral changes to pension schemes”,
referred to as “contractual override”, into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As has been clear, that will enable providers of FCA-regulated DC workplace pension schemes to override the terms of a pension scheme without the consent of individual members. To be clear, that will mean that providers will be able to transfer members to a different pension scheme, to make a change that would otherwise require consent, or to vary the terms of members’ contracts. The Bill provides important protections around the use of such powers, which I will come on to.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked why we want to do this—why change anything? I will explain. Providers can have thousands of DC arrangements for different employers, which will include a large number of legacy schemes that predate the introduction of auto-enrolment. Some of those arrangements will be delivering poor value for members but, due to the challenges of engaging with members, there is often little that providers can do about it. That is because, currently, providers have to gain individual consent from each member of the scheme to enact the changes that will be allowed under this part. That is time-consuming, costly and often simply impractical. In many cases, members will not even have kept their contact details updated.
Contractual override aims to address that issue and, in doing so, it would establish broad equivalence with the trust-based market, where trustees already have the power to conduct bulk transfers. The measure is necessary to help drive better outcomes for members and help to establish fewer larger pension schemes that are delivering value for money, supporting the scale measures and value-for-money framework also implemented by the Bill.
We want to protect consumers, so the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards, including the best interests test, which must be met and certified by an independent person with sufficient expertise before a contractual override can occur. That test is the focus of the amendments. Amendment 175 from noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, probes the test to assess whether this should proceed. She asked about the relationship to the FCA’s consumer duty—I think she asked why we need it at all if we have the FCA consumer duty. The answer is to provide an additional and clear safeguard. We believe that that is necessary given the nature of what is being provided for here.
However, the Government are committed to making sure that this works well. We will continue to work closely with the FCA as it beds in the consumer duty, and to engage with stakeholders about their experience of the duty and its impact. The FCA will develop its rules for contractual override in its usual manner and will consult on that, so there will be an opportunity for people to respond to the way that engages and to identify any of the issues that have been raised.
Amendment 175A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would alter the threshold for the best interests test from requiring that a change is “reasonably likely” to achieve a better outcome to requiring that “there is evidence” that the change will achieve a better outcome. I will explain why the Government believe that our test strikes the right balance between providing robust consumer protections and still making it practical for schemes to carry out a contractual override where it is the right thing to do. The test itself allows for a contractual override to take place only when the provider has reasonably concluded that the change is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for directly affected members and no worse an outcome for the other members of the scheme. I will break down some of the specific requirements that must be met for it to be satisfied. First, the provider must conclude that it is “reasonably likely” that the contractual override will lead to a better outcome for directly affected members, taken as a whole, and no worse an outcome for the other members taken as a whole.
The provision accounts for the fact that, although no provider can predict the future with certainty, they must conclude based on the information available, with a reasonable level of certainty, that the outcome is better for the directly affected members taken as a whole and no worse an outcome for the other members taken as a whole. That means that the provider must clearly evidence this assertion in order to proceed. We believe that changing the test from “reasonably likely” to “there is evidence”, as in the amendment, would lower the threshold of the test and reduce consumer protection, because the alternative wording provides no requirements about the strength of the evidence and leaves open the possibility that decisions could be taken on the basis of limited or poor evidence. By contrast, the existing wording requires providers to demonstrate that the outcome is a real prospect.
Secondly, a provider must reasonably conclude that the test is met. This requirement is deliberately included to address the risk of a provider reaching a conclusion that is not based on valid evidence or reasoning. The FCA, as the regulator responsible for contract-based workplace pensions, must make detailed rules regarding contractual override. That includes rules about the considerations and information that providers must take into account in determining whether the best interests test is met. As I have said, the FCA will develop those rules in its usual manner, which will include consultation.
Finally, new Section 117E requires that an independent person, with expertise to be defined in FCA rules, has to certify that the best interests test has been met, providing a further safeguard.
Overall, the contractual override policy establishes broad equivalence with the trust-based market and, in doing so, it delivers on a long-requested industry ask, promotes better member outcomes—which is key—and helps to achieve the wider goals for DC pensions that this Bill will deliver. We believe it strikes the right balance, and I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I appreciate that the response was prepared on the basis of the wording, and I accept that my “evidence” wording was a marker. But will the Minister please look up what the legal “reasonably likely” really does imply? She does not have to take my word for it; I did look it up. Therefore, I maintain that the words “reasonably likely” need adjustment. I hope that can be investigated and accepted, and maybe the Government can come back with their own amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am happy to reflect on the noble Baroness’s point. If it leads the Government to believe that we have phrased the test badly, then of course we will take appropriate action; if not, then we will say where we are.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I hope the Minister will look again at the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised. In fact, that particular issue was raised in the Chamber either yesterday or last Friday—I cannot remember which, as all the days run into each other—in connection with another Bill going through. It very definitely is interpreted as sub-50%, so it is definitely a fairly weak formulation. I am quite surprised if that is what the Government want, so it is worth looking at again.
I do not think I got a satisfactory answer on the difference between the FCA having the consumer duty and what is intended under this Bill, except that the FCA is going to issue more rules about what “best interests” actually means in this context. To me, it seems to be going against the grain of FCA regulation, as I tried to point out earlier, and it could potentially cause problems in understanding.
The Minister did not respond to my point about the last men standing, which was that if you allow groups of members to be transferred because they will be better off and the others are not worse off then, in the long term, you structurally weaken what is left. Does the Minister have any views on whether that is the correct approach? A long-term problem cannot be avoided in that area, which calls into question whether you can leave members behind.
I am still very mystified as to how all this will work in practice, but I will reflect on what the Minister has said and what she has not said before determining whether to come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to test the definition of “default pension benefit solution”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 177 for reasons of pre-emption.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments on guided retirement. Perhaps I should begin by saying that we welcome the direction of travel set out in the Bill in this area. The Minister will perhaps be pleased to hear that.
Poor outcomes at decumulation have long represented one of the most persistent weaknesses in the defined contribution system, and there is a strong and widely accepted case for providing better support to savers who do not or cannot make active and confident choices at the point of retirement. We will continue to engage constructively with the Government to ensure that these reforms succeed. However, their success will depend not on intent alone but on whether the framework is workable in practice, sufficiently clear in its operation and properly aligned across regulatory regimes. It is in this constructive and probing spirit that I have tabled Amendment 176, together with clause stand part notices on Clauses 49, 50, 51 and 57, which I will take together for the sake of brevity.
Amendment 176 seeks to probe the definition of a default pension benefit solution, and in particular how such defaults will be framed in practice. The Bill recognises, rightly, that default solutions will not be suitable for everyone, and it therefore requires trustees to consider members’ circumstances, needs, interests and characteristics when designing them, including the possibility of different defaults for different cohorts of members. That principle is sound, but it immediately raises an important practical question: how, in reality, are trustees expected to carry out these assessments in a consistent, proportionate and defensible way?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 177, 179 and 180 in this group are all probing amendments. Amendment 177 would delete Clause 49(3)(b). Subsection (3) defines “default pension benefit solution”, and paragraph (b) says that it must be
“designed to provide a regular income”
in an individual’s retirement. I wish to probe whether it is right to force all prospective pensioners into a lifetime income solution. There is a problem with “one size fits all”. If a pensioner is going to continue working on a full-time or part-time basis, as many do, they may not need to draw income for at least part of their retirement. But paragraph (b) seems to be a straitjacket requiring an income for all their retirement years, even if the pensioner does not need it. In addition, smaller pots do not lend themselves to lifetime income solutions because they can produce insignificant amounts of income and are also costly to administer. The Bill does not provide for a de minimis exemption.
Furthermore, a prospective pensioner who has significant accumulated debt pre retirement may well benefit more from clearing those debts with a capital sum than having income throughout retirement. I see that Clause 49(6) regulations can make provision about the term
“designed to provide a regular income”,
but that, using normal language, does not appear to be capable of encompassing the payment of lump sums without a lifetime income component within the use of such a power.
Amendments 179 and 180 concern Clause 50, which deals with the people called “transferable members”, who are basically those for whom their pension scheme determines that they do not fit with its scheme for pension default benefit purposes—I paraphrase, but that is the gist of it. The pension scheme determines that these are the members they cannot design a default pension for. Subsections (14) and (15) allow regulations to require certain pension schemes to accept transferable members, while subsection (16) allows regulations to prohibit or limit the charging of fees in respect of transfers. Hence pension scheme A can determine that some of its members are too difficult to devise default retirement solutions for, and then the Government can tell pension scheme B that it must take them and might not even get paid for it. This sounds like quite an extraordinary set of powers, which is why my Amendments 179 and 180 would delete subsections (14) to (16). I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why the Government need such draconian powers and what limits will be placed on them.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, there are three clauses here and one would have to be pretty churlish to want to reject and disagree with the thrust of what they are trying to achieve. But I am concerned, as is my noble friend Lord Younger, about how we might put in these contractual arrangements. I am concerned that we are going to sleepwalk into a situation where there is unrealistic customisation and we are going to set unrealistic expectations about the ability of schemes—particularly the larger schemes, because we know schemes are going to be much bigger than today—to give personalisation.
We are going to see, if I read these regulations correctly, a huge number of bespoke arrangements. There is going to need to be candour, not just from the schemes themselves but from the members when they are asking questions. What is the duty upon the person to take advice? Normally, at the moment, if you want to change your pension arrangements, you need to take advice and pay for it. Who will pay the fees? Is it the member or the scheme itself?
When I think about candour, it leads me down the path of thinking about what happens to people who are in impaired life situations. Perhaps they have cancer or another terminal disease. I am not going to trespass on the arguments that are made every Friday in your Lordships’ House, but as we have learned from those debates, there is a lack of certainty about people who are in those impaired situations.
That leads on to my noble friend’s point about capacity and capability of trustees to make these judgments—that is difficult. So I am entirely in agreement with the idea that people should be able to have control and a bespoke arrangement just for them, but I am concerned about the practicality of delivering what can be subjective judgments of the trustees. In these large schemes you may have to deal with hundreds or thousands of these applications.
In local government—a parallel world— the EHCP system mandates a personalised regime for children’s special educational needs. I suppose my concern is that it has led to a huge bureaucracy—a cottage industry of a huge amount of appeals, process and, of course, delay. When you have pensions, you cannot have a delay because people are at the end of their lives—are they going to make it?
I want to agree with the thrust of this, and these are probing amendments, but I am interested in the Minister laying out in some detail how these bespoke arrangements might be calculated and defended by trustees with lots of other things to do. I am also very much drawn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about being realistic about the current ways of work, in which people have blended retirements, and about the requirement to have indexation and all those sorts of things. It does seem complicated, and I am interested to hear what the Minister might say about it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This part of the Bill is particularly important and the part to which I gave the strongest welcome. There is, inevitably, a caveat: we do not know much of the detail because it depends so much on what the regulations say and require. But this is the necessary and right framework to provide pathways for people to get the sort of benefits in retirement that best suit them.
I have some concern that there has been discussion of having more than one default, which rather defeats the concept of a default. Either the member will have to choose the appropriate default or someone else will, which places a particular responsibility on whoever will take the decision. It is important.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to say how strongly I support Amendment 176, so eloquently proposed by my noble friend Lord Younger. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, ignores the fact that the pension reforms of the last 15 years have led to a massive increase in the number of employees saving for retirement. I entirely agree with him that we are not there yet—not by a long chalk. There is much more to do. But for him to say that we are here to discuss this Bill as a result of the failure of the last Government to manage a proper pension scheme is unfair.
The point is made by my noble friend Lady Noakes in her Amendment 177, where she seeks to omit paragraph (b) because it assumes that all retirees are in the same boat with the same needs—just a guaranteed income for the rest of their life. She is absolutely right that different pensioners need different default schemes according to their needs—depending on whether they have debt or no debt, and whether they have heirs and successors to whom they are going to leave their assets. All these things are different, and personal choice plays a big part in that.
It is also important to consider, as my noble friend mentioned, the necessity for the regulators to be aligned. The Pensions Regulator has no objective to drive competitiveness and growth, compared with the FCA, which has such an objective. This difference is quite a problem. Without alignment of objectives, trust-based and contract-based schemes could be subject to different expectations. Savers could face inconsistent retirement experiences depending on the type of scheme and competitive distortions could arise between regulatory regimes. Clarity on timing, standards and supervisory approaches is critical. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have three very simple questions. First, why in some areas is the delegated legislation by negative resolution and in some cases by affirmative resolution? In Clause 49, regulations under subsections (1)(b) and (6)(a) are by negative resolution, as are some in Clause 50. I would just like to understand why.
Secondly, I am very aware that people will differ, as has been said. Some will want to take their money earlier than others, perhaps because they are using their pension as some sort of early day fund, or perhaps because they have a serious illness and do not expect to last long. Is that variation provided for? I would like that assurance.
Thirdly, if somebody has two pensions—perhaps one saved under auto-enrolment, which is what we are talking about, and another, perhaps because they worked in the public sector, a defined benefit scheme—how is the pension provider covered by these clauses going to allow for that difference of need?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Clause 49 is quite interesting. Clearly, we have been on a journey for some time. Going back 35 years, Maxwell raided his pension fund, completely screwing over his employees at the time, which led to the 1995 Act as a consequence. There were other items in there as well, but that brought in a much more controlling approach to aspects of pensions.
One of the liberations that happened in the previous pensions Acts a decade ago was that people did not have to do a particular thing with their money. I know this is money that was topped up by aspects of tax relief and the like but, ultimately, instead of being forced in a particular direction with an annuity in a different way, people had a choice. I am conscious that various scams happened when people were transferred from one to another. I hope those people will find a special place in hell; they have deprived people of the money that they had rightly gathered over the years and scammed them out of it. But ultimately this did give a choice to people, with all that money, about how they wanted to spend their retirement—instead of somebody else telling them what to do.
I am concerned that this clause, in effect, requires a guaranteed solution. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Noakes has talked particularly about removing the need for there to be a regular income as part of this solution, but if benefit solutions are going to be required by this legislation, there should not just be a choice of a minimum of one. There should be at least two, so that people can still have that choice. That is why in Clause 49(1)(a), I think that “one or more” should be “a minimum of two”, if that is going to be the way that we go.
The other thing that is not clear to me—perhaps I just have not spent enough time reading this—is what happens if people do not want the default pension. What choice do they have? It does not feel as though they have any choice at all. I am trying to understand something: what is the real problem that Ministers and the Government are trying to address here? Do not get me wrong—we want to make pensions as simple as possible for people. I know that my former employer used to set up a particular approach, saying that it was easy and that you could buy into it, but it was your choice what you did. That is why I am concerned about Clause 49 in particular. I hope that, by the time we get to Report, the Minister will have reconsidered whether ripping away freedoms is the right way for the people whom the Bill is intended to support.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing this debate, and to all noble Lords.
Let me briefly outline the problems that the chapter on guided retirement is seeking to address. The landscape is changing. I will not get into the detail of how we have gotten to where we are with my noble friend Lord Davies, but the reality is that we are now in a position where fewer than a million people in the private sector are saving into a DB pension, whereas more than 15 million are saving into DC schemes. Of course, unlike in DB schemes, DC members carry the risk themselves; what you get out depends entirely on what you put in and how it performs. The result is that DC savers face risks: the risk of savings not lasting through later life; the risk of market fluctuations; and the risk of inflation eroding purchasing power. They also face decision‑making risks, as retirement choices can be complex and poor decisions can have lasting effects. Clause 49 enables the Government to respond to those risks, putting savers first. Our objective is the vast majority of DC savers no longer having to make complex decisions about how to secure a sustainable income in later life, although—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—the freedom to choose absolutely will remain.
Let me explain how we envisage this happening. When DC members approach their scheme to access their savings, they will be presented with the default pension solution; in acknowledgement of my noble friend Lord Davies, let us call them “default plans” from this point onwards. At this point, the member will have the option to say yes to the default plan or say, “No, I want to choose a different way to use my assets”; that could be an alternative in their own scheme or elsewhere. We will explore this, including how schemes can give appropriate support, in our consultation. The interaction should not be a surprise to members at this point because we will ensure that, through appropriate communications, members hear about the concept of a default plan from very early on in their pension journey.
Clause 49 will require pension schemes to design and develop pension plans based on the generality of their membership, by which we mean gaining insight of what the vast majority of their members want from their pension assets. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, wanted to know how they are meant to do this. We know that many schemes already have member panels; we expect these, as well as other channels to obtain member insight, to continue. The Government will not specify unless necessary but the regulator will work with schemes, through guidance, on how to identify the needs of their members. The Government will also consult on whether there should be minimum standards for gathering information so that the solutions reflect the generality of the scheme membership.
We anticipate that the evidence from scheme members will indicate that there is no one common set of aspirations, so we are giving the scheme the ability to introduce more than one default plan. Where there is more than one default plan, there will be a simple triage to determine which one the member is offered. Again, the benefit of this approach is that no member will have to make a complex decision on how to take their pension payments, except to request that they want to start receiving payment. As has been mentioned, the default plans must provide a regular income during retirement. We will consult on the detail, but it will be for trustees to determine exactly how they achieve this; there is scope for product innovation.
The clause also makes provision, as has been noted, for exemption where that would not be appropriate. I will turn to Amendment 178, which relates to this, in just a moment but, crucially, savers will retain the choice to access their pension another way. We know that retirement is not a linear experience and that circumstances change both at and after retirement. Life events such as deciding to work part-time, health conditions and bereavement can all factor in and have an impact on household incomes. That means that gathering insights and engagement with members will be important, alongside well-designed and flexible plans.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I have not intervened on this group because I have not really delved into it. I wonder whether the Minister will go into some of the points she is making. Obviously, there are cases where you want consolidation in order to produce a solution that gives a reasonable retirement income, rather than having it in different bits. However, I am concerned that some people will want to keep things in different pots and have different bits. When the guidance on what might be exempted and so on comes out, will there be any consultation on that so that there is provision for people who have got alternative incomes and other means? They may want to defer taking their pension for a lot longer than is the norm while they have other income.
There is a whole universe of things; indeed, a whole universe of things is happening to me on these issues, in terms of whether I start something or leave it. It is all made more complicated when the Government come in and tax it, but there are all these things that go on. Will all of that be open to a public consultation before guidance comes out to make sure that it is taken account of?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I do not know who we had in mind when we were designing this measure, but I am pretty confident that it was not the noble Baroness. If she were to ring up and say, “I want to take my pension pot”, and we said, “Here is a solution”, she would absolutely be able to say, “Do you know what? I don’t want to do that, thank you very much. I already know what I want to do with it”, or to have a conversation about the alternatives. This is really aimed at and concerned with those who would not be in a good position to make these complex decisions.
However, the consultation will explore these things. We have already talked about what kinds of thing trustees might have to take into account. There will be a range of things. If there is anything specific on which I can write to the noble Baroness, I will do so, but the intention is to consult on the nature of how this will work in practice and all of the design requirements. That is one of the reasons for keeping so much in regulations: to keep it flexible.
We are already finding, though, that providers are coming up with interesting, innovative solutions. Some schemes are offering flex then fix, which would give some flexibility in the years ahead. There are schemes that are doing different things, and we do not want to shut those down because we want there to be alternatives. I do not want to give the impression that we are forcing people into it, that they have to do only one thing before being allowed to take their pension or that their pension freedom has been taken away; none of that has happened because that is not what we are trying to do. I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.
Amendment 180 would remove regulation-making powers to enable the charging of fees for transfers to be prohibited or limited. The Government recognise that pension schemes rely on the charges they impose on members to operate the administration of the scheme effectively. There is an existing cap on charges, which can be placed on default funds under auto-enrolment, whose purpose is to shield individuals from high and unfair charges that could significantly erode their savings. The guided retirement measures were very conscious. They will introduce the concept of a default route and were, therefore, alive to the risk that individuals placed in a default plan may not scrutinise the costs involved. Therefore, we expect to consult on any detailed policy set out in regulations; we would test any assumptions about the impact of introducing a cap or a prohibition, including for transfers, as part of that consultation.
The Clause 51 and 57 stand part notices from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek confirmation that Clause 51 will provide members with clear and consistent information. I am very happy to provide that assurance. The Government understand the power of communications and the importance of members understanding the default pension plan provided by the scheme, alongside the other options. Through this clause, the Government have the power to specify the format and structure of communications. There is also a requirement that all communications issued by schemes are in clear and plain language to help members make better decisions regarding their retirement income when they wish to do so.
As the noble Viscount mentioned, Clause 53 requires the development of a “pensions benefit strategy” by relevant pension schemes, which will be expected to include details of how the scheme will communicate its default pension plans to its members. Schemes will have to make these strategies available to scheme members and to the regulator for effective scrutiny; the Bill includes corresponding arrangements in respect of FCA-regulated providers. As a minimum, we expect the strategy to present the evidence base for the chosen default or defaults to give the member the opportunity to compare their circumstances and those on which the default is based.
Clause 57 is the corresponding provision in relation to FCA-regulated schemes. This inserts into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 a new section that will deliver default pension benefit solutions to FCA-regulated pension schemes, ensuring that members on both sides of the market benefit from default solutions. Clause 57 requires the FCA to make rules, having regard to the rest of Chapter 6 of the Pension Schemes Bill, to make default plans available to members of FCA-regulated pension schemes. This helps ensure that regulatory frameworks are aligned and that members experience broadly equivalent outcomes; it also maintains fairness and consistency across the market. Clause 57 also requires the FCA to aim to ensure, as far as is possible, that the outcomes to be achieved by its rules in relation to this chapter achieve the same outcomes as the rest of this chapter achieves in relation to schemes regulated by TPR.
The noble Viscount asked how schemes will be supported rather than forced into defensive behaviour. The regulator will issue guidance for all trust schemes. DWP officials have been engaging, and will continue to engage, with industry ahead of introduction, including through formal consultation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked why the negative procedure and why the affirmative one. The affirmative procedure has been used for certain delegated powers where the power touches on a central aspect of the policy. For example, the power in Clause 49(4)(d) can be used to influence the defaults designed and offered by a scheme, so the affirmative procedure is used.
I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. I hope that those explanations have been helpful and that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, before I conclude on this group, I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Noakes for her probing amendments, which ask a number of important questions.
I will make a few points and rounding-up comments but, before I do, I want to pick up on my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s remarks. I must admit that I was very surprised to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his view of the pensions landscape; they were fairly forceful. As he will expect, I entirely disagree with his comments. I just make the point that our party brought in improvements to auto-enrolment and introduced the dashboard system; I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott. I have more to say but I will give way.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just want to pick up the noble Viscount’s point about auto-enrolment. It was a Labour Government and a Labour Bill that introduced automatic enrolment. The only change that the coalition made was to delay it, thereby reducing people’s future pensions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We brought this into effect. Of course, that takes us back to the coalition in 2010-15, but so much has been done since then. I will not go on but, if the noble Lord feels so strongly about this, why does he not probe his own Government more on why there is nothing in the Bill about saving more for retirement? I have not even mentioned the points in the Budget on salary sacrifice. I just wanted to get that in, as the noble Lord has become quite political.
Moving on swiftly, Amendment 177 probes whether all default pension benefit solutions are required to provide a regular income and whether that income must necessarily be for life. Here, I pay some respect to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because he rightly used the expression “pathways for people”, which are what this is all about. I am grateful to the Minister for providing some clarification on this point. She used a very good expression, “freedom to choose”, which is key in our discussion on this particular group.
However, given the significance of this issue for members’ retirement outcomes, it is vital that this clarity is communicated, not just within this Committee but clearly and consistently to those whom these reforms are intended to serve. My noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about the importance of personalisation, which I think is a very good expression.
Communication will be especially important in the context of guided retirement, where members may reasonably assume that a default implies a particular structure or guarantee unless told otherwise. The use of the word “default” is more than semantic, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has laid out in the past—I note she is not in her place. Ensuring that expectations are properly set will be central to building confidence and avoiding confusion at the point of retirement. Again, my noble friend Lord Fuller raised the importance of ensuring that certain cohorts must be particularly noticed and properly treated.
Baroness Coffey
“Review: transfer of the Financial Conduct Authority’s pension regulation functions to the Pensions Regulator(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review to assess the viability of transferring the Financial Conduct Authority’s pension regulation functions to the Pensions Regulator.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of whether the Pensions Regulator should take on responsibility for the regulation of defined contribution pensions, except for self-invested personal pensions, in place of the Financial Conduct Authority.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment explores moving to one regulator, the Pension Regulator, for all pensions (both defined contribution and defined benefit) that are not self-invested private pensions (which would stay with the Financial Conduct Authority).
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may want to consider Amendment 180A an amuse-bouche before we get back into the real meat and honey, as it were. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for having also signed this amendment. We have already made it clear that the Pensions Act 2008 set out the requirements for auto-enrolment into pension schemes, which was commenced and brought into effect in 2012. As such, all employers are now required to provide a workplace pension scheme and to make contributions.
The question I pose in this amendment is not whether pensions should be well regulated—that is a given—but whether the current regulatory architecture best supports effective supervision, good member outcomes and long-term system stability in this emerging ecosystem of pensions. I contend that it would do so only if occupational pensions, though not self-invested pensions, were regulated solely by the Pensions Regulator without the overlapping or parallel oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority. This is fundamentally an issue of regulatory design.
The Pensions Regulator was established with a clear statutory mandate: to protect members’ benefits; to reduce the risk of calls on the Pension Protection Fund; and to promote the good administration of work-based pension schemes. Its regulatory approach is deliberately scheme-centric, focusing on governance, funding, the employer covenant, trustee capability and long-term risk management. By contrast, the Financial Conduct Authority’s framework is product and transaction centric. It is designed around the regulation of firms that either make, distribute or advise on financial products, with a particular emphasis on conduct at the point of sale, disclosure and consumer choice.
The FCA’s tools, culture and regulatory philosophy—whether that is speed, competition, disclosure or transactional fairness—are shaped, in effect, by retail finance. That approach is fine, but I suggest to the Committee that it is not so well suited to not only the current pensions world but the evolving world of pensions that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating. Let us be clear: the FCA’s consumer duty is to the individual. That is not what we see with workplace pensions more broadly, where we have the trust-based approach.
The ongoing involvement of the FCA in pensions risks creating, if it has not done so already, regulatory overlap without regulatory coherence. I am aware that there are statements of co-operation but, particularly with the evolution of the pensions world for employees through the Bill, this should lead us to consider a change in the regulatory approach. The contract-based approach is evolving and, as we have already debated, will now be able to be overridden. For that reason, I come back to the question of whether we should think about the Pensions Regulator being the sole regulator, apart from for self-invested personal pensions; I can see that the consumer duty element under those individual schemes is well suited to the FCA.
The danger of dual regulation is real, costly and can be confusing. The uncertainty is evident. In having two different ways, there are some conflicts over how certain assets or schemes can be treated. There is the risk of misclassifying pensions as short-term financial products, rather than what could be really long-term social contracts. We know that people often remain disengaged from their pensions. Their outcomes therefore depend far more on scheme design, trustee competence and the long-term investment strategy.
I think that the Pensions Regulator understands this reality much better. It recognises that good outcomes come from strong governance, clear fiduciary duties and long-term risk management in not only defined benefit schemes but defined contribution schemes. As I have already mentioned, I am conscious that, although there is collaboration, the risk of regulatory drift is still real. This would be solved by moving, in essence, to having one regulator for all occupational pension schemes.
The Pensions Regulator has already shown that it can evolve. It has strengthened its focus on value for money, professional trustee standards, consolidation and other elements on which it is doing well. A single regulator would deliver clarity, coherence and confidence, which is why I have tabled this amendment seeking a review. More specifically, in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, I suggest
“a review to assess the viability”.
I say “viability” deliberately but then, in subsection (2), I offer a little leeway on that review, including whether the Pensions Regulator should take it on. This may feel to many like dancing on the head of the pin but, actually, we are seeing these two regimes in parallel. In effect, we are starting to see almost the removal of the contract-based approach. As a consequence, we should grab the challenge and make this change.
I am conscious that the Minister may ask, “Why did you not do this when you were in power?”, which is a fair question. But as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott will know from the time we were doing the 2021 pension scheme, when we were bringing in certain measures, including dashboards, once the Treasury gets hold of something it does not want to let go. Let us not pretend otherwise.
We are coming on to a debate shortly about superfunds. I am not going to reveal every battle that we had then; nevertheless, it was certainly a challenge. That is no disrespect to my other noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, because she was a great Treasury Minister. But it is a case of making sure that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating what is happening. It is going back, in effect, almost to a paternalistic or maternalistic approach, so it makes sense to at least review this change now. I hope the Minister will give it careful consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the advantage of Committee is that we can bat around some batty ideas without troubling the scorers too much. I am not going to violently disagree with either of my noble friends or the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in this respect, but it oversimplifies the pensions landscape. I totally endorse the idea that we need to have a fresh look at the regulatory environment within which pensions operate, because things have not gone right.
There has been a regulatory groupthink. The example of the LDI, the liability-driven investments disaster, is a case in point, because the LDIs anchor schemes that are in deficit and can never climb out of that. That is sort of how they work. The regulator has bamboozled and misdirected trustees over many years not to focus on maximising the returns, so that there is sufficient money in a scheme to pay the pensions as they fall due over its lifetime—that would be a good long-term objective. No, the regulator has forced them to look, three years at a time, at how they can focus on the deficit, not on the term. There has been a failure of regulation and that needs to be remedied.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focus on the Pensions Regulator, which we have heard is much more corporate-focused, and the FCA, which is much more individually aligned, but they fail to see the wider landscape. Any review, in my opinion, should consider the Bank of England because, ultimately, it directed the whole industry and the other regulators to go down the LDI route. That finished and grievously damaged so many private schemes on that false altar of deficit focus rather than asset maximisation.
Then there is a triumvirate. There is the Government Actuary’s Department, which I accept is not occupational; it is for public schemes, but it sets the tone. Then there is His Majesty’s Treasury, which has just been mentioned, and the Pension Protection Fund. I agree with the thrust of the amendments that have been tabled, and we are only in Committee, but I would widen the scope of the report to include those other actors—the Bank of England, the Government Actuary’s Department, the Pension Protection Fund and His Majesty’s Treasury—so that we can see regulation in the round, because unless we do so, we will not cover up those regulatory cracks that some schemes have fallen down.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Once again, I find myself in the position of being in broadly the same area as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I agree with much of what he said. We can always be in favour of reviews. The only substantial objection is that the Secretary of State—or more accurately, the hard-pressed officials—has better things to do, particularly with having to implement the Bill when it is an Act.
The Pensions Commission is also crucial. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for whom I have a lot of respect, challenged me on why I am not doing more on adequacy, in effect. Of course, the answer is that I fully support the Pensions Commission; that is where the focus should be on that area. I think my noble friend the Minister is aware of some of my views on the level of inadequacy in pension provision, but the commission is where it should be at.
Pensions are inherently political. I make no apology for making political points. I am against the idea of moving towards a joint regulator. There are two broad types of pension provision: individual contracts and employer-sponsored collective provision. I am very much in favour of the latter as opposed to the former. The former has, and always will have, severe problems, whereas collective provision is what has led the high standard of private provision across, broadly, half of the working population.
The problem with having a single regulator is essentially cultural. One or the other approach is bound to predominate in its thinking. It is impossible to ride two horses, unless you are in a circus, and that is not where we want to be. We need a regulator for collective employer-sponsored provision, and a regulator for market-based provision. That is what we have got so, in a sense, in my few remarks I have already carried out the review that has been called for and reached a satisfactory solution.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, what worries me is that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, says we should grab the challenge. I am not sure that I am ready to grab the challenge and not convinced that we should abandon, in any way, the Financial Conduct Authority. I wonder what representations have been made by the FCA on this. I would like to hear how the FCA feels about the Pensions Regulator taking over and what has happened in the past.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I can assure the noble Lord that the FCA will not give anything up. In fact, it would probably rather swallow the Pensions Regulator.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Maybe that would be a good thing. I am not convinced that the regulator pushing away from primary legislation to regulation is necessarily the way forward. I am not convinced that what has happened to date has failed. Therefore, I am not sure why we want to change this without adequate proof. The idea that the FCA wants to swallow up everything else is fairly normal in the gladiatorial forum that we have. I would like to see what the FCA and others have to say about this before we make a final decision.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I speak to both Amendments 180A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 206, which stands in the name of my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie and myself. Both amendments address the regulation of pensions and how the regulation is best exercised in the interest of scheme members and future pensioners.
It was the intervention of my noble friend Lady Coffey at Second Reading that first prompted me to reflect more deeply on the role of regulators. As my noble friend argued then, and has argued again today in speaking to Amendment 180A, this Bill misses a significant structural opportunity by retaining two separate pension regulators. I agree with her. There is something inherently odd about the fact that very similar pension products can be treated differently depending on whether they fall within the remit of the Pensions Regulator or the Financial Conduct Authority. That observation is not controversial; it is simply a reflection of how the current system operates.
I recall clearly the passage of the then Pension Schemes Bill in February 2020 and remember responding to amendments from across your Lordships’ House by explaining that personal pension schemes were regulated by the FCA, rather than the Pensions Regulator, and that imposing requirements on personal pension providers through that legislation would risk creating a patchwork of overlapping regulatory oversight. Providers, it was argued, would otherwise be required to respond to two separate regulators in relation to the same activity. That was the Government’s position at the time, and it illustrates that the existence of regulatory fragmentation in this area is not a matter of dispute.
A great deal of work has gone into managing the fragmentation, with strategic documents, dating back to 2018, seeking to grapple with the issue. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator have published joint regulatory strategies explicitly acknowledging the complexity that arises where their remits intersect and the need for close co-ordination. More recently, an independent review of the Pensions Regulator in 2023 again highlighted the challenges inherent in this divided regulatory landscape. Taken together, these developments point to structural issues in the regulatory ecosystem that can, at the very least, create confusion and the risk of inconsistency.
It was on the basis of that experience in government and of careful consideration since then that I sought to identify what might realistically be done in this Bill. I came to the conclusion that Amendment 206 represents a proportionate and pragmatic compromise. It would require the Government to establish a formal published protocol setting out clearly how the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator co-ordinate, how responsibilities are divided between them and how they communicate when regulating the pensions industry. The evidence shows that there is complexity, overlap and, at times, confusion between the two regulators. Stakeholders frequently complain of unclear lines of responsibility and the regulators themselves openly acknowledge that co-ordination is difficult, hence the repeated reliance on joint strategies and informal arrangements.
It was our sense that the problem is one not of outright contradiction but of opacity, complexity and accountability. Amendment 206 is, therefore, carefully targeted at the problem, which is clearly evidenced. It seeks to improve co-ordination and clarity without asserting a level of regulatory failure that has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. That does not place it in opposition to the argument advanced by my noble friend Lady Coffey; indeed, I would be very happy to work with her, as we did so constructively on previous pension legislation, to strengthen this area further.
In my view, a formal co-ordination protocol has three important virtues. First, it can evolve over time as the regulatory landscape changes. Secondly, it can be tightened if problems persist or new risks emerge. Thirdly, it can itself become the evidence base for any future decision to pursue more fundamental consolidation of regulatory functions, should that ultimately be judged necessary. For those reasons, I commend Amendment 206 to the Committee and urge the Government to see it not as an obstacle but as a constructive and proportionate step towards greater clarity, accountability and confidence in the regulation of pensions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Things are never dull when she is around. Frankly, that is quite a thing to say for a pensions Bill—I apologise to all the pensions nerds.
I thank noble Lords for introducing their amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said that her amendment would require the Secretary of State to do a review exploring the viability of moving the FCA’s pension regulation functions, apart from those for SIPPs, to TPR. On Amendment 206, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, wants a statutory joint protocol, formal co-ordination mechanisms, a published framework for oversight and the mandation of regular joint communication.
The Government keep the regulatory system under continuous review. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has given us an absolutely fair challenge. As we have already found here, the reality is that, when you come to discuss this, some people are on team FCA, some are on team TPR and some—such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—do not like any of them and want to throw everybody else into the mix and have somebody reviewing all of them. So it is fair to say that it will not be easy to achieve consensus on this.
Let us come back to the principle. The Government’s view is that there is still a fundamental difference between trust-based and contractual pension schemes. Contract-based pension schemes are based on an individual contract with the saver. As the pension market continues to evolve, and as we move towards a more consolidated market, we will need to ensure that the system evolves with it and that there is more regulatory alignment where it is really needed. However, TPR, the FCA and other bodies, including the PRA, are on to this. So I suppose the exam question here is: do we need one regulator to take over the other, or is it possible to create a regime for regulatory alignment and joint working? I will try to make the case for the latter; the noble Baroness can tell me at the end whether I have a pass or a fail on the exam paper.
The Government’s view is that TPR and the FCA have distinct roles. Each has its own framework, reflecting the range of pension types and the need for tailored oversight. They operate under distinct statutory frameworks, and existing arrangements already enable effective co-ordination between them. TPR and the FCA have established a joint regulatory strategy that outlines their respective roles; that collaboration is underpinned further by a formal memorandum of understanding and, where necessary, joint protocols on specific issues detailing how the two regulators co-operate, share information and manage areas of overlap. They have published a joint document outlining their respective roles. They run joint working groups and consultations. They publish shared guidance, and they conduct regular joint engagement with stakeholders. These mechanisms are well established and provide the flexibility needed to respond to developments in the pensions market. That close collaboration ensures the same good outcomes for pension savers, regardless of legal structure, and aims to avoid the potential for regulatory arbitrage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned the independent review of the Pensions Regulator by Mary Starks in 2023. That review recommended that no changes should be made to the framework. The review concluded that it was far from clear what the benefits of shifting to a single regulator would be and whether that would in fact outweigh the costs and the risks of distraction.
Moving on, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for a joint protocol is needed, as proposed in Amendment 206. It risks duplicating existing arrangements and in fact replicating parts of the memorandum of understanding and joint regulation strategy that are already in place. Where specific regulatory risks would benefit from more formally aligned regulatory approaches, the organisations consider the need for a joint protocol. An example would be the 2019 joint approach to guidance for trustees and advisers supporting pension members with decision-making exercises.
We also do not believe that the review proposed by Amendment 180A is necessary at this time. We continue to keep the system under review to make sure that it continues to deliver. Any future changes need to be evidence-led and shaped through engagement with stakeholders. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will feel that I have passed the exam test and is able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am interested, of course, in the opinion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the exam, but the Minister has provoked me to respond. I am not against the FCA or the Pensions Regulator. As she says, they have their roles and responsibilities. But there is a piece of work on the interaction between all the actors in the pension space. The old saying is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but there has been enough that is broken to require a fresh look. All the bilateral arrangements between TPR and the FCA, which she explained and which are all very interesting, do not talk about those other wide environmental links to the Bank of England, GAD, the PPF and His Majesty’s Treasury. That is where there should be some work, with a little humility about how the scheme has gone.
I am not making a political point here; I am just making the factual observation that the schemes are not working as I think any of us would like them to. This pensions Bill remedies some of those shortcomings, but the excessive focus purely on the FCA and the Pensions Regulator is obscuring that wider picture. I am not asking to promote some hatred and discord; I am just asking to try to get everyone sat around the table so that we can work out not just the roles and responsibilities but the linkages—and avoid the groupthink, because that is the worst thing. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for aligning himself with my points. So it is not just me, unless the noble Lord is against everything as well, which I do not think he is.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for clarifying his view and apologise if I misrepresented it. I will not respond at any length but will simply say that there is already considerable join-up between the actors in this space. I do not feel it is necessary to have a single review just to work that out.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. Certainly, in speaking to pension providers that are regulated by both TPR and the FCA, this brings additional complexity, which is another reason for this to come in. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested this could be a batty idea. It is not a new idea. The 2013 report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee chaired by Dame Anne Begg—its Labour chair—called for it then. It was linked to the fact that we were starting auto-enrolment. The whole landscape for people, particularly those new to pension contributions and the like—and indeed for existing people—was shifting to workplace occupation-based pensions, which are all regulated by TPR. So I think it was going for simplicity in that regard.
My noble friend is particularly cross about an aspect of the Pensions Act 2004. I would have invited him to perhaps table an amendment to the Bill with his objections to the statutory funding objective, which is the element that particularly irks him. It replaced the minimum funding requirement, but that is a debate for another day, rather than trying to resolve it all now. I thought the Minister did well, particularly in reading out her brief and keeping the Treasury happy. That is no bad thing for any Minister in a Government but, of course, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduces the next amendment, I remind the Committee that, although we have made fantastic progress today, we have a hard stop. We can probably stretch to about 8 pm. I do not want to constrain the debate but it would be preferable to finish this last group today rather than having to break it up, as we did on our previous day in Committee.
Clause 65: Approval of superfund transfers
Amendment 181
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the timing of ceasing to have active members.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will be pleased to know that this will be my shortest intervention. With my Amendment 181, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name, we now move on to superfunds, which are an excellent innovation that allow employers to shed their DB liabilities while also protecting or enhancing members’ interests.
My Amendment 181 is a small, technical amendment designed to address an issue to which I was alerted by Pensions UK. Clause 65(2) sets out the onboarding conditions that must be met for superfund transfers. Superfunds are designed to deal only with non-active members, as is clear in subsection (1); however, for some reason, the time at which this condition is tested is when the application for approval of the transfer is made by virtue of subsection (2)(a). I understand that it is quite possible for arrangements for transfer to a superfund to be made on the basis that members will become deferred—and, therefore, no longer active members—as soon as the transaction has taken place. I am therefore not sure what purpose is served by requiring all of those members to be deferred at the date of the application to the regulator, since that could be many months before the transfer will take place.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments and beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, everyone—apart from insurers, perhaps, who prefer buyout and the regulatory cash bonus it brings them—is in favour of superfunds. They should improve member benefit security. They can enhance members’ benefits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, just said. They can return cash to employers when appropriate, supporting UK businesses. They can also invest more in productive finance than a buyout or a DB scheme can.
However, numerous barriers make it difficult for superfunds and my Amendments 182 and 183 seek to address two of them. Amendment 182 seeks to remove gateway test 1, which is the test that prevents a scheme that can afford a buyout entering a superfund. The policy of pushing everything to buyout is intended to address risk, but it is not always in the members’ best interests; that could be considered more. Discretionary benefits, which can often include things on which expectations are based, may be lost. For example, spouses’ entitlements and increases in pensions are often discretionary; I know that that is the case in parliamentary schemes.
In a buyout, discretionary benefits are likely not to be paid, but a superfund could pay them. There seems to be some underlying assumption that superfunds do not serve risk reduction, but that does not reflect the extremely secure funding position that superfunds are held to by the regulations. Additionally, the test is unstable because funding levels vary. A scheme can start the process unable to afford buyout, and therefore be deemed able to go into a superfund, but if later on it could afford buyout part-way through, it would be required to reverse out and would be forced into a buyout. That can mean a lot of wastage of cost and time, as well as worse-off pensioners. Removing the test would give schemes more flexibility in the course they pursue, and may be better for the economy. If they chose a superfund, it would mean that more schemes could keep money invested in pensions and pay out more generously, rather than that extra money being lost in the insurance companies.
Amendment 183 is about the wind-up trigger and the protected liabilities threshold. This in, in essence, the point at which a superfund’s funding drops to such a level that it must close and enter the PPF. The recent PPF indexation means that the protected liabilities threshold is now above the low-risk trigger—that is, the technical provisions threshold—which is upside-down from the policy design, where the low-risk trigger is intended to be a less critical warning scenario than the wind-up trigger and is the point at which the scheme funds must be boosted by investor money.
This upside-down formulation will make it harder for superfunds to attract investor capital and will probably push pricing up closer to buyout levels, narrowing the slice of the market that superfunds can operate in. That is good if you are shareholders in insurance companies but, again, not for pensioners, who lose benefits. The amendment proposes a “lower of” formulation for the definition of the protected liabilities, which would set it at lower and more reasonable levels.
There could be other ways to fix this or remove the protected liabilities threshold entirely and rely on trustee powers in distressed situations, which is normal practice for regular DB schemes. But staying in the upside-down formulation does not seem right and risks stifling the nascent superfund model. I appreciate that this is a recent development because of the indexation and possibly one that the Government did not originally foresee, but it none the less needs tackling.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 182 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. Gosh, superfunds—that has been quite a journey. It must be about six years ago that I apparently received a letter from Andrew Bailey, who I think was running the Prudential Regulation Authority at the time. I never actually received it, but I read it in the FT and on Sky. It told me that it all seemed very unfair compared with the Solvency II reform, which is what insurers had to go by. That is why I am strongly concerned about Clause 65(2)(a) being in this Bill.
I think we are seeing the hand of the ABI again here, trying to basically squeeze out other activity when we should be focused on what is in the best interest of the pension scheme members. We also want to try to make sure that we do not have never-ending firms going into the PPF. The superfunds, which I recognise the Government have embraced through this, are definitely a good option but are different to having an insurer buyout, even with some of the changes that have happened away from Solvency II to whatever version of Solvency UK. There has been more reform with less risk around some of the margins in that regard.
So I encourage the Ministers to think again about whether subsection (2)(a) is really the right approach for the outcomes they seek. Otherwise, why bother? Why bother having a superfund if you can get only the equivalent of what it is to get the insurer buyout?
I could go further, but I am conscious that the dinner business break is bringing exciting business and that the Committee wishes to finish by a certain time. So I will leave superfunds for another time, perhaps in the Bishops’ Bar. But, with that, I support my noble friend in Amendment 182.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will speak to Amendment 181 tabled by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann, and Amendments 182 and 183, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. I will also address the broader issue of the role of superfunds within our defined benefit pensions landscape.
At the outset, I want to be clear that my understanding is that the Government remain committed to creating a thriving and credible superfund market. That ambition is welcome because superfunds have the potential to support two important public policy objectives. First, they support member outcomes; properly regulated superfunds can improve security for members and, in the case of a run-on superfund model, they offer the additional prospect of enhanced benefits over time through the sharing of surplus and investment upside.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Everyone agrees that they are a good idea, but in her reply, can my noble friend the Minister tell the Committee what serious contenders there are to take advantage of this quite complicated and lengthy piece of legislation? The practical experience so far is that a good idea has never quite cut it, and other options are now becoming available. Are people actually going to go down this road?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bowles, for introducing their amendments. I will start with Amendment 181, which would broaden the range of schemes able to apply for a transfer into a superfund by effectively including active schemes.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the responses to the DWP’s initial consultation on DB consolidation noted clear practical difficulties in assessing the future of a scheme. It is not clear how the regulator would conclude that the scheme will have no active members at an unspecified time of transfer. Furthermore, closing DB schemes can be a protracted exercise, where unforeseen complicated issues can arise. This Government, and previous Governments, have been consistent in saying that superfunds should be an option only for closed DB schemes. To avoid such complications for the scheme trustees and the regulator, Clause 65 sets out that closed schemes alone can transfer to a superfund and only where they are unable to secure member benefits with an insurer at the date of application.
Amendment 182 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would broaden the range of schemes able to apply for a transfer into a superfund by removing the restriction that schemes which can afford insurance buyout cannot transfer to a superfund. By removing this requirement from the Bill, superfunds could compete directly with insurers. That would risk superfunds offering endgame solutions in the same space as insurers, while being held to a lower standard in terms of member security.
The onboarding condition was introduced following industry response to the consultation on superfunds which first identified this risk. There was concern that employers may see superfunds as a way to relinquish their responsibilities at a lower cost than insurance buyout, and that trustees could be pressured to transfer into a superfund when a buyout solution is available. It is important for us to remember that insurers and superfunds operate under very different regimes. Insurers under Solvency UK requirements have stringent capital requirements and their members are fully protected by the FSCS.
Superfunds are built on existing pensions legislation and, as such, the PPF acts as a safety net providing compensation. The PPF provides a great deal of security, but not as much as the FSCS. Superfunds offer a great deal of security, but their capitalisation requirements are not as stringent as insurers as they are not designed to be as secure. That is because superfunds have been designed as a slightly less secure, more affordable endgame solution for schemes that are well funded but cannot afford buyout. They are not intended as a direct competitor for insurance buyout. The onboarding conditions address the risk of regulatory arbitrage, recognising those differences.
Clause 65 therefore provides clarity by ensuring that only appropriately funded schemes can transfer to superfunds. As introduced, it includes the power to substitute another condition if needed. We will consult with industry to assess what, if any, further refinements may be needed to protect scheme members.
Amendment 183 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would require superfunds to assess their protected liabilities threshold at the lower of a prudent calculation of a scheme’s technical provisions or based on a Section 179 calculation of the buyout price of PPF-level benefits. This amendment, and the noble Baroness, recognise the importance and impact on this threshold of the Chancellor’s Budget announcement that the PPF will provide prospective pre-1997 indexation for members whose schemes provided for this.
The purpose of the protected liabilities threshold is to ensure that in the rare circumstances where a superfund continues to underperform, the scheme is wound up and member benefits are secured at the highest possible level. The threshold is an important part of member protection and has been designed to prevent members’ benefits being reduced to PPF compensation levels should a superfund fail. The threshold also recognises the risk that scheme funding could continue to deteriorate in the time it takes to wind up.
Clause 71 therefore aligns the protected liabilities threshold with the calculation of those protected liabilities. It sets the threshold at a level above the Section 179 calculation, so that members in a failing superfund receive higher-than-PPF benefits. There is the added benefit that PPF-level compensation that is bought out with an insurer protects the PPF itself.
We recognise the impact that changes announced in the Budget have on the superfund protected liabilities threshold, and that it would not be good for members’ outcomes if a superfund is required to wind up prematurely when there is still a strong likelihood that benefits can be paid in full. Any changes to reduce the threshold, however, will require careful consideration and need to ensure that members and the PPF are protected. The level of the protected liabilities threshold will be subject to further consultation with industry as we continue to develop the secondary legislation.
The Committee will also note that for those instances in which technical provisions are lower than the Section 179 valuation of a scheme, Clause 85(4) allows the Secretary of State to provide by regulations that a breach of a threshold has not taken place. These calculations have the potential to converge, and sometimes swap, in very mature schemes and we acknowledge that that occurrence is more likely following the introduction of pre-1997 indexation for prospective PPF benefits.
The use of this power will aim to ensure there are no unintended consequences for well-funded superfunds in those circumstances. It is not our intention to place any additional pressures on superfunds. Providing pre-1997 indexation for PPF benefits is the right thing to do. All members in schemes supported by the PPF benefit from knowing they can count on higher levels of compensation should the worst happen—a fact that should be celebrated. We are committed to working with industry to create, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, questioned, a viable and secure superfunds market and will consult on issues such as these following Royal Assent to ensure we appropriately balance the metrics of each threshold.
My noble friend Lord Davies asked me to look forward to see what demand there will be for this. That is quite hard to do, but we estimate that around—I am told—130 schemes with £17 billion in assets may take up the option of entering a superfund, but we recognise these figures are highly uncertain. It will depend on how the industry reacts, future economic conditions and competition. The numbers, of course, could be significantly greater if the market grows.
It has been an interesting discussion, but I hope in the light of my remarks, the noble Baronesses feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, at least we are going to please the noble Lord, Lord Katz, this evening. We might even manage to stick within our normal timeframe and not go beyond.
I thank the noble Baroness for setting out the rationale for the time at which schemes have to demonstrate that they are closed. I will consider that carefully. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, will consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said in respect of her amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, given the public interest and for the convenience of the House, I have decided to inform the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has today received notification from the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, of his intention to retire from the House, effective from 4 February. I will formally notify the House tomorrow in the usual way.
Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, many of us aspire to be a good politician, to do good and to be a good person. More times than not, we fall short. Jim Wallace was a good man who saw it as his role in life to do good things. He did, and they will last. With great sorrow, we have been denied the opportunity of hearing a valedictory speech in this House from Jim. He would have been characteristically modest. We can perhaps be a little immodest on his behalf for a now profoundly missed absent friend.
After his early political days in the lowlands of Scotland, he triumphed in its most northerly part. When he was elected, many said he was the MP for Jo Grimond’s seat, but in short order we referred to it as Jim Wallace’s Orkney and Shetland. As MP, MSP and Peer, he saw serving in Parliament as the means by which good things can be done, not the end in itself. He was what a parliamentarian should be.
When speaking in Parliament Hall on the day of the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Jim was achieving his ambition and the dreams of many in delivering what Gladstone could not a century before. He said to all those newly elected MSPs:
“As the people’s representatives we should never forget the hopes kindled by this historic opportunity”.
He approached his role to meet those hopes as the first Liberal in office since the Second World War with zeal: land reform, law reform, social reform, education reform, prison reform—radical but workable—and all have endured, none reversed. Jim was a reformer, but he knew that for reform to last, it had to be done well. He said of the new Holyrood:
“Our Parliament must be open and inclusive—willing to consult and willing to listen”.
That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics.
Jim could be exceptionally partisan, though, but only with football. A determined Blue Nose—supporter of Glasgow Rangers—he was dutifully, but distractedly, carrying out one of his last duties as Deputy First Minister before being succeeded by my noble friend Lord Stephen in May 2005 at the launch of the Promoting Unst Renewable Energy project, on a day ironically too windy for anything to work. He was distracted, as it was unknown to him who was winning the Scottish league. But as his then private secretary subtly gave the thumbs up during the non-switching-on event, Jim then became, in the words of his private secretary, “the happiest I’ve ever seen him”.
Jim was a very confident Liberal, but very comfortable with others who were not. He felt that co-operating with others did not diminish his position or dilute his beliefs. Rather, it allowed progress to be made for the better end. Agreement with others, for Jim, was to get traction and longevity. We all knew that reaching agreement was Jim’s strength, but he approached it always from a granite set of principles. I once discussed a tricky time in the Scottish Parliament on a controversial law reform measure, and he said to me, “The test is when you defend the human rights of the people you hate”. Although that word was never associated with Jim, his words have become my test.
When he gave the first Charles Kennedy Memorial Lecture, he mourned the loss of a great friend prematurely. In the lecture, he remarked on their close friendship that
“there was much camaraderie, much political discussion and analysis, even intrigue—and much fun”.
The same for us with you, Jim.
Jim was literally admirable, with a political determination tempered by real kindness, and a seriousness of purpose sweetened by wry humour. Jim would tell of his period as Justice Minister in 2002, when Nelson Mandela visited the Lockerbie bomber in jail and, at a global press conference, criticised the way he was being kept, and by extension Jim himself. On hearing the rather worrying condemnation of Jim by the world’s most venerated man, his teenage daughter said, “Did Nelson Mandela just attack Dad? That’s cool!”
Engaging in a policy discussion with Jim was a thrilling and quite often intimidating experience. He had a prodigious intellect, phenomenal memory, confidence of argument and the ability to deploy cutting wit, like a sharpened sgian dubh. You needed to be on your game or your game was lost, as I learned on too many an occasion. I would start off fully confident with my argument and not long after accepting an early defeat, I would just pour us lots more whisky, enjoy the man and admire his abilities so comfortably worn. Those in law, civil service and politics would see the same. He excelled in company, while never dominating it. For those of us who knew him well, his ability to doze off mid-discussion, awaken and display his remarkable acuity as before was a skill to behold.
Jim loved serving as Moderator and said that he was more in awe in addressing the Kirk’s General Assembly than any of the three parliamentary Chambers he had mastered. On taking office as Moderator, he said:
“At all levels, and not least in our upper echelons, we should be ready to take risks to do what is right”.
For Jim, the risk would be calculated, prepared for, researched and tested, but that preparation did not dent the determination for boldness of thought and action. He led my Scottish party; he led government, he led the Kirk and in law. He also led these Benches, not by diktat—Jim knew this to be a futile exercise for a group of Liberals—but through intellect, argument, respect and a reasoned, methodical approach. We were lucky to have a colleague we admired, but one who made it easy to love him too.
John Buchan wrote of another great Scot words which are also appropriate for Jim:
“perfectly honest, perfectly fearless, and perfectly true”.
I grieve for Rosie, Clare and Helen and the grandchildren, who will have so many years ahead without Jim, but I say with love that we are ever so grateful that you allowed us to share Jim in our lives. Jim was a good politician and a good person who strove for and did good. The country is better, and lives are improved as a result of what he did. He was the best of examples of how politics can and should be the most honourable of callings. His faith was deep and he knew that, when his time had come, he would be going to a good place. That time is the wrong time—far too soon a time—but that place is now extremely lucky to have him.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a very powerful, heartfelt tribute. In his words, we all pictured the man that we grew to admire in this House. Paying tribute to friends and colleagues who have passed is never easy. When their passing is so sudden, unexpected and before their time, our sense of loss is profound. We had no idea that, when Jim spoke in the House last December, it would be the last time we heard him here. Lord Wallace was widely respected and held in great affection, and his loss is acutely felt.
Early last year, he spoke on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. As a long-standing elder and a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he played an active, helpful role in the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill. One was a controversial Bill, and the other had the support of the entire House; yet his approach and tone were exactly the same in each—thoughtful, level-headed and wise. Indeed, in that great way Jim had with words, he ended his contributions on the Church of Scotland Bill with a reference to the historic stain that the Bill removed, allowing Roman Catholics to hold the office of High Commissioner. He was looking forward to playing an active role as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where his legal background and sound judgment would have been a real asset.
A true believer in devolution, as we have heard, he was always willing to work across party boundaries and engage more widely to make progress. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, spoke with admiration of how they worked together to meet the challenge of bringing the Scottish Constitutional Convention to a consensus—no easy feat. The disparate nature of the various parties, churches and civil society meant that this was not going to be easy, and Jim’s acute political and legal skills, alongside his gentle, engaging manner, made for a formidable combination. They succeeded because they were of one mind, and I am told that they even decided the size of the Scottish Parliament over the late Lord Campbell of Pittenweem’s dinner table.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I add my tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and extend our sincere condolences to his wife and children, his friends, and indeed those colleagues closest to him in this House.
Lord Wallace’s extraordinary record as a dedicated public servant was not only long-standing but wide-ranging. Coming to political consciousness in his early teens, he campaigned for the Scottish Liberals in the 1970s, eventually being elected to the other place to succeed, as we have heard, Jo Grimond in representing the islands of Orkney and Shetland. He went on to lead the Scottish Liberal Democrats, helping to design the blueprint for devolution and steering the party through the 1997 referendum campaign.
In the new Scottish Parliament, he was appointed as the first ever Deputy First Minister, and indeed served on two occasions, as the Leader of the House mentioned, as Acting First Minister during that early heady period of home rule. Later, following his translation to your Lordships’ House—a place he termed “the Elysian fields of British politics”—he earned a further crown when he succeeded the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers.
As a junior Minister, I had the privilege and pleasure of working alongside Jim during the years of coalition government, when he served as Advocate-General for Scotland—a role for which he was surely typecast. He was at all times—even at stressful times—modest, calm, congenial and genuinely collegiate, as well as politically and professionally sure-footed. Those skills were born of an acute intelligence. He possessed a wonderful knack of getting straight to the nub of a matter and setting out his arguments in a very few words, without ever seeming impatient. As has been noted in several obituaries over recent days, he was someone who was genuinely liked by people of all political persuasions and who was known for his ability never to let party get in the way of constructive dialogue and co-operation. In these more polarised times, we would do well to learn from his example.
It is those qualities, evidenced in his political career, that help us to understand Jim Wallace the man—someone whose values, as he said himself, were grounded in his religious faith. His father was an elder at Annan Old Parish Church and he was an elder and member of the choir at St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall. In 2021, he served the Church of Scotland as the Moderator of its General Assembly during the pandemic and, for this period, set aside his political affiliations. With the death of Jim Wallace, the Liberal Democrat Party and this House have lost a very valued friend and colleague. He will be greatly missed.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, with a heavy heart, I rise on behalf of these Benches to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and to extend our condolences to his wife Rosie and family. His courtesy and genial nature were at the core of his approach to everything in a record that spanned many decades and had many facets.
We were the third legislative chamber to benefit from his wisdom and gentle approach. As has been noted, he arrived off the back of great success in the Commons and at the Scottish Parliament. He also proved a most canny coalition government partner in Scotland. He became Scotland’s first Deputy First Minister in 1999, having negotiated various Liberal Democrat priorities into that first Scottish Government’s programme. In the Holyrood election of 2003, Liberal Democrat polling numbers actually rose—which has not always been their experience following a period of coalition.
Jim remained as Deputy First Minister and was again able to negotiate his priorities into the coalition agreement of that second Government. After stepping back from front-line Scottish Government and standing down as an MSP, he came here. Here I pause, as I reflect on Jim as a man of faith.
The Church of Scotland has had a Moderator since 1562. John Knox was the first, although I am not sure Moderator was the right word for him. Moderators generally serve for a year. In 464 years, there have been only three Moderators who were not ministers of the Kirk, one of whom served for only a month.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, Jim was our Moderator in 2021. A photograph at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that year shows four obviously very happy people at the front door of Assembly Hall in Edinburgh. They were the Queen’s representative that year, who was Prince William, and Jim, Rosie and Nicola Sturgeon. To be able to bring warm and genuine smiles to those faces simultaneously was surely Jim’s magic and some improvement on John Knox’s approach. Needless to say, his year was a great success.
Jim had become Moderator because of his capacity as an elder of St Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall. This brings me to Orkney. Not far from Kirkwall is Tankerness. As said, Jim represented Orkney for 18 years in the Commons, for eight years in the Scottish Parliament and, frankly, for another 18 years here in our Parliament. In Orkney he was immensely popular and passionate.
Here I will take a loop, in that, about three years ago, I went to buy a set of bagpipes in Glasgow. In the bagpipe shop, I met someone who had been born in Orkney and is a very well-known piper in Scotland. Indeed, I had gone to that bagpipe shop because he was an Atholl Highlander, so I could get a discount. He immediately asked, “Do you know Jim Wallace?” so I said, “Yes, absolutely”, and he told me just how popular Jim was in Orkney. He was immensely popular, he was passionate and he was a genuine Orcadian.
I close with his words, said in December in St Magnus Cathedral at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Orkney Islands Council:
“So what do I conclude from my experiences of representing Orkney and working with councillors and successive governments? In a nutshell it is that people matter”.
That is good guidance for us all.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, from these Benches, I associate my comments and condolences with those who have previously spoken. Lord Wallace was kind, welcoming and generous to new Bishops joining this House. Both he and his wife Rosie are extraordinary people. He in particular made a significant impact on shaping the very culture and society in Scotland we see today across the whole trinity—if I may use a word dear to him—of law, politics and church. His two main belief systems were indeed the Church and politics. They supported each other, and although, as we have heard, he never served as a minister in the religious sense, he was ordained: he was an elder, and many across Orkney and beyond have reported how pertinent and encouraging his sermons and hominies were.
Lord Wallace took his spiritual duties especially seriously, never compromising his faith to his other priorities, but notably fulfilling the Sunday elder’s duty at St Magnus Cathedral even during parliamentary election campaigns. I am not sure what his party machine thought of that, but as has been mentioned already, he once remarked that he found the Church of Scotland General Assembly more awe-inspiring to address than the House of Commons. I trust he is now debating in an even more inspiring chamber than any earthly one. While I am unconvinced that any of us on these Benches would be of quite the same view when comparing Parliament to the Church of England General Synod, it is perhaps that generosity which underlines why one political reporter notably described Jim as Scotland’s favourite uncle.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to follow these eloquent tributes on all sides to my friend, Lord Jim Wallace, and to extend my sympathy to Rosie, Helen, Clare and the family following his tragic death last week. I am also very grateful to have spent four years of my life with him as my Deputy First Minister and for all that we were able to do together.
The then Jim Wallace co-led the Scottish Constitutional Convention with my noble friend Lord Robertson. I am sure he would agree that without the input, determination, pragmatism and principle of Lord Wallace, the Scottish Constitutional Convention would not have produced the scheme that became the Scottish Parliament and united Scotland behind the biggest constitutional change this country had seen since universal suffrage. He co-led the yes campaign in a referendum to secure that Parliament, and, in 1999, following the first elections to the Parliament, became its first Deputy First Minister.
In many ways, he co-led the cabinet that so many of us who are now here served in. He was partnered during that time to two shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Scotland. He was deputy to three First Ministers, a Minister for Justice and a Minister for Enterprise. He was acting First Minister on two occasions, and he was dependable, trustworthy and very, very good in the Chamber.
He passed the first legislation—I often claim to have passed the first legislation as Finance Minister in the Parliament back in 1999, and mine was the first planned legislation, but he was actually first, if we tell the truth. Following the walking free from Carstairs of a very dangerous man called Noel Ruddle in August 1999, a month into his job as Justice Minister, Jim Wallace had to prepare emergency legislation to close a loophole linked to the ECHR and deliver the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999. He did so with a calmness and a clarity that we all saw and recognised in this Chamber over recent years.
But that was only the start, because no other Minister carried as much change improving lives in Scotland in that first four-year Parliament. In his role as Justice Minister, he revelled in the opportunity to use the powers of the new Parliament to modernise Scottish law in a way that had been impossible for the absence of time here at Westminster in the decades previously.
He delivered more Bills than any other Minister in that Cabinet by a long way—from family law to court reform, judicial reform, land reform, freedom of information, adults with incapacity, investigatory powers, police and fire service reform, sexual offences and marriage reform. As Deputy First Minister, he was not afraid to lead and was willing to do things together, whether that was setting targets for renewables ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom or banning smoking in public places, as we did towards the end of his time as Deputy First Minister.
He had a great sense of duty, but he was also great fun. His colleagues tell a great story about him. There was a charity event at his local school in Orkney. Someone challenged him to have his legs waxed as a contribution to their fundraising. He agreed and, despite his screams, completed the task. The school received a big donation. The school pupil who had conducted the ceremony and tipped the wax across his legs was Neil Gray, who many years later became Health Secretary for Scotland. He has certainly had a few close shaves in recent years.
Lord Stephen (LD)
I first met Jim Wallace 43 years ago. I recognised him. He was standing at a bus stop outside the Station Hotel in Aberdeen. He was a 28 year-old newly elected Member of Parliament. I was a 23 year-old Liberal councillor. He had no idea who I was, but I introduced myself and offered him a lift to his public meeting. Off we went. On the way, he told me stories about the great Jo Grimond. Grimond had said that he would never trust a Secretary of State for Transport until he saw them coming to debates by bus or on the Tube. Little did I know during that 20-minute conversation that Jim Wallace would go on to have such a profound effect on my life and, more importantly, such a huge impact on the life of our nations.
Let us, for one moment, set aside everything that Jim did in the Scottish Parliament. We will come back to that. Look only at his 18 years in the House of Commons as MP for Orkney and Shetland, as Chief Whip and in many Front-Bench roles. Then he spent 19 years in this House from 2007 until last week, as Minister and law officer, Advocate-General for Scotland, leader of the Liberal Democrats here and a year as Moderator of the General Assembly, when he stood down as a Liberal Democrat but never stopped being a liberal. All that—those 37 years alone—would amount to a remarkable political, parliamentary and Church career.
Of course, the Scottish Parliament was the pinnacle. From the start of his leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, Jim moved steadily towards his pivotal role in shaping, delivering and then helping to lead the new Parliament. He worked very closely with George Robertson, now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with Donald Dewar and then, after Donald’s tragic death, with Jack McConnell, now the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Jim had enormous respect for them all. The words of tribute from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have been even more poignant in the tragic circumstances of his own loss of his brother, which, by cruel coincidence, came on the very same day as Jim’s death. Our thoughts are very much with the noble Lord.
I had been elected to the other place in 1991 in a by-election and went to live during that time in a small room in Jim and Rosie’s London flat. Our friendship grew. Beyond politics, there were family visits to the Wallace home in Tankerness in Orkney. Jim was always great fun. Helen and Clare were young, and my children were even younger. They always called him Uncle Jim, and he would sing along to “Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree”, with the dance steps and the hand movements—I have the video. The low point in our relationship came in May 2000, when Jim presented the Scottish Cup to his team, Rangers, after they narrowly defeated my team, Aberdeen, 4-0. He was beaming as he handed over the trophy. I immediately sent him a text message encouraging him to smile less, but not using those words.
Jim met many remarkable people. He once hosted Kofi Annan at a United Nations dinner in New York and explained, of course, that he had been brought up in Annan in Dumfriesshire. Jim later ended the evening singing Burns songs and was delighted to discover that Kofi’s wife was called Nane. Obviously, out of respect, he said he resisted the temptation to sing anything with the words Nanannan.
Jim embodied the very best of politics, the very best of people He was courteous, collegiate and consensual, but with a strong and persuasive voice. He combined kindness with humility, authority with deep humanity. He held things together repeatedly at a time when the new Scottish Parliament was being tested to its limits, and he did more than that. He helped deliver many things, such as free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition fees, a strong new freedom of information regime and PR for local government in Scotland. None of these things was easy.
Above all, it was not about the policies. Jim was about friendships, across all parties and places, about values and faith, and about family—most of all about family, Rosie and Helen and Clare, his brother Neil and, of course, his grandchildren Catriona, Ella and Adam. “It’s very special”, he said to me recently, “being a grandfather”. Jim Wallace, you too were very special, very loved, and you will be very dearly missed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words of my own in tribute to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, or Jim as he was known to his many friends both inside and outside Parliament and from all parts of the political spectrum. Lord Wallace lived a life of public service that stands as an example to us all, of dedication, hard work and love of his country. When he joined the House of Lords in 2007, after stepping down as an MSP, the deep emotional bond that this son of Dumfriesshire had forged with his island constituency was reflected in the title he chose for himself as Lord Wallace of Tankerness, of Tankerness in Orkney. As the convener pointed out, he was pretty popular there, achieving in the 1999 election for the MSP for Orkney a remarkable 67% of the votes.
Jim was a kind, devout and decent man and a good friend to me. At a time when politics is held in low esteem, he was a model of public service, a great parliamentarian both north and south of the border and one who adored this House of Lords. He was, as we say in Scotland, gathered much too early. He will be much missed and mourned by so many folk who held him in the highest regard. My most heartfelt sympathies go out to his wife Rosie and their loving family.
Two-child Benefit Cap: Foreign-born Children
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what proportion of increased spending on the two-child benefit cap will be for foreign-born children.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, children should not grow up in poverty. It is bad for them, bad for their aspirations and, ultimately, bad for the country. Experts agree that the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty is to end the two-child limit, and that is what we are doing. There are strict rules that govern who can access benefits. Parents who are foreign nationals can access universal credit only with a valid immigration status of a kind that gives them the right to access public funds.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I agree that the public do support the safety net of welfare, provided that it is targeted and fair, and goes to British people rather than migrants to the country. However, the Government’s own data shows that fewer than 1% of those who will benefit from the uplift in universal credit have both parents working, and 41% of families have no one working. This does not seem fair to a lot of working families, who have to make very hard choices about the size of their own family. So how many exactly of the “most people” the Minister refers to are British and how many are not?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, removing the two-child limit is very well targeted: it is targeted on children. Over half—some 59%—of households affected by the two-child limit are in work, and almost half of households affected by this policy did not have any of their children while they were receiving universal credit. The reality is that our immigration system in this country is tough, and our benefit system is tough.
I cannot give the noble Baroness the figures that she wants, because the category “foreign born” is not a category in our benefits system. DWP needs to know what someone’s immigration status is rather than where they were born or what their background is, because that is what determines it. Most foreign nationals must live in the UK for at least five years on a temporary visa before they can apply for settlement and, therefore, even be eligible for public funds, and the Home Office has announced plans to double that.
This Government are going to lift children out of poverty and give them the best start in life, but, for those kids whose families are eligible, it is not right to limit support because of their background or where they were born. No child should feel the effects of this policy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
This somewhat xenophobic Question concerns increased spending as a result of abolishing the two-child limit, which even the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who introduced it, described as “vicious”. Could my noble friend the Minister perhaps remind us of the cost of not abolishing the cap, in respect of how child poverty has a knock-on effect on health, education and public services, including children’s social care services?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend is so right. The cost of failing to tackle poverty is too high—for those children but also for our country. Hungry children do not arrive at school ready to learn. Poorer children are more likely to have mental health difficulties by the age of 11. They are more likely to have poorer employment outcomes and earn less. She is absolutely right: the rise in child poverty in England between 2015 and 2020 is estimated to have led to 10,000 more children entering our care system, with all the consequences for those children, as well as for the country and for the Exchequer. A child’s health opportunities and prospects should not be determined by how many siblings they have or by the accident of their circumstances. We will lift children out of poverty and this country will benefit from that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. To follow on from that—to get to the crux of the matter—could she tell us what assessment has been made of the cap’s overall effect on child poverty? Can she clarify and put on the record what the actual effect was and how we can benefit by the removal of the cap?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the effects of this. The Labour Party in government pledged to tackle child poverty. What this Government have brought forward is a child poverty strategy which, including removing the two-child limit, will bring another 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. That is what we are here to do; that is what we are shooting for.
I stress that this is about fairness. Of course, our benefit system is there to support those for whom this is their home; those who contribute. Of course it is there to be fair, but it is also there as a safety net, and our job is to get that balance right. In the case of children, it surely has to be right to tackle child poverty, to give them the opportunity and for the country to benefit from that.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, given the scale of additional public expenditure involved, and while recognising that welfare policy will not be the primary driver of migration, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that lifting the two-child limit does not inadvertently act as a pull factor for economic migrants to present initially as asylum-seeking families, and how will this be monitored?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have seen no evidence that anything as specific as this has any impact on asylum. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that our system is so strict that, for somebody to be able to come to this country, they need to meet the requirements. If someone is in the country illegally, they are not entitled to access public funds. If they are entitled to universal credit, they are expected to work. Our system is designed to support people into work but also to require that they work. This year the DWP will consult on making sure that we look at the relationship between residence requirements and our benefits system and prioritise resources for those who are making an economic contribution—but nothing in that says that we do not want to tackle child poverty. I am sure the whole House agrees with that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend say a little more about how this progressive policy relates to the wider child poverty strategy, in particular the wider rollout this week of breakfast clubs in schools and, going forward, perhaps incremental universal free school meals, as some of us would aspire to, for all school-age children?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We have another question in a moment about the child poverty strategy, so I get to spend 20 minutes talking about child poverty. Tackling child poverty has to be done on so many fronts and our strategy looks at people’s incomes, the costs they are facing and how we can give them opportunities. I am so proud that the Government have decided to do things such as extending free school meals to those on universal credit. Children need to arrive at school ready to learn, and you cannot be ready to learn if you are hungry. It is also a way of tackling the cost of living for so many families who are struggling. I am proud that we are making childcare more available and getting more support to those who are on universal credit who want to do the right thing and work but face barriers in their way. And I am proud that we are rolling out Best Start family hubs and all kinds of measures. Our children are not just our present; they are the future of our country. If we invest in them, we invest in Britain. It is the right thing to do.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, let me highlight some more statistics. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the addition to the benefits bill will be £13.6 billion over five years. Families with five children will gain £10,900 per year and those with six children will gain £16,600 per year, and almost half the households involved have no one in work. This is extremely worrying. This policy is surely rewarding worklessness. How are the Government intending to prevent the lifting of the two-child limit weakening work incentives or increasing long-term benefit dependency among larger families?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount knows that, although we are lifting the two-child limit, the Government are not lifting the benefit cap on the total amount that any household can get. The benefit cap encourages parents to take responsibility and work towards financial independence. There is, for example, an exemption from the benefit cap if somebody is in work and earning at least the minimum wage for the requisite number of hours. The challenge for us is to make sure that parents want to work, that we support them to work and that we take away the barriers that are in their way, for example on childcare or being able to get the jobs and the support they need. These things have to be separate. We should be supporting our children, but children benefit from their parents being in work wherever possible, so we should be doing both of these. If we were just doing one, the noble Viscount would have a point. This is part of our strategy to invest in support for parents, to invest in employment support, and to make sure that whole families benefit from our policies.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in a reply to an earlier question that, by giving support to these families, we are investing in the future. These children will grow up to be productive members of society, hopefully working and paying their taxes. Along with many in this House, I come from a family of immigrants and migrants and I am proud that many of my family members now have become businesspeople, teachers, and lawyers. Even Tracey Emin is a cousin. We have contributed to this country, paying back what the country gave to us. Does she agree with me that these comments that somehow we are wasting money by investing in children are an absolute disgrace?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the House is every bit as proud of the noble Baroness as they are of Tracey Emin or any other eminent member of her family, whether they are a lawyer or a doctor, or whatever they may have done. But she makes a good point. We are investing in our children in this country because we want them to have happy, thriving childhoods, but also because, by doing that, we give them every chance of achieving what they can in life. That increases productivity and the wealth of this country. I say again that our job is to be balanced. The benefits system is here to support those for whom this is their home. Migrants have to tackle very high barriers to get them, but we should not be singling out individual children on the basis of where they were born. Let us get all kids out of poverty.
Child Poverty: Faith-based and Voluntary Sector Organisations
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to facilitate consultation and collaboration with faith-based and voluntary sector organisations to deliver the Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty strategy, published on 5 December 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are turning the tide on child poverty. This requires consensus, partnership and shared action. Government cannot achieve this goal alone. Input from children and families, charities, experts and organisations, including faith-based and voluntary sector organisations, was vital to developing our child poverty strategy. These organisations are the bedrock of our communities. We plan to continue to work in partnership, including with faith groups and voluntary sector organisations, to build on and galvanise action.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
I thank the Minister for her Answer. I know she is deeply aware that faith communities play a vital role in supporting children and families. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby was grateful for her visit last year, and I look forward very much to her forthcoming visit to Grimsby. However, I am concerned that faith is not mentioned more prominently in the Government’s child poverty strategy—indeed, it is not referenced at all in chapter 2, “Reducing Child Poverty in Partnership”—so I ask the Minister to say more about how faith organisations will be vital to codelivery and how the Government intend to take further steps to draw on the local knowledge, experience and ongoing action of faith communities in order to implement their strategy and drive down child poverty.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning the visits: I had a fantastic visit to Derby, invited by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, meeting a range of faith organisations, and I very much look forward to coming to Grimsby with him. The Government are committed to harnessing the power of faith and belief for national renewal, and we know that the insights of faith communities play a key part in informing and shaping policies; they did so in relation to the child poverty strategy. That has not stopped with poverty. For example, the Minister for Employment has met with Church Action on Poverty, and the Minister for Social Security is going to speak at the ChurchWorks summit specifically on opportunities for collaboration around the child poverty strategy with faith organisations.
Whenever I visit a faith organisation, I learn something wonderful. I visited a brilliant Jewish charity a couple of weeks ago at the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Polak. I was so glad that I did, because I learned what was happening on the ground to support individuals facing a wide range of challenges in ways that the Government would struggle to engage with. So I reassure the right reverend Prelate that we cannot do without those insights, and we will make sure that we get them.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise the role of faith-based organisations, but I wonder if the Minister is aware of the role of cultural organisations and cultural participation in reducing the impacts of child poverty. I think of personal and social networks, employability skills and self-confidence. To see this in action, will she take a look at Culture Start in Sunderland, which is developing a range of local partnerships with the specific aim of using cultural participation to ensure that all children, however they are born, have the option to benefit from the advantages that cultural participation brings?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a great question. I agree with her point that the role of cultural organisations and the opportunity to participate and engage with others to do collective action in different ways are crucial to children’s development—and often those are the kinds of opportunities that children from wealthier families have that others would not. In response to the specifics, Sunderland being very near to Durham, I would be delighted to learn more about what is happening there. I need to go and find out. My office can take note.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply about how the charities will work, but what worries me is how small, local charities will be included in this. It rather looks as if we are encouraging the larger charities to do all the good work that they do but, as the other questioners said, there are a lot of local charities. I would like to know that they are going to be included in this process.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
That is a great question, if I may say so—there are some good questions coming out today. We absolutely are not interested in talking solely to large charities. We are interested in talking to them too, but we need to engage locally. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, one way that this Government are going about our work in the DWP is that we are devolving quite a lot. We are aware that much of the work we want to do can be done much better at a local level. For example, it is much clearer in Manchester than it is in London what should happen in Greater Manchester. So we are devolving and encouraging local organisations in many of the pilots that we are running to engage with local charities, but we will also often engage with organisations that themselves are umbrellas, which can bring together local charities to come and talk to us.
The noble Lord makes a really important point. Having worked in the voluntary sector myself for a long time, I know that there are some insights that national charities give that are really helpful, but other things you find out only when you go to the coalface. Just last week I visited a small charity in Fife that is doing amazing work, and I learned things from it that I would not have learned from the biggest charity. So that is a good point, and I take it on.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
My Lords, when I was mayor of Bristol, we put tackling child poverty at the centre of our approach. We sought to deal with issues of real substance—evidence-based issues that determine the life chances of our children and young people: parental background, income, class, housing stability, family stability, education and health. Does the Minister agree that it is not helpful to set up frameworks that might invite people to believe that the life chances of British-born young people are determined by the fortunes of children born to foreign parents?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for the work that he did in Bristol, the leadership he showed and all the excellent work that was done there. I am absolutely clear that if we are to invest in the children of our country, we need to invest in all the children of our country, make sure that we reflect their needs and give them the opportunity to thrive within the context of all the things I said on the previous Question. I take the opportunity to say that I do not think these things can be done just by government. The examples he gave are a reason why Whitehall does not always know best. Trying to pull only the levers in my department will not give us the results we need. I absolutely welcome the opportunity to learn from what Bristol has done, and from what other metropolitan and mayoral authorities are doing and will carry on doing.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, parental employment, family stability and early intervention are key to reducing child poverty, but there are currently around 800,000 job vacancies in the UK. How exactly are the Government helping parents to get into work? We have jobs. The employees and employers want them to work together.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a really good point. That is what my department is for. One of the reasons why we are reinventing the whole way that jobcentres work is to be able to make sure that we can help these individuals get ready and take those jobs. We have real opportunity out there, but if we are to hit the kind of employment targets we want, we must give the people who are farthest from the labour market the chance to get at those jobs. We must tackle the barriers that stop people getting those jobs. In the case of parents, those barriers can be quite significant. If you are a single mum with two kids trying to afford childcare, to find work that fits around what you do and to get training and skills, then that is a challenge. Our work coaches can work with that mother, help her to get the skills she needs, to find childcare and to get help with that childcare, get her skilled up and get her out there. That shows the children what they can achieve in turn, and everybody benefits. He is absolutely right; this is the way forward.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would make a helpful contribution to tackling child poverty if the Government were to lift the ban on asylum seekers taking paid work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government must make an appropriate challenge. If somebody becomes a refugee, they have all the entitlements that that brings, but while the asylum process is going through they are supported and not able to work. We are trying to make sure the immigration policy is appropriate and puts in place the appropriate incentives and processes. I understand the point she makes, but the challenge in asylum is to make sure that only the right people apply, that we process them as quickly as possible, that we make the right decisions and that we then support people who become refugees to rebuild their lives.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, faith-based and voluntary sector organisations place great emphasis on listening to the voices of lived experience. I commend the child poverty team for having done so in developing the child poverty strategy. Can my noble friend tell us what the plans are for the next stage of involving people with lived experience of poverty in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a really important point. Any of us who met people with lived experience as part of this process have learned things that we will never forget. The most memorable one for me was when I met a young woman. When she was a child, her family was evicted from social housing. It was a very difficult experience. She was part of a project that used her experience to talk to decision-makers. She was asked to talk to the senior person at the social housing association that had evicted her. As a result of hearing her story, the housing association changed its policy on managing rent arrears. Instead of focusing just on how to evict people, it focused on how to spot problems early, to stop people getting into trouble, to protect the family and to enable them to carry on and thrive. That was such a great example, and every time our officials learn this they know that we are hearing things that we will carry on doing. The Timms review has been co-produced with people from disabled organisations, the universal credit review has had extensive engagements, and the child poverty unit in the DWP will carry on doing that too.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Government deserve credit for developing a strategy to tackle child poverty, but does the Minister accept that there has to be a partnership between parents and the state? The state can carry out its responsibilities in tackling poverty, but parents must ensure that their children attend school regularly, with a real commitment to their education.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I could not agree more. The noble Lord makes an excellent point. I realise that, from his experience, he will have seen this from all sides. In the end, it is not the job of the state to raise children—parents raise their children. The job of the state is to support families to give them the skills and support they need to enable them to do the best job they can. I have worked with families in different circumstances. In my experience, parents want to do the best for their kids but sometimes life can be tough. Our job in government is to make it possible for them to be the best parents they can and give children the best possible start in life. That means going to school on a regular basis—no exceptions unless absolutely necessary—with children always turning up and doing their work, then things will be okay.
AI Superintelligence
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of when AI superintelligence which can surpass human capabilities will be developed; and the potential impact of that AI on the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, there is considerable debate around AI superintelligence. Some experts believe that AI could exceed human capabilities by 2030, which would significantly impact the UK’s economy and national security. The AI Security Institute helps the Government assess serious AI risks, equipping it to understand them. That will help us reap the benefits of AI such as economic growth and public sector efficiency. Our AI Opportunities Action Plan lays the foundation for national renewal, and I am pleased to inform noble Lords that in the past 12 months we have achieved 38 out of our 50 commitments in the plan.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for indicating that superintelligent AI is expected to emerge over the course of the next couple of years. It was the head of the IMF who said at Davos last week that this is moving so fast, yet we do not know how to make it safe. We rightly regulate many industries in this country, including medical research and weapons manufacturing. Like those technologies, AI should have independent pre- and post-deployment testing. Leading AI companies have repeatedly made safety pledges they have then failed to keep. When will the Government bring in regulation for these powerful emerging technologies?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise both the pace of AI development and the need to ensure that it is safe and inclusive. We have set out the proportionate, principal SPACE framework, enforced by existing regulations, to ensure safety, transparency and accountability. We are also working with international partners to prevent fragmentation. We will legislate where necessary, but we will do so carefully, ensuring that legislation is effective and inclusive, without stifling innovation and keeping the United Kingdom globally competitive.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant for DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. In the debate on AI last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, mentioned the Council of Europe framework convention on AI. She rightly said that it is seeking
“to establish a clear international baseline that grounds AI in our shared values”.—[Official Report, 29/1/26; col. 1129.]
Fine words, my Lords. The framework convention would set binding duties on the UK to ensure that AI is compatible with human rights, democracy and the rule of law, plus some more specific obligations on risk management, transparency, accountability and remedies. When will the UK ratify it, and what plans is it making to implement it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, AI risks do not respect national borders and require sustained international leadership. I am pleased that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront, convening global partners to build shared understanding of frontier risks and mitigation. We work with the G7, the G20, the OECD, the United Nations and the Council of Europe. Through multilateral forums and bilateral partnerships, we are championing international safety standards and promoting transparency. Our approach ensures that global governance is rooted in democratic values and human rights, fostering a secure, responsible environment in which innovation can flourish safely across all territories.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, the second International AI Safety Report is being published today. It is a scientific assessment, guided by 100 experts from 30 different countries and chaired by Yoshua Bengio, one of the three so-called godfathers of AI. A key finding is that general-purpose AI capabilities are improving more quickly than anticipated. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for DSIT to set up a commission or working group of experts, convened jointly by the AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, to investigate the potential impact of this increasing rate of progress towards general-purpose superintelligent AI?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are taking a proactive, evidence-led approach to the potential emergence of advanced AI. We have empowered the AI Security Institute, the world’s first state-backed body of its kind, to carry out onerous testing of frontier models against clear red lines, including autonomous self-replication and deception. In the last couple of months, the AI Security Institute has conducted more than 30 such tests, and will be working with partners to ensure that AI is safe for the general public.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I have always welcomed the approach the Government have taken to regulation in the AI space, particularly a proportionate approach, considering where we are in the development of AI businesses and technologies—in a global battle. With regard to artificial general intelligence—the singularity—it must be stated that most experts predict this to happen between 2040 and 2045, if at all. But right here, right now, the UK is in a global battle, particularly the SMEs that are developing businesses in AI here, creating jobs and investing. I appreciate that it has now been a year since the Government produced their AI opportunities action plan, but can the Minister please advise the House what has been done to help the UK AI SME industry to win government contracts? The concern I hear—I declare an interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance, with over 200 UK AI SME members—is that these companies cannot get the contracts the Government are putting out.
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, the noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight this issue. I really welcome his continued engagement on this. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to AI-driven growth. The Government are supporting SMEs through a whole series of targeted innovation funding, access to test bids—which is available now—and digital adoption programmes, alongside partnerships with research institutions. By lowering barriers to experimentation, we enable smaller firms to enhance productivity and compete more effectively. This ensures that the economic benefits of AI are shared across the country, fostering a diverse and resilient digital economy throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, building on the work that my noble friend the Minister has outlined, and considering that AI is changing the world of work and that superintelligence poses an even greater threat to the UK job market, can my noble friend outline what the Government are doing to reassure workers who are worried about the future of their jobs?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, and this Government will not be a bystander as people worry about what AI means for their jobs and their children’s prospects. AI will create new jobs but it will also change work and, regrettably, will replace some jobs. Change is inevitable. The consequences are not. We will support people throughout this transition by investing in skills and growth, including by establishing the new AI and the Future of Work Unit within DSIT, working with DWP and DBT, to co-ordinate action across government—although I note that however advanced these machines become, they are not yet standing at this Dispatch Box.
Lord Markham (Con)
Not yet anyway. Just this week we saw Elon Musk forecast an AI world of abundance, where robots outnumber people and people work only a few hours a week—I am wondering where I sign up for that. Who knows whether he is right or wrong but undoubtedly there will be winners and losers. We all agree that we want the UK to be one of the leaders rather than followers. What that says to me is that we really need our best minds putting together our own Elon Musk-type forecast so that we can shape it and respond accordingly. Are we doing this and, if so, when will we see it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is aware that the Government are spending £2 billion on supporting all AI-related projects. We are investing £500 million in our Sovereign AI Unit, supporting UK businesses to compete internationally. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the world is changing and we have to be at the forefront by making sure that our people have the skills. More importantly, if we want AI to work for Britain, we need Britons who can work with AI.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the California AI Transparency Act has set up a mechanism for developers of large language frontier models to publish a report on a model’s intended uses and an assessment of catastrophic risks before it is released. Is that a requirement that His Majesty’s Government might consider introducing in this country?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to highlight that issue. We are doing a lot already, but we must do more. As I said, we are investing in establishing our Sovereign AI Unit, we will equip some 10 million people with AI skills by 2030, and we will go further by supporting our SMEs to grow the AI market in this country.
Shamima Begum
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Shamima Begum had her British citizenship removed, as upheld by the UK courts. It is inappropriate for me to comment further while there are further ongoing legal proceedings. We are working closely with partners to understand the current situation in the detention facilities and camps, and to mitigate any shared national security risks.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that the situation in northern Syria has become more dangerous recently, especially for those being held in detention camps? Notwithstanding the sub judice position referred to by my noble friend, would it not be right for Shamima Begum, a British-born person educated and brought up here and probably trafficked to Syria as a 15 year-old, to be allowed to return and face justice? Or do the Government seriously believe that she should stay in a prison camp indefinitely?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first part of my noble friend’s question, the Government are obviously deeply concerned about developments in north-east Syria. However, we welcome the agreement between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces to integrate military and civilian institutions, and we will continue to monitor what happens in northern Syria. Regarding Shamima Begum, my noble friend knows that I try to be helpful on these matters. However, I cannot be any more helpful than I was last time, which is to say that a process has been followed and there is further discussion in the European courts. I cannot anticipate or comment upon that matter until such time as those issues are resolved.
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 hear from the Cross Benches first and then from the noble Viscount.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I declare an interest as a former legal counsel of Shamima Begum—there are many of us in that position. The Minister has repeatedly stated that the existence of legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights prevents him answering detailed questions. I am aware of no doctrine of the European court that imposes such a restriction. Why are the Government hiding behind the European court’s proceedings to avoid answering the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, I am not hiding behind that. We have taken a judgment that we are in discussion on that matter in the European court with legal teams. I am not able to give a running commentary on those matters in this House. The noble Lord may not like that, but that is the position I have to give the House today.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I re-emphasise that when Shamima Begum went to Syria, she was 15 years-old. She absconded from school. She was a child. What is the public interest in excluding her from the United Kingdom now? Are we just making political gestures? I of course acknowledge that the original decision was made by the previous Administration.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The original decision was made by the previous Administration, and it happens to be one that this Government upheld and support. I say again to the House that there are ongoing proceedings about her status, and the decisions were very clear. Under legislation which the previous Government took, we have examined this matter and are now in discussions in the European Court of Human Rights. I think it is best left to be determined in the way in which it will ultimately be determined.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I have said it before and I will say it again: we on these Benches are unequivocal in our view that Shamima Begum should never be allowed to return to Britain. However, the noble Lord is right to note the increase in fighting in northern Syria. One of the issues this raises is that British-born Islamic State fighters and sympathisers may be freed and then attempt to make the journey back to Britain, potentially by small boat crossings. In the interests of the security of the British people, what are the Government doing to ensure that no one who has fought for or assisted a terrorist group in that region is able to return to Britain?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very valid point, and it is one that I support. The Foreign Secretary has already spoken to the Syrian Foreign Minister about the situation of those who have been and are being detained. We want to ensure that we continue to monitor the security situation in northern Syria, but the noble Lord makes a very valid point that the Government will bear in mind.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice has recommended that the UK adopt a comprehensive repatriation policy for all British nationals detained in north-east Syria. None of the 50 to 60 British nationals—the majority of whom are children and their mothers—detained in the dangerous and deteriorating situation in north-east Syria have been charged with a crime, and they have been held there for roughly six years. If transferred to Iraq, which is now a real threat, they face an acute risk of torture, unfair trials and suffering for the children if they are separated from their mothers. Will the Government now fulfil their responsibility and do what the United States, France and Germany have already done: repatriate these British nationals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All requests for consular assistance and, indeed, repatriation will be taken into account by the Government. The British Government will particularly look at the issue of unaccompanied minors and orphans when brought to our attention, and we will facilitate their return, where feasible, on a case-by-case basis, subject to the national security issues and concerns that have been raised to date. I recognise that there are no consular assistance facilities in northern Syria, but there are ways in which that can be examined, and if cases are brought to the Government’s attention, we will look at them.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the Government keep citing vague evidence that Shamima Begum is a threat to national security. When the Government are able to, will they put that evidence before an independent inquiry so that it can be scrutinised, and we can be assured that the rule of law is being followed properly and she is not being used as a political football?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that the individual is not being used as a political football. The previous Government took the decision under the British Nationality Act 1981 to deprive her of her citizenship status. It is not a step that is taken lightly; it is taken only after careful consideration of advice by lawyers and in conjunction with international law. We have examined the decision to date and upheld it. There is a court case, and the Government judge that we are not going to comment on that while it is going on, but the noble Baroness’s points have been heard in this House, and we will obviously examine them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, regardless of the particular case and the ongoing proceedings my noble friend the Minister describes, what does he think of the broader policy conundrum that if developed democracies take citizenship away from subjects and citizens who are perceived to be dangerous, we render large numbers of people stateless and create a powder keg of resentment, fomenting all sorts of challenges that will make us less, not more safe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I come back to the point, which my noble friend will be aware of, that this is not a decision taken lightly or very often. The previous Government issued 10 citizenship deprivations in 2020, eight in 2021, three in 2022, two in 2023 and only one in 2024. When the decision is taken, it is on the basis of advice, and that no one is left stateless in doing so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, she was indeed 15 when she went out to Syria originally, but she is now 26 and able to show maturity, one would expect—but unfortunately, she has shown very little contrition or regret. While I am sympathetic to her, would it not be better if she actually condemned atrocities committed by ISIS, rather than saluting and applauding them, which she has done in recent interviews?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, with due respect to the noble Lord, I am not going to comment on individual cases, which the Government are currently actively considering, in terms of both the original decision and the court case to date. The noble Lord has said what he said and the House will have heard it; I cannot comment on it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the United States has begun the transfer of 7,000 Islamic State detainees from prisons in north-east Syria to Iraq. Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council said the other day that it would commence legal proceedings against transferred detainees of whatever nationality. Can the Minister tell the House whether any British detainees are among those 7,000, and what, if anything, can be done to guard against the risk that in Iraq, those detainees will suffer torture, unfair trials and the death penalty?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the issue he has raised is a US and Iraq-led operation. The UK is not involved in that operation. We expect all detainee transfers to meet international legal standards and will continue to monitor developments very closely. Again, I cannot comment on any individual cases in relation to the issue the noble Lord raises.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I place on record my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord McFall of Alcluith and Lord Stoneham of Droxford, whose terms as Lord Speaker and Liberal Democrat Chief Whip have concluded. As such, they will be coming off their respective committees, and I am very grateful for their significant contributions. With the approval of your Lordships, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Goddard of Stockport, will be appointed as their successors to the relevant committees.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 December 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:10 - Division on Amendment 199 - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 199 agreed.
Baroness Barran
“Reasonableness and safeguards in the exercise of local authority powers(1) In exercising powers under sections 54 to 56, a local authority must act reasonably and proportionately, having regard to—(a) the needs of the child,(b) the needs of other pupils at the school, and(c) the capacity of the school to meet the child’s needs safely and effectively.(2) An Academy may, within 10 school days of receiving a direction or proposed direction under sections 54 to 56, notify the local authority and the Secretary of State that it considers the direction to be unreasonable on one or more of the following grounds—(a) that the Academy cannot reasonably be expected, with the resources and specialist expertise available to it, to meet the child’s special educational needs or other significant additional needs;(b) that admitting the child would seriously prejudice the education or welfare of existing pupils or the safety of pupils or staff;(c) that suitable and reasonably accessible alternative provision is available which is better able to meet the child’s needs;(d) that the direction is otherwise irrational or disproportionate.(3) Where notice is given under subsection (2), the direction shall not take effect until—(a) the Secretary of State has confirmed, varied or set aside the direction, or(b) such other independent review body as may be prescribed by regulations has determined the matter.(4) Before confirming or varying a direction under subsection (3), the Secretary of State (or other prescribed body) must—(a) give the Academy proprietor and the local authority an opportunity to make written representations, and(b) have regard to any relevant code of practice or statutory guidance.(5) In this section “Academy” has the same meaning as in this Act.(6) In exercising functions under this section, the Secretary of State (or other prescribed body) must have particular regard to the importance of securing fair access for looked-after children, previously looked-after children, children who have been excluded from a previous school and children with an education, health and care plan.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause provides safeguards for Academies where a local authority uses its powers under clauses 54 to 56 to direct an Academy to admit a particular child.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group contains some important amendments, including my Amendments 198 and 199.
Amendment 198 deals with the duty to co-operate that all schools are required to respect, which I raised in Committee. I questioned whether there really was a problem that needed solving—namely, that academies were routinely refusing to accept either children who had been permanently excluded from another school or looked-after children. The Minister responded in November; I am grateful to her officials for preparing the data for me. It showed that, across the whole of England, there were tiny numbers of cases where local authorities requested that the Secretary of State should direct the admission of a child. In only 24 cases last year, 28 the year before and 26 the year before that did the Secretary of State use those powers. That was for about half of the requests made. With 8.8 million children in this country, over half of them educated in academies, to be arguing about 25 children a year seems extraordinary.
The Government made the case that this would reduce delays, with the department taking 38 days to respond, but surely a much simpler approach would be for it to speed up its processes. Currently, the time taken to respond in similar cases with maintained schools is between 28 and 35 days, if one takes into account the time that the maintained school has to file an objection and the time for the schools adjudicator to respond. We are dancing on the heads of two microscopic pins, around time and the number of children, when all it would take is for the department to decide tomorrow to cut the time it takes to make these decisions.
More broadly, my Amendment 198 aims to pick up on points made in Committee by my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lady Spielman and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. We all accept the principles that underpin the duty to co-operate and the need for all schools to do so. However, as my noble friend Lady Spielman pointed out in Committee, there are cases where a school may not have the skills or capacity to address the needs of a certain child or children, particularly at a time when the system for children with SEND is under strain and mainstream schools are expected to accept pupils whose needs are severe and who would previously have attended a special school.
In Committee, the Minister pointed out that local authorities must ensure that decisions are made in the child’s best interests. My amendment would put in a balanced consideration of the child’s needs, the needs of other pupils and the capacity of the school to meet those needs. I wish—it is a faint wish at this late stage—that the Government would withdraw this unnecessary clause, but if they will not do so then perhaps they will accept my amendment. If the Minister will not accept it, can she explicitly set out in summing up how these very reasonable concerns which balance the rights of different groups of children will be addressed?
My Amendment 199 aims to prevent the schools adjudicator from requiring high-performing schools to reduce their PAN, or published admission numbers. There is a practical problem in some areas of falling pupil numbers—a projected drop of about 300,000 primary pupils by 2030, and 97,000 fewer secondary pupils—and this in turn is putting financial pressure on some schools. But the way to sort this out is not by requiring the most popular, highest-performing schools in an area to cut their PAN. It pays no regard to the interests of children nor to the rights of parents to choose a high-performing school for their child.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 201 in my name, which deals with the issue of faith-based selection in school admissions. This speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools and therefore does not know how many parents are missing out on a place at their preferred school because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils, and on whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice. This is not an argument against faith schools; many provide an excellent education and are deeply rooted in their communities. Rather, the purpose of Amendment 201 is to promote fairness and genuine parental choice by limiting the extent to which oversubscription criteria can be used to select pupils on the basis of religion.
In Committee, the Government pointed to the existing admissions framework, by which admissions must be published and applied consistently. But the question is not simply whether rules exist on paper but what those rules do in practice when a school is oversubscribed. If admissions turn on faith tests that some families cannot meet, because they are either of a different faith or of no faith, then, in reality, the local school is not equally accessible to the local community.
There is also the wider issue of inclusion and cohesion. Selection by faith risks narrowing pupil diversity and, over time, separating children along religious and, sometimes, ethnic lines during their formative years. Evidence suggests that faith-based selection can correlate with lower inclusion. The Sutton Trust has found that faith schools are more socially selective, admitting fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than would be expected given their local status. Research highlighted by the London School of Economics has reported the underadmission of children with special educational needs and disabilities to faith primary schools. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator has reported concerns from local authorities that faith-based criteria can in some cases disadvantage looked-after and previously looked-after children.
The aim here is straightforward: to ensure that publicly funded schools serve their whole community and that parental choice is not narrowed by criteria unrelated to a child’s needs or a family’s proximity to the school. Amendment 201 is a measured step that would support fairness in admissions and help ensure that our children are brought together rather than separated. Amendment 201 promotes fairness and parental choice in schools’ admissions policy, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199, to which I have added my name. In this, I am channelling my inner Baroness Wolf of Dulwich—the noble Baroness sends her apologies that she cannot be in her place. This amendment attempts to rectify another example in the Bill in which a well-intentioned idea is turning out to be a mistake. It is a bit of an example of top-down government seemingly punishing a school for being successful. Whereas education is all about nurturing and helping improvement in those who are less successful, this is a cold logic to reduce empty places and surplus capacity.
In an ideal world, the number of children wanting to go to various local schools would fit neatly into the number of places in local schools, but it does not. That is, in part, because parents are now much more aware of the league tables, Ofsted inspections, academy specialisations and all sorts of online opinions. It also reduces the most important incentive for a school to succeed and improve—one that has been at the heart of Labour’s and successive Governments’ academies programme, which has itself been at the heart of 20 years of school improvement, and which threatens to be reversed by this.
If good and oversubscribed schools can expand, and unpopular schools are not filled up with unwilling attendees, all schools would have a strong incentive to be good. When school choice and academisation were introduced, there were predictions that we would end up with lots of sink schools and a significant number of children having an even worse education than before recruitment was freed up. This did not happen. There has been a steady decrease in the number of badly performing schools. Competition works, not by creating a monopoly but by incentivising and driving improvement.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 230 in this group is on off-rolling. Whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion—a fact, in some cases—that certain schools are off-rolling pupils who are seen to be a problem. The best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, being impassioned as a Minister in saying that we must stop this. There is a strong suspicion that it goes on, possibly underneath, at a school level, when a teacher or headmaster is worried about personal development. Whether we like it or not, that strong suspicion exists, and there has been a rise in the number of exclusions going on.
When the Minister answers, I hope that she will tell us how this is being dealt with. If it is not being dealt with, it is a problem that we will have to get to grips with. I hope that there will be a coherent look at this, so we know exactly what the case is. There is a strong suspicion that special educational needs is a factor pushing this. I have known people going through this, where it has been assumed that every pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. The Minister has been engaged in these types of areas, and I hope that, when she comes to answer for the Government, she can tell us what the Government are going to do. If there is even a suspicion, we should find out the truth and look at it coherently.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 198 and 199, to which I have added my name. Inclusion is very important but, at the moment, some children—too many, frankly—who should not be in maintained education are being admitted to maintained schools because of their parents’ wishes. Those parents are making decisions that are not in the best interests of their children. These are often inappropriate settings and it affects the education and resources available to other children in those settings. We need more special schools that are better located, so that children are not spending hours in taxis, and we need better alternative provision. I very much hope that the Government are seized of this issue and that they will allow more special and AP free schools.
On Amendment 199, I find it hard to think of circumstances where it would be a good idea to limit the size of a school that provides high-quality education. I can, however, think of many examples of where it would be a very bad idea. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, we are heading towards overcapacity in schools, and the best way for that situation to resolve itself is by letting the market and parents decide.
Local authorities are understandably reluctant to close schools and there are often many local, political or ward issues in play. We certainly do not want local authorities to reduce the PAN of schools on the basis of political issues overriding the interests of children or parents. I am aware of boroughs that have tried to resist the creation of new free schools based on a lack of demand in their location when, on further investigation, it became clear that many local pupils were actually going to schools in neighbouring boroughs or local authorities, because their local schools were performing so poorly. It is a complicated issue.
My academy trust specialises in taking on failing schools. We have just taken on another secondary school, thanks to terrific co-operation from the Department for Education and a certain amount of money, for which I am very grateful. This is another failing secondary school in Hertfordshire, with only 400 pupils on the roll but with a much higher PAN and substantial local demand. The school had previously had three required improvements in 15 years. As we have taken on a further four failing schools in Hertfordshire and turned them around, and have a very good relationship with the Hertfordshire local authority, I do not think this would be an issue in this location. But if we were in the future asked to take on a similarly failing school in an authority we did not know, the ability of the local authority to reduce the PAN might well deter us, and no doubt others. Reducing the PAN of a successful school to protect a school whose roll is falling is no answer. Students do best in schools which are full or nearly full, and have the resources to provide an adequate education.
Finally, in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, while I do not think off-rolling is as frequent as perhaps some people think, it would be better to know the answer and get the facts.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on this group of amendments. On Amendment 230, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have great sympathy with what he says, and I hope that it may be an issue that the Minister will address when the SEND reform plans are presented in due course.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 198 and have a lot of sympathy with it. I can think of lots of schools that have been put in quite difficult positions and lots of children who have not had a good deal having being allocated to a particular school. The problem here—something that was not addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—is that, on the whole, schools are not queuing up to take the most challenging children. They might want to do their best by them and believe that that is their job, but, with the accountability mechanisms the way they are, it tilts the balance away from schools taking children who offer particular challenges.
If you put in legislation a whole set of reasons to say no to a given child, that does not make the child or the family feel very good, and you would have to work hard to make sure that it was for a valid reason and not an invalid reason. My approach would sooner be that you put support in and make the SEND system work. I am an optimist. I do not think we have to give protection to some schools from taking challenging children. I think we have got it in us to adjust the policy framework, go in there and help them succeed. That would be serving every child and not discriminating against them.
My main comments relate to Amendment 199. We semi-rehearsed this in Committee, so I will not go over that again. I would never support a situation where a school that was unlikely to succeed had more children allocated to it at the expense of a school that was doing well. If that was the only decision, I would probably end up supporting the amendment, but it is much more complicated than that.
There is a bit of a conundrum at the heart of this, and it goes to what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said. I agree with parental choice but I do not agree with the market in schools, and there is a difference between the two. Parental choice is right and good and desirable, and we should write the law to facilitate it whenever we can. In a market, however, you do not intervene; you let things fail. They wither away on the vine, and that takes time, and then they fail and then close, and that leaves a gap. Look at the high streets in some of our small towns and cities—we cannot have that for schools. We cannot have a schools policy that has in it an acceptance that some schools will wither on the vine and fail. It is not good for the children who are there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she was a Minister, and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would have gone into such schools to intervene and try to make them improve. That is why I have never used the term “market” in relation to schools: parental choice yes, but market, no. Somehow, that is at the core of my concerns about this amendment.
There are two issues. If it was about not wanting to go to the surplus places, I would agree with the noble Baroness. If there are more children, let us try to put them in the schools that are flourishing. But if it is a situation where the number of students on a roll in a given geographical area is falling, something has to happen. If you can merge them together, that is great, but you can get the difficult situation where you have to do something else. That is where I would manage parental choice and whatever market there is. I worry that if we say that their numbers cannot fall but their numbers can fall, all we do is make it more difficult for every school to thrive and succeed.
A school that is just turning that corner, as the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench described, that has been taken over by a good academy, got itself a new head and perhaps has a new housing estate nearby is on its way. It would fall under this because it does not have a good Ofsted inspection or anything like that.
If we look at Camden, 96% to 100% of schools are good or outstanding. I do not know, but I suspect that Camden is going to have falling rolls at some point because it is a London borough. This would give protection to every school in Camden because none of them is failing. Most of them are maintained schools, not academies, but it does not matter as they are all doing a good job. This clause would not work there. The way that schools would read this is that there is now a law that if it has had a good inspection in the last three years, it is protected. If you tried to enact proposed new subsection (5D)(a) and (b), there would be an almighty row because schools would have been given protection by this clause.
I would sooner play to our optimism. Where schools really cannot succeed, let them go and manage a good education for the pupils, but in cases of falling rolls we have to do everything we can to plan appropriately across a geographical area to make sure that we give every school the best possible chance of doing well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and largely to agree, although I would go somewhat further and say that I think we have reached the situation of a market in schools in which very crude judgments are being applied by Ofsted, and schools are being pushed to game the system. That is why I signed Amendment 230 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and why the Green group will oppose Amendment 199 should it come to a vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was charitable when he said that there is a strong suspicion that off-rolling is going on. I am afraid I have no doubt that off-rolling is going on because up and down England, particularly in some of the most deprived communities, I have spoken to parents, often parents from very disadvantaged backgrounds themselves, who have said, “I’m trying to home-school my child now because the head teacher said they thought that was the best thing that could happen”. That was not home schooling by choice. That was usually pupils with special educational needs that the school just did not want to deal with. I have some sympathy with head teachers. Having been a school governor, I know how much pressure head teachers are under to keep up with the results. The problem is that we have created a competitive system where schools compete against each other instead of working together to create the best result for every pupil.
Amendment 230 is very modest. It simply calls for a review. I can tell my anecdotal stories, but I cannot say how big the problem is. I have seen it in many places, and I am sure that it is quite widespread. I do not believe the noble Lord intends to put this to a vote, but surely we can ask the Government to look at this anyway. As other noble Lords have said, it is something we should know about because this is one way in which we are failing some of our most disadvantaged pupils. Amendment 199, if it were to be passed, just furthers that sense of competition, which is the last thing we need in our schooling system.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 198 and will touch on Amendment 230 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Listening to noble Lords around the House, I find it surprising that they consistently believe that inspection, for which I was responsible for seven years, does not place a heavy emphasis on inclusion. Certainly throughout my time it did. The current framework has increased that focus almost to the point of giving up on looking at education, for which one learning walk and the results are about the extent of the coverage. Inclusion is and has long been taken extraordinarily seriously.
There are two issues that I want to touch on. The first is that however much we might want to believe that every child’s special needs can be coped with, there are times when those special needs consist of problems that inflict real harm on other children. The most awful parental complaints that came across my desk were about children who had been seriously assaulted and harmed, on occasion raped, by another child who had been admitted by a school either conscientiously trying to include a child for whom the local authority was desperate to find a place or that had been directed to take a child. That is agonising to learn about. We have to acknowledge that the interests of other children need to be considered when placing the most difficult children. That is important for children most of all but, of course, it is important for staff as well. If people are trying to work outside their capacity, schools tend to deteriorate, and that is not good for anybody.
Linked to that, I want to make a point about off-rolling, which has been touched on. In my time we put more of an emphasis on looking for signs and pursuing that—inquiring into it—where we found it. One of the things we discovered is that it is extraordinarily hard to characterise definitively whether an individual case is a case of off-rolling. There is typically quite a long history, a deterioration of the relationship between the child and the school. It is not a clean and tidy yes or no. Getting to a point where you could definitively say what the extent was would be extremely labour-intensive. The issue, in my view, is not a lack of regulation to prevent this—inspection is perfectly capable of disincentivising it—but we have to acknowledge that it needs a lot of resource that simply does not exist in Ofsted or anywhere else to dig into individual cases and establish the extent and the remedies.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendments 198, 199 and 230. I will give some historical background. The word “education” is derived from two Latin root words. The first is “educare”, which means to impart knowledge. For too long, some schools have seen themselves as imparting knowledge. They have emphasised too much that first root of the word, “educare”.
The other Latin root word is “educere”, which means to draw out knowledge. The best schools often do both. They impart knowledge but they also realise that a person is not a blank sheet of paper on whom you simply impart knowledge and do not draw out the best that is in them. In most schools that do both, the pupils all thrive.
That being the case, I think we have gone through a short-term revolution. Her Majesty’s inspectors, as they were then, saw themselves as helping the school to do better. Then Ofsted arrived and seemed to give simple judgments on the school, sometimes on very narrow elements. If the school failed one of its elements, it was totally judged to be a failing school.
I declare an interest here. The Archbishop Thurstan School in Hull had been there for many centuries. It was not performing as it should be and, therefore, there was a decision by the Secretary of State that it should be rebuilt. The council agreed to have it rebuilt and that it should be given a name that would be canvassed for in Hull. To my surprise, the pupils, staff and council decided that it should be called the Archbishop Sentamu Academy. That was the beginning of academisation.
We were very fortunate that the Labour Government, who lost the election in 2010, had agreed to provide the money. I was told by John Prescott, “Be quick, make sure that you get this money, because the new Government may not want this to happen”. Anyway, we got the £45 million and the place was rebuilt; the place was thriving. Students in Hull were thriving and doing excellent work for the first time, going to university for the first time. Four of them went to the University of Liverpool to read maths, which had never been dreamed of.
So the school was doing well but, as it went on, there was a problem in one of the departments and there was an Ofsted inspection, which said, “The school has failed”. If a school fails, the schools commissioner has a job to do: the school has to be brokered and brought into a much larger group, and that is what happened. What shocked me was that Ofsted would not then visit that school for three years. I said, “As a parent, if I had a child in that school and you judged it to be failing, I would like to know whether it had improved by the following year”.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak against Amendment 199, and I am following the very wise words of my noble friend Lady Morris in doing so. I just do not understand how this amendment would allow the management of school places and the good use of taxpayers’ money. Year 7 places in the capital, London, are expected to fall by 7.6% in the next five years and reception places by 6.4% in the next four years. That means that those schools will see altogether about a £45 million cut in their budget. That cannot just be left to chance.
There needs to be a way of managing the school population, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that children are placed in schools that are viable and have enough pupils that they can be offered a full curriculum. We do not want the situation in Northern Ireland, where the grammar schools fill up and the secondary modern schools are left with completely variable roles year on year and are unable to offer a full curriculum or to give the children in Northern Ireland who most need it the education they deserve.
Amendment 199 would take market forces to a ridiculous level and would mean that the Government and the local area could not manage school places to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum for each child. That would be particularly the case with the new curriculum, which will be broader and more balanced and is long overdue. It is important to reject Amendment 199 because there needs to be a mechanism for the most vulnerable children.
I am afraid I have to disagree with the former chief inspector. Everyone knows there are certain schools that do not take the children with special educational needs that they should, and that other schools are then dumped on since they have to take far too many children with profound special needs, to the real detriment of those children and other pupils in the class. Everyone knows that in reality, that happens. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, is nodding—it is true.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Can the noble Baroness say at what point I said that there were schools which did not take children? I do not think I did.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
If that was the case, let me apologise for saying that. They have got better at inclusion, and the noble Baroness is quite right to upbraid me on that.
However, it is really important that there is a power to direct schools to take pupils in order that they get an education. Secondly, we need a way of organising an admissions system which allows all children within the locality to have a viable education with a full, broad and balanced curriculum.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, makes are important to consider. But let me remind the House that, over the years, Governments of various political persuasions have said how important it is that there is parental choice. They have encouraged parents to look at a school’s results, to read its prospectus, and to visit the school. Sometimes it is done by word of mouth. Sometimes those parents even look at how the children behave at the bus stop while they are waiting to go home of an evening.
I guarantee that nearly every single person sitting in this Chamber wanted the best possible school for their child. There were Members of different political parties who espoused strong views on this issue but, when it came to their own children, they often chose a school which was not in the local catchment area or was not the school the child was subscribed to go to. In some cases, they chose an independent or private school. The body politic has encouraged the notion of parental choice. We know that, as pupil numbers rise, this puts all sorts of pressures on schools and becomes very hard to deliver in all sorts of ways.
I am sorry to go on about Liverpool, but it is my home city and I learn lessons from it. I remember in the late 1960s and the 1970s, the then council decided to build two brand new state-of-the-art comprehensives: Paddington, in the inner city, and Netherley, in the north. They were built as 12-form entry schools. They had fantastic facilities: drama, you name it. The parents preferred the small secondary schools with three-form and four-form entry. Various Secretaries of State wrestled with this problem as the numbers dropped and dropped. I remember going to see Shirley Williams, then Secretary of State for Education, and saying, “Look, Paddington comprehensive is now only a two-form entry school. Why not make it into a tertiary college?” She said no, and I used to tease her about that decision. This is not an easy thing to do. We know that primary numbers are declining—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the figures. In Liverpool, we can already see that even so-called popular primary schools have spare capacity.
How do we sort this problem out? The answer is not to try to be the professor of admission numbers, chopping numbers off here and adding them there. Sadly, we have to do what we promised parents: we have to let them decide. The answer is not to say that we are going to make a particular school survive—as in the case of Paddington—by reducing the form entry, or, in some cases, closing a school so that children have to go to another particular school. That is not the answer at all.
I hate to say this—I never thought I would say this in my political career—but I think we have to let educational market forces take their course. If we believe in, and have promised parents, parental choice, we have to allow that. To say that we should cut the form entry—the PAN—of so-called popular schools is not the solution. Actually, there are academies that are not popular. Let us not think that all academy schools are going to gain from this. I know several academies—I will not name them—where numbers have dropped dramatically. Again, that is because of parental choice, and that is probably the right thing. So when it comes to this amendment, I will have to hold my nose but I think it is probably the right thing to do.
On Amendment 198, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—as always—said what we on these Benches think. I say to my noble friend Lord Addington that I have never understood off-rolling. I can see children being taken off roll because their parents want to move or want to take them out of the school. I can see off-rolling when a pupil is permanently excluded from school. I can see off-rolling where a child has special educational needs which cannot be met at the school. But I cannot understand how schools were allowed to off-roll pupils for no particular reason at all. There are examples of where parents were given advice by schools which was not the right way to progress. I just think that off-rolling should not happen at all. In fact, I said to my noble friend Lord Addington, “Why do we need to review the practice? Isn’t the practice just not allowed, and we move on?” I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I just want to respond briefly to a couple of the remarks that were made about the amendments in my name. In relation to Amendment 198, I thank my noble friend Lord Nash for adding his name but also for making the case that we need more special schools and more alternative provision. I hope the Minister will have something to say on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said—I wrote it down—that we were giving schools reasons not to take a child. But the reason is the other children in the classroom. I was not trying to suggest that that is easy. I am just saying that there is one child who needs the right place, and we should do everything we can to make that happen, but there are 29 other children who also need to learn and to be able to study safely.
I turn to Amendment 199. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put it well when he said that it feels like we are punishing successful schools. That is the worry. Again, going back to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, the new school that is improving is exactly the example that would be allowed to continue to grow. I think perhaps she misunderstood my remarks about that. In relation to a situation such as Camden, as she knows, first of all, my amendment would not apply. You would have to make an appropriate plan in exactly the way that she described, but we are talking about areas where you have schools performing at very different levels and it is the best schools that are forced to reduce their numbers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, describes that as market forces gone to “ridiculous” levels. I just think it is about respecting parent choice, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
With respect to the amendments in the first group, let me be completely clear that this Government are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can access a school place where they can achieve and thrive. The whole range of measures in the Bill reflects this objective.
Amendment 198, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would introduce specific requirements for local authorities when using their powers to direct a school to admit a child. I agree with the noble Baroness that local authority decisions on directing the admission of a child should be reasonable, account for the needs of the child and ensure that schools can meet those needs. As noble Lords have argued, I accept that there is more that needs to be done to ensure that all schools can provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, and that sometimes it is more appropriate for those children to be educated elsewhere. We will address that challenge, which is wider than we are discussing today, in our forthcoming White Paper.
Baroness Barran
“(5A) The adjudicator may not issue a direction under this section requiring the governing body of a maintained school or the proprietor of an Academy to reduce the school’s published admission number unless satisfied that—(a) the direction is necessary and proportionate to secure the efficient and effective use of education provision within the local authority area, and(b) the school—(i) is not operating at or above its current published admission number, and(ii) has not, within the period of three years preceding the direction, been assessed by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector as providing education that is of a high quality.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(b)(ii), a school shall be regarded as providing education of a high quality where—(a) the most recent inspection carried out under section 5 or section 8 of the Education Act 2005 (duty to inspect schools) concludes that the quality of education at the school is effective or better, or(b) any equivalent finding is made under an inspection framework that succeeds that in force at the passing of this Act.(5C) Before issuing a direction under this section requiring a reduction in a school’s published admission number, the adjudicator must consider whether the objective could more appropriately be achieved by means of changes to the pattern of provision in the area, including (where appropriate) the amalgamation or closure of schools, in accordance with any applicable statutory and departmental guidance on school organisation.(5D) In exercising functions under this section, the adjudicator must have regard to—(a) the desirability of giving effect to parental preferences for schools, and(b) the need to avoid measures that would unduly restrict access to schools that are providing high-quality education or that are in strong demand from parents.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the schools adjudicator may direct a maintained school or academy to reduce its published admission number and requires the adjudicator to consider alternative school organisation measures (including amalgamation or closure) before constraining the intake of popular or high quality schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concession of updating the admissions code but, unfortunately, as quickly as it can be updated it can also be re-updated, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(5) In section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 (consultation: new and expanded educational institutions), in subsection (1)(a) omit the words from “other” to “authority),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the duty to consult under section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 on whether Academy arrangements should be entered into would also apply to new educational institutions that are the subject of proposals pursuant to a notice under section 7 of Education and Inspections Act 2006.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we now move to the group on opening new schools. Our priority is that good schools are opened when they are needed. Amendment 202 would amend Section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, relating to the establishment of new academies.
Currently, where academies are established under Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006—known as the “free school presumption” process—trusts are required to consult before deciding whether to enter into a funding agreement to run the academy. Section 6A will be repealed by the Bill and new academies will be established under Section 7 instead. This amendment is therefore necessary to retain a requirement to consult, meaning that relevant parties will be invited to comment on the details of the plan for the academy, including the planned admission arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Free schools have played an important role in raising educational standards over the last 15 years, with their benefits felt most strongly in communities that have needed them the most. As I set out during our discussions in Committee, last summer’s exam results underline their impact: free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools at GCSE and A-level, pushing up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational achievement. Giving school leaders the autonomy to innovate, whether through a longer school day and more stretching curriculum or developing closer links with business and universities, clearly has a measurable impact on school outcomes.
This success continues: only last week, 62 students—over a quarter of the year group—at the London Academy of Excellence, one of the earliest free schools to open, learned they had secured Oxbridge offers, surpassing the success of many of the country’s leading independent schools. This outstanding achievement makes it even more regrettable that, in December, the Government chose not to go ahead with a new sixth-form free school in Middlesbrough, backed by Eton and Star Academies, which aimed to deliver similar outcomes for its students. It was one of 26 proposed mainstream free schools that were cancelled after a long delay, to the dismay of the teachers, parents and communities that had championed their plans.
It is not just one free school or trust making a huge difference: research from the NFER shows pupils attending secondary free schools get better grades at GCSE, have lower absence rates and are more likely to take A-levels and to go to university. Will the Government publish the quantitative thresholds that were used to judge community need, demographic demand and the impact on existing schools that lay behind the recent cancellation of each of the 28 mainstream free school projects, and will they publish the assessment scores for each cancelled project? This would be extremely helpful information and a transparent way for the groups that put a lot of effort into these projects, and the parents, who obviously may not have been privy to conversations with the DfE, to understand the reasons for the decisions.
Free schools have provided a route for new ideas, energy and educational models to join the state system. Indeed, the Government themselves have acknowledged that
“the free schools programme has been crucial to meeting demographic need and pioneering new models that can raise standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/25; col. 45WS.]
Yet Clause 58 will mean fewer chances to innovate and less opportunity for the best-performing academies to expand and replicate their models. It is disappointing that the Government, despite some of their words, seem unwilling in practice to recognise the contributions free schools have made, and indeed could continue to make, to improving our education system—an achievement in which we should all take pride.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister in her reply could tell us this? Presumably, some of these schools are not going ahead not just because of the demographics but because the birth rate is falling in that area and, going back to our previous discussion, it would be stupid to build new schools if we are seeing the birth rate decline.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall make the case that Clause 58 should not stand part of the Bill, as set out in my Amendment 203. I am bringing this back because, in Committee, the Minister gave what I think is the most cursory response that I received over the course of the Bill. She said:
“The current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances. Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it is right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2114.]
I then wrote to the Minister to ask how often local authorities had been unable to meet these duties effectively. The reply stated:
“The department does not collect data on how many times local authorities run a process to open a new school, but as you know, some regions have many more academy trusts operating in them than others; and under the high-quality trust framework, some trusts are considered much stronger than others in terms of governance, finances and educational expertise”.
So, once again, the Government have no firm evidence that there is a problem that needs solving.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As we have heard, group 2 relates to opening new schools. Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove Clause 58 from the Bill. Clause 58 ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies always and allows a wider range of proposals for new schools to be put forward.
During Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, argued that the presumption process has worked well and raised concerns about the capacity of local authorities to deliver new schools. We provided her with further information on these points at her request. I emphasise again that we recognise the contribution that academies make to high and rising standards.
On the particular points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the free school pipeline, just to be clear, we are proceeding with those mainstream projects that meet the needs of communities, respond to demographic and housing demand and will raise standards without undermining the viability of existing local schools and colleges. We will back new schools that offer something unique for students who would otherwise not have access to it, but, again, we need to understand the context in which we are operating. Primary pupil numbers have been falling since 2018-19. That decline is set to feed into secondary. Creating new free schools now risks adding surplus capacity while demographic need declines.
Free schools have been a very positive addition to our school system, but, since 2010, over £300 million has been spent on over 53 schools that subsequently closed: money that could have been invested in places for children with special educational needs or in addressing urgent condition needs in existing schools. It is important that we plan these school places and these new openings carefully. We continue to back academy schools and are encouraging high-quality trusts to grow, for example by confirming that the outstanding Star Academies trust will be able to progress the Eton Star Dudley and Oldham projects, which will support young people in disadvantaged areas to progress to top universities, as we have heard.
In Teesside, the decision not to proceed reflects careful consideration of the likely impact on existing good-quality provision. Our assessment of the local context in each area indicated that there was a higher potential risk to the sustainability of the existing academic provision in Teesside than in Dudley and Oldham, which could not be mitigated by conditions. That is why the decision was taken not to proceed in Teesside but to proceed in Dudley and in Oldham. We also undertook to explore with Eton Star whether learners can be supported in a different way through its work.
I do not apologise for the Government taking responsible decisions about how we spend public money on high-quality but also sustainable provision for the future. In relation to special needs schools, for high-needs places we are offering most local authorities the option of per-place funding to deliver the same number of specialist places differently or to continue with their special or AP free school. The measure in Clause 58 will still provide a route for strong trusts to open new schools. We know that high-quality trusts exist in many areas of the country, but not everywhere. In many areas, we expect proposers of new schools to be predominantly or even exclusively high-quality academy trusts, but in other areas, the right trust may not be immediately available to provide the school that is needed. That is why Clause 58 provides flexibility and will support local authorities in fulfilling their sufficiency duty by allowing a wider range of proposals from different bodies and for different types of schools to be considered from the start of the process. This will better enable good local schools to open when needed. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and support Clause 58.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the new general data protection override in section 183A and effect of 183B of the Data Protection Act 2018, both inserted by section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Lord Norton of Louth
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, this is a big Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has spent many hours at the Dispatch Box justifying its provisions. This amendment enables her to demonstrate her confidence that it will deliver what she claims for it. The amendment requires the Secretary of State within five years of the passage of the Act to undertake a review of its operation and effect.
Post-legislative scrutiny is essential to ensuring that the laws we enact meet the various criteria of good law. The case for it has been accepted by government since 2008. It results from the report of the Constitution Committee in 2004 entitled Parliament and the Legislative Process. The Government referred the committee’s recommendations on post-legislative scrutiny to the Law Commission, which endorsed the proposal. The Government then announced that Acts would be subject to review by departments three to five years after enactment, with the reviews being published. It was then up to Parliament to decide whether to undertake detailed scrutiny. In the Commons, this has been by departmental Select Committees. In this House, since 2012, we have usually appointed each year a special inquiry committee to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or of a particular body of legislation, such as adoption law.
In practice, scrutiny by departmental Select Committees in the Commons has been somewhat sporadic. The committees have other priorities. Our practice has been to be highly selective. We cover only a fraction of measures that have reached the statute book in recent years. Those reviews that have been undertaken have variously demonstrated how Acts have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.
We are now being overtaken by other legislatures in engaging in extensive and rigorous post-legislative scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said in Committee that she had been able to advise foreign Parliaments on the significance of post-legislative scrutiny. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has done especially valuable work in promoting its use. The result is that we are now falling behind many other legislatures. That includes within the United Kingdom: Holyrood has had a dedicated committee on post-legislative scrutiny that has been effective. The Ukrainian Parliament, despite obvious pressures, has engaged in significant post-legislative scrutiny.
The Government accept the case for post-legislative scrutiny; the problem is in delivering it. The case for it is compelling. It is essential that Acts of Parliament achieve what they are intended to achieve. Some Acts prove a disaster—those, we tend to hear about—but others may have unintended, albeit not disastrous, consequences. Some may be stillborn. There may be problems with application and interpretation. We cannot know that an Act has achieved its goals without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, as I said in Committee, completing a legislative feedback loop. Success in legislative terms should not be seen as getting a measure on the statute book—which historically has been how Ministers have tended to see it—but rather in delivering what it is intended to achieve.
The problem is in ensuring that post-legislative scrutiny is undertaken. If there was rigorous and consistent scrutiny, this amendment would be unnecessary. However, not all departments undertake such scrutiny. Some are better than others. As I said, departmental Select Committees in the Commons vary in their willingness to pursue such scrutiny. The danger is that Bills that merit such scrutiny will not receive it. There is nothing to guarantee that they will. As I argued in Committee, there is a case for putting on the face of the measure provision for post-legislative scrutiny where the Bill is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested, and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill qualifies under those criteria.
In Committee, the Minister stressed that she was part of the Government who accepted the recommendations of the Constitution Committee and put on record that the Bill will be reviewed within five years. This was very welcome, but she did not put forward an argument as to why the requirement for post-legislative review should not be in the Bill. To say that there will be a review is not so much an argument against the amendment as the basis for accepting it. Putting it in the Bill would guarantee that there will be a clearly structured review, not one that may be undertaken by a department as a tick-box exercise. Accepting the amendment would make clear the Government’s commitment to post-legislative scrutiny and their confidence in the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Since coming to this House 16 years ago, I have been fortunate in the ballot for one-year inquiries—in which we are often encouraged to recommend post-legislative scrutiny—to have successfully brought forward one-year inquiries into two pieces of legislation which I was fortunate enough to take through the House of Commons. The first was the Mental Capacity Act 2005; it was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, but some years later there was still quite a lot that we had to recommend adjusting in it. Secondly, and most recently, last year there was the review of the Autism Act 2009—a very small Bill that might not have needed post-legislative scrutiny when it was passed.
I support the noble Lord. It is quite worrying that there is no structure to the way we identify Bills or any form of legislative commitment to this being carried out. This applies to both Houses, although the expertise in this House lends itself to post-legislative scrutiny and the time involved in doing it is probably more suited to this House than another place. I support him because, sometimes, when we legislate—I think most of us have had this experience—there is a tendency to think that, if we are not quite sure that it says what we mean, the courts will sort it out. That is a very sloppy and dangerous way of legislating, so I support the noble Lord in what he has said.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support. We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment. He has been described in the media as the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament and a world authority on constitutional issues. He is entirely correct that post-legislative scrutiny is essential for any public Act, but it is especially important for Bills as substantial as this. By the conclusion of Report, we will have debated over 10 amendments seeking reviews of various aspects of the Bill, which surely highlights how wide ranging its impact is expected to be. An all-encompassing review would combine these amendments and, most importantly, allow the Government to evidence the positive change that they believe this Bill will put into effect. Some form of post-legislative scrutiny is the right vehicle, and the noble Lord’s amendment would serve as the foundation stone of that verification.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in group 3 concern a review of the Act on commencement. Amendment 205 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I too recognise his continued dedication to this matter, echoing the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and his undoubted experience and expertise in this area. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set out in Committee, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord again that the department understands the importance of the legislative feedback loop, as he described it clearly then and again this afternoon, and is committed to that. However, we believe this amendment cuts across what is a perfectly clear set of cross-government expectations for post-legislative scrutiny.
The question he poses is: why did we not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government give consideration to which Bills will be published in draft, taking into account the overall requirements of the legislative programme and how to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible. The Government did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny, and therefore did not publish it in draft. We wrote to the Education Select Committee upon introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and provided a briefing opportunity with officials before its Second Reading.
The noble Lord has previously raised issues in this House with the current process for such scrutiny. The process seeks to ensure that the chair of the Commons Select Committee has adequate information to decide whether to instigate a fuller inquiry, and we would expect to undertake that fuller inquiry given the importance of this Bill. However, as he will know, should they decide not to, that inquiry can be taken up by another interested parliamentary committee of either House.
In Committee, the noble Lord noted that the Government included post-legislative scrutiny in the Football Governance Act. I am not sure if others in the Chamber were subjected to the passage of the Football Governance Bill, but it was an interesting process. That was a single-issue Bill, so it was deemed appropriate for that Bill. However, that does not mean it is appropriate for all Bills, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware. This Bill covers a broad range of measures, with different timelines for implementation and different evaluation needs. I think we would all agree, for example, that the rollout of a single unique identifier is quite different from the rollout of breakfast clubs.
None the less, alongside our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, we have committed to a post-implementation review as part of the Better Regulation Framework. We published our plans in the impact assessment for this Bill, on which the RPC rated us green, for how we will monitor and evaluate the transformative measures that will change the lives of millions of children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are reassured. I repeat that commitment now, for good measure: we will undertake post-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, but it is not needed to be included the Bill when it is already an expectation.
On government amendment 246, Clause 67 currently provides that
“any provision of or amendment made by Part 1 or 2, so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations or an order”,
will come into force on the day the Act is passed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his support for the amendment. It will clarify that, by order, we mean secondary legislation. The only instance of secondary legislation order in the Bill is Schedule 3, which amends the Education Act 2002 to provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of an academy teacher to be at least equal to the amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order. The amendment would ensure that it is clear what order the Bill is referring to.
I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is disappointing. I am grateful to the two Front Benches for their very kind opening comments but in terms of the substance of the amendment, I thought the Minister’s comments reinforced the case for post-legislative scrutiny; she spent some time explaining why the Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which I would have thought adds to the case for subjecting it to post-legislative scrutiny. She referred to the Football Governance Act, which just dealt with one particular issue, whereas this Bill is very wide-ranging. There is therefore scope for a lot of things to go wrong, which I would have thought reinforced the case for checking that the Bill has delivered on all aspects of what the Government seek to achieve with it.
The value of committing to post-legislative scrutiny is the Government demonstrating that they have confidence in the measure. If there is to be a review anyway, why not put that on the face of the Bill? At least critics of it would then know that it will definitely be subject to review—it is in the Bill, and that will happen. That is one of the arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of the Football Governance Act.
As I say, I am disappointed with the response. I shall keep coming back to the case for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of Bills that meet the criteria I have outlined, and will press the Government to have the courage of their convictions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Citizenship education: British values(1) In any statement relating to British values for education purposes at primary and secondary level in England and Wales, the Secretary of State, OFSTED and any other public authority must include—(a) democracy,(b) the rule of law,(c) freedom,(d) equal respect for every person, and(e) respect for the environment.(2) Any statement in subsection (1) must refer to British values as “values of British citizenship”.(3) The values listed under paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) must be taught as part of citizenship education for key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4.(4) In section (1)(a) “democracy” includes—(a) an independent judiciary,(b) in a Parliamentary system, a Government that is accountable to Parliament, regular election, and(c) decentralised decision-making, accountable at an appropriate level to the electorate.(5) In subsection (1)(c) “freedom” includes—(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion,(b) freedom of expression, and(c) freedom of assembly and association.(6) In subsection (1)(e) “respect for the environment” means taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and the planet as a whole, for present and future generations.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 206 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and, before he retired, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is also strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who hoped to be here this afternoon, but I see that he is not in his place yet.
I apologise to those, including the Minister, who have heard me on this subject before in other contexts. I am persisting with it because I believe that the Government are missing a great opportunity. With so much now dividing our society, what should unite us are fundamental British values. Deeper than the differences of race, religion and sexuality are the political institutions and values which hold our society together. The Government could, and should, be making much more of them. One reason I believe this is not the case is that the original formulation of these values was done as part of the Prevent programme and, as a result, they are somewhat skewed, as I hope to show.
My amendment is designed to make these values clearer and more balanced. Fundamental British values as at present defined are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. Democracy and the rule of law are of course fundamental. But because the emphasis is on mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, which of course I strongly support, the balance is somewhat wrong and there is a serious omission, notably the equal value and worth of each individual. The values in my amendment are set out as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equal respect for every person and respect for the environment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 208 in this group. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord. While I might not agree with everything he said, the debate on British values was an extremely common theme of my time in the Department for Education. It is a commentary on the world we live in that we now need to define what we mean by democracy, but I do not disagree with the point the noble and right reverend Lord made. I thank other noble Lords who added their names to Amendment 208: the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
As this amendment was debated in Committee, I will not take too long to introduce it. But I also do not think that I really need to convince the Government Front Bench, given that, just before Christmas, we had the arrival of the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy. It was good to see the commitment:
“The Minister for Skills is exploring the most effective route to make Relationships and Sex Education … mandatory for young people under 18 in further education colleges”.
Unknown to many—including, presumably, some noble Lords in this House—and rather extraordinarily, hundreds of thousands of young people aged 16 to 18 are currently excluded from the benefits of relationships and sex education if they happen to be in further education colleges. This is despite the fact that this group experiences, for example, the highest rates of domestic abuse. An estimated 608,000 students aged 16 to 18 study in either further education or sixth-form colleges in England. Although further education colleges can deliver relationships and sex education on a voluntary basis, provision is inconsistent, unmonitored and often with scant training or support for those who are asked to teach it.
The campaign has the support of the Association of Colleges. I am also grateful to the Let Me Know young people advocates, Tabitha and Angela, who spoke so movingly at a briefing last week for Members of this House on why the extension of this education is needed for their age group. I also pay tribute to the efforts of Faustine Petron of Make It Mandatory, a survivor and formidable campaigner who identified the gap in education for this age group, having been unsupported during her own experience of relationship abuse. Some 105,000 people have now backed her petition.
Recent research from the Institute for Addressing Strangulation shows that almost half—43%—of sexually active 16 and 17 year-olds have been strangled during sex, and 70% of young people surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner have seen porn routinely featuring rape, strangulation and incest. This House and the other place have rightly been introducing, discussing and amending legislation on issues such as nudification apps, violent online pornography, harmful and abusive content across social media, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That is why, at the same time, we must support the creation of space in the curriculum for all 16 to 18 year-olds—the very age group most likely to be having to deal with the reality of these and other relevant issues—so that they receive a proper education on these matters. As the young people I met last week said, for them, these issues are not theoretical. The more than 600,000 young people in further education colleges have as much right to that curriculum as the rest of their peers.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. As I say, I think she agrees with the overall thrust of this amendment. If this is not the right Bill, which I think reflects the conversation that she and I had, I ask her to say which one would be, and, if one of those who support this change were fortunate enough to secure the ability to bring forward some legislation sooner than the next Department for Education Bill, I would be grateful if the Government would indicate their support for it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 220, relating to the guidance for schools on gender-questioning children, which is still long overdue and which I think we have to ensure happens as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having pursued this and for tabling her amendments.
This is incredibly important and necessary to clarify issues for parents, for teachers in understanding and knowing exactly how they might deal with the difficult questions around gender-questioning children, and of course for children themselves. Obviously, this relates to some of the controversy and the failure to issue the EHRC code in relation to the guidance coming from the Supreme Court judgment, but it stands on its own terms.
When I talk to teachers and parents, there is still a lot of confusion about the demands of the Equality Act 2010’s gender reassignment protected characteristic and how one deals with that, and duties in relation to it, and how that might clash with, for example, safeguarding or free speech. That leaves teachers exposed and unclear.
I want to refer to what it feels like for parents who, across the UK, have been shocked to discover what their children have been taught or told in classrooms and have sounded the alarm on some teachers covering highly sexualised age-inappropriate content with young pupils and, in some schools, even affirming children in their gender identity—that is, social transitioning—without the consent or knowledge of their parents. It is understandable that that has caused alarm. For three to four year-old children just starting to learn to tell fact from fiction, the difference between make-believe games with friends pretending to be princesses, playing families or whatever and telling children at this stage that a person can literally change from one sex to another can be hugely confusing. I understand that this is not the Government’s intention and that they want to clarify it, but that is why I think the guidance should be urgently introduced and explained to schools and the Government should make clear what is and is not permissible.
Too often, it is left up to grass-roots activists otherwise. Recently, an article hit the media about a group of women—one a retired midwife, another a retired solicitor and another a mum of two—from a group called Protect and Teach who said that many schools do not have the appropriate safeguards in place. They are especially worried about outside organisations being invited in to effectively teach children, some as young as primary school, about inclusiveness, which might sound harmless until you look at the kinds of teaching materials used by these third-party organisations that research shows have very flawed policies, muddling up sex in the Equality Act 2010 with sexual identity and gender.
That is one of the reasons why we have concerns. Some of the work the group did, for example, showed that 75% of Church of England schools had problematic policies in relation to, for example, anti-bullying policies, which are not directly related, but practically all the material used in those policies focused on transgender identity, not bullying in any other way. The message of this was that affirmation was the way forward and young people needed to be kept safe from polarised debates, which would indicate a one size fits all. So I am straightforwardly saying that we need clear guidance. The Government must issue that clear guidance. Schools need help with this. It is not easy—nobody is saying it is—but what we cannot do is just leave it open.
I will make one final point on Amendment 206 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I commend him for doggedly and persistently pushing this amendment, which I have heard a number of times. I commend his celebration of British values, because I think that is important, and I have said that before, although I do not agree with the content of all the British values listed. The “respect for the environment” paragraph is particularly contentious and weak: I have written “twaddle” here. That is probably not a parliamentary word, but I have written it down.
The section on democracy includes that the Government should be accountable to Parliament, which is something we could learn a lesson from. The Government are not always accountable to Parliament—there are far too many Henry VIII clauses, in my view. It also notes that democracy, as a value, should mean regular elections, which would suggest that you should not cancel them, as we are witnessing at the moment. It talks about the importance of the rule of law, which immediately reminded me of what is happening to jury trials. It finally says that “freedom” should include freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. As somebody going through the Crime and Policing Bill, I did think it was perhaps worth sending the British values amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, to the people pushing that Bill. I assure noble Lords that freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association are not safe under that Bill.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. The reason is very simple. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a documentary available on BBC iPlayer called “Lover, Liar, Predator”. For those who have not seen it, it is pretty searing. It has a happy ending in the sense that the women who were abused by this man—who started at the age of 17—in the end learned about one another, got together and very bravely faced their accuser in court. A Scottish jury found the predator guilty on all counts by a unanimous decision.
The reason I mention this is that, in almost every case, the predator seized upon young women when they were 16, 17 or 18. That is the age at which, frequently, young women—and some young men, although they are usually a bit slower on the uptake—get involved in relationships. At that age, without the right education, without understanding, frankly, the nature of some men, it is easy to get into a relationship in which one quickly loses one’s sense of self—the ability to take one’s own decisions and to direct the course of one’s life.
This was articulated at the briefing the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, kindly arranged last week, which some of us were at. Some of the students themselves spoke powerfully of their own cases, or those of people they have known who, at that vulnerable stage in their lives, growing into sexual beings, got it wrong. Given particularly that this accords completely with the Government’s new strategy, the more we can do to reinforce that and to enable this cadre of children—some several hundred thousand, which is a not insignificant number—to receive the education that all their peers in other forms of education are receiving seems a no-brainer.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 243C standing in my name and those of my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I thank them for supporting this amendment.
My amendment follows up on an amendment previously brought forward so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Moynihan in Committee, which attracted cross-party support. I am delighted that he has rejoined our Front Bench, with responsibility for energy and net zero. We will miss him from debates on sport policy. I will do my best to match his energy.
We have an ambition across the House to raise educational outcomes and improve children’s well-being. The school curriculum is currently under review, and that makes this a particularly timely moment. My amendment is offered in a constructive spirit, as was my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s, as a way of supporting the Government’s wider aims by ensuring that physical education and school sport are considered in a coherent and strategic way.
This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months
“a national strategy for physical education and sport in schools”,
and to review and report on it annually to Parliament. It does not advise how schools should deliver provision. Instead, it brings together existing priorities such as daily physical activity, teacher training and inclusion for disabled pupils into a single framework, with clear outcomes and accountability. To be clear, it is intended to assist and not constrain government policy.
The evidence shows that regular physical activity and engagement in school sport not only improves health and well-being but supports concentration, behaviour, attendance and attainment in literacy and numeracy, with benefits that extend into later life. Many schools are already doing great work in this area, often under significant pressure. To make this work more effective, teachers need the right resources, training and support.
While the Bill has children’s well-being in its name, it has not addressed how schools could properly use physical education, sport and physical activity to support this and improve educational outcomes. This amendment seeks to offer a fully integrated national strategy to address that gap and monitor and evaluate the best way of doing it. Data, evaluation and analysis are so important to this endeavour.
It is a strong belief, which I know is shared across this Chamber, that physical education is not merely a subject; it is a cornerstone in the development of young people, fostering health, resilience, teamwork and confidence. When embedded effectively, it can also contribute to wider educational goals, supporting behaviour, attendance and attainment across the curriculum. This amendment also encourages collaboration between education, health, sport and the voluntary sector, and provides a framework to align existing efforts in this space behind a shared national vision. It identifies the leadership role of the Minister in bringing that collaboration together and ensuring consistency of approach.
Back in 2021, I was a member of the taskforce established by the Association of Physical Education. We published a report, which issued a clear call to government to put physical education at the heart of school life. If the Government are serious, as I believe they are, about improving well-being in schools and giving every child an opportunity to thrive, this amendment would offer a constructive opportunity to consider how a national strategy for physical education and school sport could help deliver those ambitions. I therefore hope that the Minister will see this amendment in that spirit and give it careful and positive consideration.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for not being here at the beginning of this group. I have a member of staff who lives a normal life, and I quite rightly agreed that she should go home. As a consequence and because there is no Braille on the annunciator, I was a bit late getting in, so I will be incredibly brief.
I support Amendment 206, to which I have added my name. In the light of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure that, now, the Department for Education gives its full and comprehensive support to the proper teaching of democracy and citizenship all the way through the curriculum, which the Government committed to in their response to the review; and that we engage with every school in the country to ensure that young people are equipped for the future, not least for the traumas and difficulties they now face.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on my Amendments 231 and then 232. Amendment 231 may be familiar to the House, as it reflects the substance of the Bill I previously brought forward on this subject, which is on spiritual, moral, social and cultural education in assemblies.
The amendment is simple in intent: it would remove the legal duty on schools without a religious character to provide daily collective worship that is wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. This would not prevent any school holding acts of collective worship if it wishes to do so, and, despite some misunderstandings, it does not ban prayers, Christmas carols or the marking of religious festivals. It simply ends the mandatory requirement of Christian worship in schools that are non-faith schools by designation.
This is about freedom of choice and respect for the diversity of our society. When the 2021 census shows that over a third of the population of England and Wales now have no religious character, it cannot be justified that schools are still legally obliged to provide daily Christian worship.
This is not a matter of abstract principle; there is clear evidence from the profession itself that reform is wanted. A 2024 Teacher Tapp poll of senior school leaders found that around seven in 10 oppose the legal requirement for daily collective worship, with only a small minority in favour of the current law. Likewise, in its submission to the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence, the NAHT argued that the current legal requirement for daily broadly Christian worship should be removed because it is “too prescriptive and narrow”, while emphasising the value of inclusive assemblies that reflect the diversity of the school community.
It is sometimes said that families who object can simply withdraw their children. It is true that parents have a statutory right to withdraw a child from collective worship, but in practice that can be a poor substitute for an inclusive approach. It may mean that children are separated from their peers, miss shared parts of school life or sit apart while others take part. It is notable that, in JR87, the Supreme Court considered precisely this point in the context of religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland, recognising that reliance on withdrawal can place
“an undue burden on parents”
and risks stigmatising the child—hardly the hallmarks of a meaningful and equal choice.
Of course, I recognise that many noble Lords hold sincere views about the value of Christian worship in schools, and I respect those convictions. That is precisely why this amendment is carefully drawn. It would not change the position of schools with a religious character but would simply ensure that non-faith schools are not compelled by law to provide worship that does not reflect the views and beliefs of many of the families that they serve. In place of a daily worship requirement, schools would still provide regular assemblies that support pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in a way that is inclusive of pupils of all faiths and none, mirroring the approach set out in proposals previously considered by this House.
Maintaining a blanket duty of daily Christian worship in schools without a religious character is increasingly out of step with the country we serve and insufficiently respectful of families with no religion. This amendment would provide more genuine choice, not less, and allow non-faith schools to be properly inclusive community schools for every child.
Amendment 232 proposes a new clause for the inclusion of non-religious beliefs in religious education. It would put it beyond doubt in statute that religious education must include teaching about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, across all key stages. At the outset, I acknowledge that we are in the midst of the Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. The review is highly relevant because it concludes that
“RE’s importance is not currently reflected in its standing in the curriculum”.
It recommends that RE should be moved
“to the national curriculum in due course”,
with a staged process involving
“faith bodies, secular groups and experts from the teaching and wider education sector, to develop a draft RE curriculum”.
I welcome this direction of travel.
The review is also clear about why reform is needed, stating that RE is currently
“a basic rather than national curriculum subject”,
with content that is “not nationally defined” and local support arrangements that are “complex and fraying”, producing “uneven provision”. However, “in due course” is doing a lot of work here. Unless and until those recommendations are implemented, we will still have the present patchwork of locally agreed syllabuses and widely varying practice. It is in that context that Amendment 232 is needed. It is a modest, clarifying amendment that ensures that, whatever the structure of RE, pupils must learn about non-religious beliefs as well as religions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 208, to which I have added my name; I also express support for the aims of Amendment 206 as a fellow member of the Select Committee which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, made the substantive case very well, so I will not add to that as I do not think it is necessary. I just remind noble Lords that supporters of the amendment, of whom there are many, called it the Massey amendment in memory of, and in tribute to, our dear late friend and colleague Lady Massey of Darwen—Doreen—who did so much for children and young people’s health and well-being.
I hope that the Government will think again and, if they are not prepared to accept this amendment, that my noble friend will give answers to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and it will be very clear as to how exactly they going to pursue the commitment made in the very welcome VAWG strategy document.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will very quickly add my support to Amendment 206. I shall be brief, because the points have already been made. I was a fellow traveller on the committee that considered this and I share with others a recognition of the tenacity that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has shown with this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, reminded us of when “British values” was brought into the curriculum. It was not an easy time and it was not readily accepted. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her tenacity in getting that on the agenda.
Times are not easy now, what must be 10 years later, but it is right that we review the content of what we call British values. The teaching profession has had experience of teaching this and of organising schools that have it at their centre. We have learned a lot. The publication of the national curriculum review is an ideal opportunity to address this again.
Democracy is not taught well in schools. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is absolutely right that we do not do this well; we could do it a lot better. The need to do so is great. This amendment gives us an excellent opportunity to address that.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I reinforce what has just been said and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. He and I have made common cause on this for some time.
I shall be extremely brief, because I want to make just one point. It is not so much about the substance of the amendment but why, as has just been said, it is essential that we take citizenship teaching seriously in this country. It is crucial because, at the moment, there is a problem with public trust in government and in Parliament. It is slow and declining and, unless we do something about it, we are going to be in real trouble. We need to invest resources into the teaching of citizenship. That means making sure that schools take it seriously and have the incentive to do so. It is no good just saying it is in the curriculum. Schools have to realise, “We have to teach this, we’ve got the incentive to do it and we have the resources”. It cannot just be left to any teacher on a wet Wednesday afternoon to teach citizenship. It is crucial and has to be taken seriously. I regard this amendment as absolutely key to British democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, except that I do not believe that we can put all the pressure on schools, which have so many other pressures on them.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
I totally agree. I should have said that I regard this as necessary but not sufficient.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Schools have faced so many other pressures with exams, results and Ofsted judgments, that saying “And you’ve got to shove citizenship in here, but you’re not really going to get rewarded for it” is not going to work. The direction has to come from the centre.
It is interesting that this group of amendments has been so rich and apparently so varied. Actually, what it does is talk about education that prepares students for life, not just for exams or jobs but to be citizens, members of communities, neighbours and possibly parents, and it prepares them to have healthy bodies while they are doing that. That is the only point I will make on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who made her point powerfully. Physical education has been totally downgraded, and that has to stop and be reversed.
In responding, I have to start with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that respect for the environment was “twaddle”. I looked it up in the dictionary. Among the definitions were “trivial” and “foolish”. I am assuming that the noble Baroness understands that she had to breathe to be able to deliver that speech. That relies on plants, algae and cyanobacteria to generate the oxygen to allow her to breathe. So that label is obviously incorrect. I will leave that there.
I turn to Amendment 220, which the proposer, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has not yet introduced. Schools do need practical and lawful guidance, but forcing the Government to bring that guidance in on the day that the Bill becomes an Act will inhibit schools’ ability. The guidance was always intended to be non-statutory, including when it was first published in draft by the previous Government. I acknowledge that we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, but I do not think that, in Committee, we heard any explanation of why the guidance needs to be statutory.
I will speak very briefly on the two amendments that I actually signed. Amendment 208 has been very ably spoken to by others; I am just going to make one additional point. This is about providing relationship and sex education to persons of 16 and 17 in education. Your Lordships’ House chose to call for a ban on social media for under-16s. We do not know where that will end up, but, if the ban comes in and, assuming it works, young people at 16 start accessing a whole range of previously banned material, surely, they will need the help of education and support to be able to work through, process, understand and think about that. So we should think about how those two things fit together.
The other thing is that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, knows that I have backed her Private Member’s Bill at least twice previously. She introduced it very clearly. The one thing I will add is that, in terms of education for life, we ask schools to create more space in school time in particular for cultural and social education, but where are they going to find the time? That assembly time could be a really useful time and, if that is preparing people for life—developing cultural interests, developing artistic interests, developing a love of the theatre or a love of music, all things that help people prepare for a rich and satisfying life—that is what we need our schools to be doing much more of.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall very briefly add my support to Amendment 243C and, in doing so, declare my interest as a member of the board of the London Marathon Foundation. As we have heard, schools play a crucial role in the formation of lifelong activity habits, but they need to be properly supported, both to provide more opportunities within school and to ensure that what they offer meets the needs of the various interests of young people and children, to make sure that they fully engage with physical education. A national strategy would give schools the structure they need to guarantee consistently high-quality physical education, as well as help them build partnerships with community sports organisations, creating pathways that link school-based activity with accessible opportunities outside school.
In its recent submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s inquiry into community and school sport, London Marathon stressed the pressing need for national and local government, schools, governing bodies and charitable and commercial organisations to align behind tangible shared objectives to get children and young people active and, most importantly, keep them active. By mandating the publication of a national strategy for physical education and sports in schools, this amendment will be an important step to delivering just that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, introduced so well. I draw the House’s attention to proposed new subsection (2)(k). If you take part in physical activity only in educational establishments, you generally stop doing it when you leave, so getting in outside bodies to say that playing in a team at the weekend or in the evening is a reasonably normal thing to do means that you are much more likely to do it once you are outside that environment. It is something we have consistently found. It probably applies to other areas as well, but, if we are talking about a coherent sports strategy, that is one thing that the Government really must give more time and thought to.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak mainly to Amendment 206, but, as somebody who has taught more PSHE days than he cares to remember, I think I might make a few comments on this one. I have spoken many times about how I think we need to bring PSHE and citizenship much more into the regular curriculum on a weekly basis. To put my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth’s mind at ease, his amendment looked to me like a scheme that could work: it is very similar to what we teach. I think that, with all due respect to several House of Lords committees, the subtle differences are not going to filter their way down to schools. I think we need to teach this. We need to make sure it is important. Teachers are very good at interpreting this, schools are very good and the basic subtleties do not really matter to me, I am afraid.
In response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, I would say, “Please can I join the school with an hour of sport a day?” And can we hurry up as well? My daughter is in year 10: she is locked in the bathroom, but she would be really keen to hear that. If we are trying to get kids back into school and we have nearly 1 million missing school, might this not be worth trying?
I actually rose to speak to Amendment 208, and will give one quote, from Tender. If noble Lords do not know it, Tender is an unbelievable expert charity that delivers RSE to young people, from primary schools all the way to sixth form. Its CEO, Susie McDonald, said: “We are all too aware that 16 to 19 year-olds are at the highest risk of abuse in their relationships. At this critical age, young people simply cannot be left without the vital education to keep themselves and others safe. We have all seen the horrifying results, from rising levels of coercive control to the murder of teenage girls by teenage boys. We know how to prevent it: with mandatory, high-quality relationship education, all the way to 18”.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in my view, all the amendments in this group are important and worth seriously considering. I will deal first with Amendment 206. Of course, one person’s twaddle is most people’s reality.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review is an important step along the road to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, wants. It will actually strengthen the current citizenship curriculum. For the first time, it brings in citizenship at primary level as well. Now that we have the review, and the parts of it that have slightly altered civic and constitutional education, for example, I do not quite understand what the next stage is of populating that curriculum, particularly for citizenship and the points that the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment makes, such as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, respect for every person and respect for the environment.
All that is important, but the most important thing, in my view, as well as having it on the curriculum, is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made. It is no good having a subject as important as citizenship unless you have quality teaching and staff who want to teach it, not just staff dragged in from the PE or the language department to do it. You need to have first-class materials to make that work.
On Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I do not understand how a student in a school has relationship and sex education, yet a 16 year-old in a college does not. It just does not make sense. I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us that this should change, because it is hugely important. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for tabling that amendment.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sater and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their important amendment. In a sense, we have gone backwards, because we used to have an hour of sport and PE on the curriculum. It was one of the initiatives introduced by the Blair Government. For some reason, it got lost or diluted. I just do not understand why. When did it suddenly fall off the cliff edge, and who was waving the banner saying we should stop this? We still must have an hour of sport and PE on our school curriculum.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her amendments. I know some noble Lords will slightly wince at them but, with the exception of faith schools, what she is saying is happening in most of our secondary schools, and Ofsted is not reporting it. Most secondary schools that are non-faith schools are not carrying out a daily collective act of worship which is mainly Christian. It is just not happening. Maybe at some stage, whether we like it or not, we should face up to the reality of the situation.
My final question is to the Minister, on humanism. We have local SACREs, which decide what will be taught in schools in their locality. Could a SACRE minister say that humanism would be part of that religious education?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I have one substantive amendment in this group, Amendment 220, which is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the guidance needs to be statutory. I think the answer is that the issues associated with children who are questioning their gender at a young age overlaps significantly with the safeguarding responsibilities of a school and therefore should be on a statutory footing.
As we discussed in Committee, the consultation on the draft guidance for schools for children questioning their gender identity closed in May 2024, and we are now approaching the two-year anniversary of this. I must say that it is laughable that the Government think they will respond in a matter of weeks to a consultation about whether to prevent under-16s from accessing harmful and addictive social media, but it takes nearly two years and we have no response from government on the gender questioning guidance, which was in draft and had been consulted on. The Government repeatedly say they need time to get it right; I just wondered whether the Minister could give us an indication of how much time, and how much time they think they will need to get the social media issue right. It feels like, if this is two years, that might be 10 years. The Government really need to get moving to publish the guidance to safeguard our children in these schools from this very contested and harmful ideology.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sater and her cosignatories for the extremely constructive Amendment 243C, delivered with exactly the same amount of energy as our noble friend Lord Moynihan. We read in the national press about potential cuts to funding for sport in schools. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House that that is not the case. Sport is—I reluctantly admit, as the least athletic person in your Lordships’ House—extremely important. As we have heard, sport builds not just physical fitness but teamwork, mental resilience and an ability to meet the two imposters of triumph and disaster on the field with equanimity. I hope the Minister will give this amendment the consideration it deserves.
My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes made the case powerfully for bringing consistency to the provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to pupils in FE colleges. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and I tussled over his amendment back in the Schools Bill in 2022, but he remains very persuasive on this subject. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Finally, I expressed our concerns about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in Committee. I am afraid our position has not changed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group address themes that are central to pupils’ development and well-being, and the values that underpin life in Britain. The Government remain committed to supporting schools and colleges with clear expectations and guidance so that they can deliver high-quality teaching that reflects the diversity of young people’s experiences and prepares them for modern life.
Amendment 206, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, seeks to introduce and define values of British citizenship. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and as the noble and right reverend Lord admitted, I have also had the benefit of discussing this before, particularly when he introduced his Private Member’s Bill. We had a good debate, which was longer than we are going to be able to have today, on this issue and on some of the questions raised by noble Lords about how we can ensure citizenship is not only on the national curriculum but delivered effectively.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I do not believe that primary legislation is the right way to secure effective implementation. Schools already embed important values through their statutory duty to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. They should remain free to tailor their approach, ensuring that values remain relevant to pupils’ lives.
However, we need to do more to give citizenship teaching the place it deserves on the curriculum. That is why, following the curriculum and assessment review, we will introduce new statutory citizenship teaching at primary level and an updated secondary programme of study. Consultation on that work will be under way soon, so noble Lords who have rightly engaged in the debate about the significance of citizenship teaching will be able to contribute to that.
On Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, as I said in Committee, we recognise the importance of supporting young people with high-quality teaching on healthy relationships. That is why personal, social, health and economic education, including sex and relationships, is taught in colleges. However, I recognise the gap in the nature of the requirement the noble Baroness identifies, particularly for further education colleges. We have begun to take action on that.
In response to calls from the further education sector, we commissioned a leading expert to create a well-evidenced range of resources to help colleges deliver high-impact relationships and sex education tutorials. I am grateful to Polly Harrow, our FE champion on this, for the work she is doing. The freely available toolkit provides high-quality lesson plans, materials and bespoke training to equip staff with the confidence needed to engage young people in conversations about misogyny, respect and consent, particularly given the context which many noble Lords have referenced this afternoon: the particular challenges for young people of this age, which I wholly accept and share their concern on.
I was particularly affected by the meeting I was able to have with Faustine Petron from the Make It Mandatory campaign, along with colleagues from the Sex Education Forum, End Violence Against Women and the Brook sexual health charity about the requirement to go further on this.
Although the Bill is not the best vehicle, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, given this late stage in its progress and the absence of other further education measures, I intend to identify the most deliverable route to make relationships and sex education mandatory in further education. As the noble Baroness will know, I am not in a position to name Bills that may or may not be coming down the track, but she also referenced the possibility that somebody might choose this as a topic for a Private Member’s Bill. Were that to be the case, I would most certainly want to engage in supporting that making progress.
On Amendments 220 and 247 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear about our commitment to placing children’s well-being at the centre of guidance for schools on gender-questioning children. We are clear that the Cass review’s conclusions and principles—the review was of course published since the issuing of the draft guidance—need to be reflected in it and that schools can be confident in that.
We know that concerned professionals, parents and children would welcome clarity on how schools should respond to young people who are questioning their gender. We have been carefully considering all the evidence as well as responses from the public consultation. It is essential that we take the time to get this right and to consider the best way to support schools. We will confirm next steps in due course, but our approach is clear: an evidence-led approach, clarity for schools, and children’s well-being at the centre of it.
Turning to Amendment 231 in the name of the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, this Government are committed to collective worship in schools. Schools are already required to promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development within their curriculum and have flexibility to deliver non-religious assemblies. We plan to publish updated guidance later this year on collective worship in England to make expectations clear, including objective, pluralistic and critical delivery to give schools practical support.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have supported my amendment and those who have spoken to the other amendments. First, I will comment very briefly on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who was her usual trenchant self. The reason for including respect for the environment in this list is that this, above all, is an issue young people care about. If you want young people to care about democracy and law, the list of values must also express something they really do feel strongly about. That is the reason why that is part of the list.
How valuable it is to have the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with us, given his front-line experience. I hesitate to respond to what he said, but he referred to this as a matter of subtleties. Rather, I would suggest that it is fundamental. The present list of fundamental values that have to be taught in schools includes the phrase “individual liberty”. It seems to me if you talked to a pupil about individual liberty and asked them what it means, they would say, “Does it mean that I can do what I want?” However, in the amendment before us, freedom is spelt out as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and so on. It is quite specific, and it is this which needs to be taught in citizenship education.
I thank the Minister very much for her, as usual, warm reply. Maybe it would be possible for us to have a further conversation in future about how we can get some significant changes in relation to the curriculum assessment review, because it would strengthen the teaching of citizenship education to have this included. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Duty to keep schools open for in person attendance(1) So far as reasonably possible, public authorities must ensure that, during the period of any civil emergency, schools are kept open for in person attendance by children and young people.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about how public authorities should discharge the duty under subsection (1), including provision specifying—(a) steps that a public authority may or must take to comply with the duty, and(b) actions that a public authority is prohibited from taking.(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A power to make regulations under this section includes the power to make—(a) consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes.(6) A public authority must not, in response to a civil emergency, take or facilitate any action (including making regulations, issuing directions, issuing orders, giving guidance, or making recommendations) that—(a) results in, or encourages, the closure of schools, or(b) otherwise prevents or restricts lawful attendance at such institutions or premises by children and young people,unless the requirements of subsection (7) are met.(7) Before taking any action of the kind described in subsection (6), the public authority must first, unless the urgency of the civil emergency precludes this—(a) request the advice of the Children’s Commissioner on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people who will be affected by the action,(b) provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for the proposed action, and(c) have due regard to the Children’s Commissioner’s advice in determining whether to proceed with the action.(8) If any action of the kind described in subsection (6) is taken prior to seeking the advice of the Children’s Commissioner due to urgency—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within seven days of taking the action, the public authority must provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for that action;(b) the Children’s Commissioner must then promptly, and in any event within 14 days of the action having been taken, provide the public authority with its advice in relation to the impact of that action on children and young people;(c) the public authority, having due regard to the Commissioner’s advice, shall determine whether the action continues to be justified or whether it should be revoked.(9) If action of the kind described in subsection (6) continues beyond 14 days, and in relation to each such period of 14 days thereafter, the Secretary of State must—(a) lay before Parliament a copy of the Children’s Commissioner’s advice, and(b) seek approval from both Houses of Parliament for the continuation of the action.(10) If Parliament does not approve continuation under subsection (9)(b) within 14 days of the advice of the Children’s Commissioner being laid before Parliament under subsection 9(a), the relevant action automatically lapses, and any measures (including regulations, directions, orders, guidance, or recommendations made in support of or continuance of the relevant action) become legally void.(11) Where under any of the above provisions the advice of the Children’s Commissioner is sought, the Children’s Commissioner shall set out in writing his or her advice on the following matters—(a) the foreseeable impacts of any closures of schools on the affected children and young people,(b) any reasonable actions that could be taken to mitigate those impacts,(c) whether the anticipated benefits for those children of the closures identified by the public authority appear to him or her to outweigh the foreseeable impacts of closures for those children, and(d) any other matters which appear to him or her to be relevant.(12) The Children’s Commissioner is entitled to require the public authority or the Secretary of State to provide such further information, assistance, and resources as he or she considers necessary in order to set out his or her advice on a particular action and the public authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall provide such information, assistance or resources as soon as reasonably practicable.(13) For the purposes of this section—“children” means persons under the age of 18;“civil emergency” shall include any emergency situation which could constitute an emergency for the purposes of section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or which has otherwise been identified as a risk in the UK’s National Security Risk Assessment. For the avoidance of doubt an emergency need not be the subject of measures taken under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to be a civil emergency for the purposes of this Act;“closure” in relation to schools, means any action to discourage, restrict or prevent in person attendance at those institutions or premises by children and young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend, or any sub-group or class of such children or young people;“open for in person attendance” in relation to schools, means being open for the attendance by all of the children who would ordinarily, and but for the occurrence of a civil emergency, be entitled to attend those institutions or premises, during their normal hours of operation;“open for in person attendance” does not include the provision of online learning or other remote learning services nor the keeping of such institutions or premises open for physical attendance only for a sub-group or class of those children or young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend;“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 save that a court or tribunal is not included for these purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to enact a statutory duty to keep schools open for in person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies, unless Parliament expressly approves, and continues every two weeks to approve, any closures.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Amendment 207 would create a statutory duty to keep schools open for in-person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies for all pupils, not just vulnerable children and children of key workers, unless Parliament expressly approves any closures and continues to do so every two weeks.
We await the conclusion of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, which is looking at the Government’s response to the pandemic’s impact on children and young people in module 8. I will come to some of the evidence submitted to the inquiry in due course. I think it is now widely accepted that closing schools during the pandemic for all children, save for a tiny handful, was a mistake. The evidence that it had a catastrophic impact on children is overwhelming.
I am thinking of the research and analysis published by Ofsted in April 2022, when my noble friend Lady Spielman was at its head, based on inspection evidence which highlighted delays in children’s speech and language progress and a negative impact on their personal, social and emotional development. I am thinking of research published by the IFS, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Social Mobility Commission which detailed the persistent and highly damaging impacts of school closures in exacerbating inequalities and reversing progress previously made in narrowing the attainment gap. I am thinking of the irrecoverable learning loss highlighted in a report by the University of Oxford in January 2023.
I am thinking of work done by the Centre for Social Justice which showed that some children who were told to stay at home during the pandemic never reacquired the habit of attending school, with severe absences—defined as missing at least 50% of lessons—tripling compared to pre-pandemic levels. This means that 172,938 English schoolchildren were severely absent in the summer of 2024. Incredibly, the number of persistently absent children—defined as missing at least 10% of lessons—climbed to 1.6 million last summer. I am thinking of the data accumulated by Children & Young People Now about the deterioration in children’s mental health since the school closures, with 1.3 million schoolchildren being referred to mental health support services in the school year 2023-24—a 71% increase on the pre-pandemic year of 2018-19.
Some will argue that these costs, while undoubtedly high, were outweighed by the benefits of infections averted and lives saved, but children were at negligible risk from Covid-19. According to the ONS, in England and Wales, between March 2020 and October 2022, 88 deaths were registered as due to Covid-19 for children under the age of 18. That is 0.05% of the total number of Covid deaths in the same period. To put that figure in perspective, between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022, 644 children died from accidents.
In any event, closing schools did not make children any less likely to become infected. A study published by the Public Health Agency of Sweden in 2020 found that infection rates were no higher among schoolchildren in Sweden, which closed sixth forms but no other schools during the pandemic, than they were in Finland, which closed all schools.
What about adults? Did closing schools protect them? We are in the realm of counterfactuals here, but the evidence from Sweden is that no, keeping schools open did not mean that more people were at risk of becoming infected and dying from Covid. According to the ONS, Sweden’s overall excess mortality between March 2020 and July 2022 was negative—lower than the pre-pandemic average and far lower than in the UK, where schools were closed. In fact, Sweden’s excess mortality during the pandemic was the lowest of all European countries save Norway. Incidentally, Norway closed schools, but the Prime Minister at the time later apologised for doing so.
The costs of closing schools were almost incalculable and the benefits non-existent. It was a catastrophic error. Nevertheless, this amendment would not rule out ever closing schools again during future health, public health or civic emergencies. All it would do is make it a statutory requirement, before schools are closed, to seek the advice of the Children’s Commissioner for England on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people affected by it and to have due regard for that advice.
I note that in her evidence to module 8 of the Covid inquiry in the autumn of last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner at the time, said that keeping schools closed while other areas of society were open during the pandemic was “a terrible mistake”. She described the Government’s approach as showing an
“apparent lack of any serious recognition of the short-term and long-term harmful effects”
of school closures, particularly on disadvantaged pupils.
In addition, this amendment would make it necessary to secure the approval of Parliament if schools were to remain closed, with such approval needing to be renewed every two weeks. That would address one of the problems that Gavin Williamson, a former Education Secretary, raised in his evidence to the Covid inquiry last autumn—namely, that the decision to close schools in January 2021 was rushed and ill-thought-out. If, in future, Secretaries of State made similar mistakes, Parliament could correct those mistakes within two weeks.
Noble Lords may be inclined to forgive the various bodies involved in the decision to close schools during the pandemic because they had limited information about the risks that Covid-19 posed, and posed to children in particular. I am not so inclined. I believe we did know enough at the time about the negligible risk that coronavirus posed to children, and the authorities involved in the decision to close schools were given ample warning about the terrible harm that closing schools would do to children’s learning, social development and mental health, with a particular impact on disadvantaged children. Whatever our view of that mistake, I think we can now agree that it was a mistake. We should take whatever steps we can to avoid making it again. This amendment would be a vital first step. I beg to move.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who has made a compelling case. We should be ashamed, as a nation, of the way we allowed schools to close repeatedly and for protracted periods, and the almost casual way in which that was allowed to happen.
As my noble friend has set out, this amendment is hugely important but very moderate, in that it deliberately would not preclude the possibility of closing schools should it be deemed necessary but would require some process and mechanisms to be put in place that would require consultation and thought to be given. Should the closures be continued for more than a very short period, it would then require parliamentary approval to be given. My noble friend made a compelling case, so I do not need to speak for long.
I just make the final point that it is self-evident that the substance behind this amendment is more important than any of the other issues relating to schools that we have debated and deliberated upon—because none of those matters at all if schools are closed and children are not receiving an education or the social benefits of their time in school and all the other effects that my noble friend has enumerated.
I suspect that my noble friend will not be testing the will of the House on this so I really hope that the Minister, in responding, will give reassurance about the seriousness with which this is taken and that even without this as a statutory requirement, the Government will seek to observe that kind of process and ensure both proper consultation and parliamentary approval if these actions were ever to be contemplated again.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 207 to create a duty to keep schools open for attendance. The speeches that have been made excellently explained why.
I arrived in this House during lockdown, and I was shocked—genuinely, to the core—by the ease with which people in this House on all sides clamoured to close down schools. It was an extraordinary thing to witness. I could not justify it at the time and argued against it. That argument—which was a minority argument, not just put forward by me—was treated as though somehow those of us who were worried about schools closing were the irresponsible ones; whereas I think it was the other way round. I genuinely think that many of the issues that the Bill is trying to tackle—many of the real problems and challenges that we face with young people today—were created, exacerbated and turbocharged as problems during that period. Schools were closed down, which meant that adults broke the social contract with children—not for their sake but ours—and it was against all the evidence. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to this, even if it is not tested in a Division of the House, as I think that this will be a huge, important lesson for us to learn.
I will note a few of the problems that have already been raised. We have a mental health crisis, which we talk about regularly—as we will later and have been throughout the Bill—as though it came out of nowhere, but there is serious reason to imagine that young people’s mental health suffered during that period. But we are also talking about behaviour. A lot of teachers will tell you that once that social contract was breached, it created discipline problems because pupils were no longer in class. We have increasing numbers of parents withdrawing their children from mainstream schools. The habit of going to school was broken. We have spent a huge amount of time in this Bill talking about home-schooling, which is going up, and that is partly because schools were no longer considered necessary. I said then that if you tell pupils that truancy is okay in certain circumstances, it will be hard to get back to normal. If you say, “You shouldn’t come into school”, it will be hard to say, “You must come into school”.
Certainly, as a teacher, I lectured young people—many a time—saying, “There is nothing more important than going to school. There is nothing, nothing, nothing more important than your education”, and then suddenly as a society we said, “Oh, there are lots of things that are more important than going to school or your education”, so they learned a very bad lesson.
We will come on to talk about the problems with smartphones. What did we do when we sent all those young people home? First of all, we told them to look at screens to get lessons—a lot of the time we did not bother even supplying the lessons on the screens—and what they did was spend a lot of time on their phones. They were not out socialising. They became desocialised—anti-social.
The final reason why we have to remember that this is so important is that a cohort of young citizens was told, “If there is a problem, you stay at home, you withdraw”. I think that if we say to young people, “If you feel ill, you aren’t up to coping with going out and being part of society”, we are creating a medicalised fragility and an acceptance of illness as a reason to withdraw that have led to massive social problems. We are now paying for that with a huge welfare bill. Many young adults now lack the resilience to become economically active.
The cost of what we did was enormous and we are yet to come to terms with it. The Bill is trying to deal with a lot of the problems created by that period, and this amendment is therefore important in raising the possibility that we should not, as a default, close schools. The default should be that we do not, that we owe it to children to have their education and that schools are kept open for attendance. There has to be an extremely good reason why schools are closed, and that should be thought through deeply. As someone who was here when we were deciding, let me assure noble Lords that it was not.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. We have relied through history on a presumption that schools will stay open, even in adverse circumstances such as epidemics or bombardments. But once we closed schools for Covid, we set children adrift because there was nothing in law to balance their interests against those of adults. Children stayed locked up for months, learning little even when schools made great efforts to provide online learning.
I shall not repeat what others have said, but the story of the continuing harm to children—their academic progress, social development, health and happiness—is still unfolding. Ofsted did some of the earliest work on this in autumn 2020, when my inspectors made a series of fact-finding visits to schools and published monthly reports on the impact of Covid on schools and children. They reported that children were lonely, bored and miserable—the advance warnings of the lasting problems that we now see. I spoke about this publicly a number of times, but the tide of emotion was too strong for people to hear.
With hindsight, the existence of a formal duty and a mechanism to ensure that the available evidence, such as the reports I mentioned, is considered and weighed up against the representations of the adults who work in schools, health sector representatives, and so on might have helped to focus minds. I believe that there is an opportunity here for the Minister to get ahead of potential recommendations from the Covid inquiry.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry if I sound like a dinosaur, but I will. Hindsight is always a harsh, cruel science. It makes us think, “If only we did not do this”. The evidence is very clear; as the inquiry went on, the lessons to be drawn have not yet been concluded, and the nation needs to take those lessons into its lifeblood.
We are talking about legislating for an assurance that if a huge pandemic breaks out—or, let us say, a war—we need to go to Parliament every two weeks to consult. But perhaps Parliament will be permanently shut. I would not want us to reach a stage where we have not fully learned all the lessons. I have grandchildren who, because their parents were working, were seen as those who needed to be supported at school during the pandemic. Even then, there were infections, and shutting down schools looked like protecting children. When something like Covid happens, our first look is to the vulnerable, such as children and other vulnerable people. I would find it difficult to support a measure which thinks that Parliament will always provide security.
Do you remember the Second World War? For their own protection, pupils had to be taken out of areas where the bombs were dropping pretty fast, so let us learn the lessons. We may return to this proposal, but for the time being let us support what the Bill as drafted is doing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends have made a compelling human, practical and democratic case for the role of Parliament in expressly approving school closures in the event of a future pandemic or public health emergency. In practical terms, as we all know and have heard in this short debate, parents and teachers see every day the impacts on those young people who missed out on significant chunks of their education and their social development when schools were closed. My noble friend Lord Brady rightly pointed out the fundamental value of schools being open as unlocking all the other good things that we expect and trust them to deliver for our children.
I hope that, when the Minister comes to close, if she does not plan to accept these amendments, she gives a clear response as to how the issues that my noble friends have raised will be dealt with in future. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, children at that point had no balancing voice to the decisions that were made, and that feels like something we do not want to have happen again.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this important debate. Amendment 207, which has been degrouped and stands alone for the reasons the noble Lord has outlined, would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless Parliament decides otherwise. As the noble Lord stated during Committee, closing schools has significant impacts on children, as has been reinforced by the discussion here this evening. We all agree that continuity of education is vital for their learning and well-being.
We mentioned it in Committee, but I do not think it has been stressed enough in this debate that almost all schools remained open and allowed attendance in some cases to all pupils and in others to vulnerable children and to children of critical workers. I want to put on record here today our enormous thanks to the staff who worked under incredibly difficult circumstances, with changing guidance on this on a day-to-day basis, in putting the needs of those children first. There were very few total closures, and where they happened, they were usually short-term and for operational reasons. I am sure noble Lords will remember the coverage about deep-cleaning and all the other issues that came up on a daily basis.
We know now that children generally were not at risk from Covid-19 in terms of health. That does not mean that the staff were not, but children were not as vulnerable as was first feared. But that might not always be the case in future pandemics or other whole-system emergencies, and we need to keep that at the forefront of our minds as we discuss this important issue.
I reassure the Committee that the department is committed to learning from the Covid-19 pandemic inquiry. We learned from the last pandemic that planning is at its best when it is agile, takes a whole-system approach and is responsive to the situation. The department is continuing to build its capabilities to support education in all circumstances, including strengthening remote education.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her serious response. She alluded correctly to the role of many different bodies, were these difficult circumstances to happen again. However, if I am not mistaken, the one body she did not mention in her response was Parliament. Does she not accept, as is fundamental to Amendment 207, that in these circumstances a decision to close schools is so important that it should have explicit parliamentary approval within a reasonable time?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I apologise, but my assumption was that all the departments working together would keep Parliament informed of the decision. However, I do not think we can pre-empt at this time how quickly decisions will need to be made. We just need to make sure that we do not create serious disadvantage by putting in legislation something that might undermine our ability to respond at pace and appropriately in circumstances that we perhaps cannot envisage now. With that, I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank my noble friends Lord Brady and Lady Spielman for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her excellent contribution.
I will make just one point in response to some of the points raised. It is important to learn one lesson from our response to the pandemic. That lesson is that we are pretty poor at learning lessons from previous pandemics. We had a pandemic preparedness strategy, and we prided ourselves on being better prepared for a pandemic than almost every other country. That pandemic preparedness strategy was based on the findings of public inquiries into previous pandemics and epidemics, and it was junked within two weeks in the febrile, panicky atmosphere and the heat of politics. The compelling desire to be seen to be doing something overrode the lessons we had supposedly learned from previous pandemics and epidemics. Sweden, on the other hand, which broadly speaking followed our pandemic preparedness strategy, did far better.
I am a little reassured by the words of the Minister about responding in a more intelligent, systematic, thoughtful way next time, but once the conclusions of the Covid-19 inquiry have been published, the Government need to give some thought to how those will be conveyed and how they will be meaningfully observed by a future Government, in the absence of legislating and giving Parliament the kind of role it should have before critical decisions affecting the most vulnerable people in our society are made. With that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.
Police Reform White Paper
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, when, on 20 January, I asked the Minister when this White Paper would be published, he said that I would not have to wait too long to see the Government’s police reform proposal. I am very pleased to say that he was correct; on this occasion “shortly” did indeed mean shortly.
I think it fair to say that one of the major concerns surrounding policing at the moment is accountability. The public rightly want to know that the police are held to the highest standards. That, of course, has been thrown into the spotlight by the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair.
In her response to this in the other place, the Home Secretary talked of
“the failed experiment of police and crime commissioners”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/26; col. 612.]”.
I must say that I am not entirely convinced that the Government’s alternative will solve the problem they say they have identified. We know from the White Paper that control of the police is to be moved to the newly created strategic mayors, but what is the difference between this model and the PCC model? Both are elected, both are partisan, both are accountable to local people. What is more, where mayors do not yet exist, the Government have proposed putting forces under the governance of policing boards made up of local councillors. Is the Minister certain that these structures will deliver on accountability effectively?
On the structural reforms, it is vital to ensure that this process of reorganisation does not inadvertently make things worse. At the moment, there are essentially two tiers of policing structures: the national tier consisting of the British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency, and a local tier made up of the 43 territorial forces.
I am happy for the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the White Paper creates a three-tier policing structure. At the national level we will have the national police service, then the regional police forces, and underneath those the local policing areas. Does that not mean a possible proliferation of forces, and is there a risk that this could increase bureaucracy and fragmentation, rather than reduce it as intended?
The White Paper mentions the National Crime Agency, which will be subsumed into the national police service, but there is no mention of the other national forces such as the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Can the Minister tell the House what will happen to the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary? Will they also be merged into the national police service?
As a final point, I would like to make a general observation about structural organisational change. There is an inevitable tendency for large-scale reorganisations to distract from the day-to-day functions that the bodies involved are tasked with executing. The Government will need to ensure that this does not happen and that police forces are still as focused as ever on fighting crime while the reorganisation is ongoing. There is also no guarantee that organisational reform is the solution the Government think it is, or that this will be the final structural reform of policing.
We need only look at the restructuring of other public bodies such as border enforcement or, indeed, at other parts of the United Kingdom, of which I have some personal experience. In Scotland, the formation of Police Scotland in 2013 has, if one looks at it as fairly as possible, been a mixed picture when it comes to effectiveness. So I end with a cursory warning to the Government: they must learn the lessons of past restructuring of public bodies and ensure that we do not have a never-ending process of continuous mergers, demergers and restructuring that simply sucks time, money and effort away from front-line policing.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, our system of policing is outdated—that is beyond doubt. The White Paper is right to promise radical reform, but, for victims and communities, the real tests are simple: will more crimes be prevented and will more offenders be brought to justice? Reform cannot be a top-down, money-saving exercise imposed from the centre; it must rebuild capacity, confidence and local trust. Get it wrong and communities will feel even more abandoned, widening the gap between police and public.
The plan for a new national police service and fewer, larger regional forces has merit, but real questions remain. Of course we need strong national capability for terrorism, serious organised crime, fraud and online harms that cross borders, but restructuring is a means, not an end. Experience in Scotland shows that mergers alone do not deliver better results. If design and implementation are mishandled, local connection suffers. The first priority must be to define clearly what we expect the police to do, recognising how their role has expanded, and then to provide realistic, long-term funding before redrawing force boundaries. Leadership and scrutiny, not structure, drive performance.
At present, the police are the agency of last resort for everything from children’s social care to adult mental health crises, as overstretched services retreat and leave the police to pick up the pieces. We welcome the commitment to ring-fenced neighbourhood policing, but we must ask whether the proposed model of mega-forces plus local policing areas will really empower local communities or simply add another layer of bureaucracy. Without proper funding and wider criminal justice reform, restructuring alone will not make our streets safer. Since we all agree that community policing is vital, can the Minister assure us that extra officers will be protected for visible neighbourhood work, backed by stable multi-year funding, not redeployed elsewhere when budgets tighten?
We support in principle a national licence to practice, tougher misconduct rules and stronger leadership after the shocking failures of recent years. We need officers and specialist staff with the right skills, character and integrity. Rising standards can rebuild trust but must not load more bureaucracy on to an already exhausted workforce.
The creating and purchasing of IT and data systems is sensible, but only if designed around operational needs and with sustainable funding. After all, procurement must be handled by qualified professionals so that we never again see the Home Office-driven debacle over the recent replacement emergency service radios, now running 12 years late and around £8 billion over budget.
We welcome the decision to abolish police and crime commissioners, but whatever replaces them must be representative, transparent and subject to robust scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary proposes new targets, intervention powers, turnabout teams and the authority to dismiss chief constables. Can the Minister say what safeguards will protect the operational independence of policing, particularly from short-term political pressure? No individual, whether a PCC, mayor, council leader or Home Secretary, should have unilateral power to dismiss a chief constable. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary will be bound by the same consultation rules that apply to PCCs now under Section 11A of the Police Regulations 2003?
Finally, on live facial recognition, rolling out such powerful technology before strong statutory safeguards are in place means relying on algorithms whose accuracy, bias and oversight remain, at best, disputed. If the Government move too fast and lose public trust, it may take many years to rebuild.
Liberal Democrats want a system of policing rooted in communities, fit for modern threats, accountable and trusted. We will work constructively on reforms that raise standards, but we will challenge fiercely any move towards centralisation without transparency or any attempt to treat restructuring as a substitute for leadership.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, to go to the heart of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, this is being done for a purpose. Crime is changing: fraud and online crime are widespread, and sexual abuse, terrorism and a range of national crimes impact policing and the communities the police serve. There is a strong need to reconnect local police with local crime, such as shop theft, and with neighbourhood policing issues, such as antisocial behaviour. To deal with that, we currently have a patchwork of 43 local forces, some led by a mayor and some by a police and crime commissioner. Some mayoral areas, such as Liverpool, do not have a police and crime commissioner; others, such as Manchester, have a police and crime commissioner. In West Yorkshire, there is a police and crime commissioner and a deputy mayor appointed to report to the mayor. In the West Midlands, the police and crime commissioner runs in parallel with the mayor. New mayoralties are coming on stream in the next couple of years, and that patchwork quilt will continue to develop.
At a national level, we have no procurement organisation. We have police chief leads who deal with their local force but who are also leads for particular areas. We have a National Crime Agency, a national helicopter service and forensics. With this proposal we are trying to ensure that we give greater support to the neighbourhood policing model at a local level, and have a consistent model of leadership through the elected mayor or an elected board of councillors. That will be examined. In conjunction with the Senedd, we will look at the model for Wales. At the same time, we will look at force numbers. The proposals include a review in the next five or six months, with a chair to be appointed shortly. Its terms of reference will be to look at how we can slim down the number of forces to save money and give a regional structure.
In answer to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on accountability, there will be an official—a mayor or councillor—who is responsible for that. The Home Secretary will have the power to remove chief constables. There will be a review of the number of forces. I do not know yet what that review will show, but it will help save money and give some focus. We intend to start very shortly to establish the national service. This will initially look at IT, forensics, the helicopter contract and procurement. Is it right that 43 forces procure 43 sets of uniforms? Is it right that there are different phone systems at a local level? Those are things that we need to look at. Later, the National Crime Agency, counterterrorism and regional crime units will be brought into focus, looking at how we deal with national issues.
Are we doing that for a purpose? We are. What is the purpose? To focus on things that matter on the ground and that matter collectively, nationally, and to potentially make better efficiencies and savings in the organisation and spend for things such as procurement of vehicles and uniforms. It is important to do that, and that is the model we are looking at.
There are issues. The noble Lord asked about the British Transport Police. That is not in the model at the moment; that is a matter for the Department for Transport. Everything can be examined, but that is not on the table at the moment.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on facial recognition, she knows that we are currently consulting on the standards and governance for it. Going back to my time as Police Minister 16 years ago, we were looking at things such as automatic number plate recognition. That was being tested in the last part of the previous Labour Government and is now a natural and automatic part of crime fighting, where you can track number plates and see who is involved with them. Going back 25 years, CCTV was a worry, but it is now an essential part of evidence gathering and crime fighting. I therefore say to the noble Baroness that we need to regulate facial recognition, but it is one of the next steps for the future of how we identify missing people and missing suspects, and we will use it to help identify how we can further reduce crime.
All this is done for a purpose. We are trying to re-energise neighbourhood policing and remove the barriers that stop the police focusing on things that matter. We are also looking at how we can organise nationally in this rapidly changing world; build capability on AI, for example, and save police time and resource; and improve standards, which again goes to the noble Baroness’s point. We have the licence to operate in these proposals and, in the policing Bill, we have proposals to vet police officers and raise standards. They are all important. It is important that we look not at where we are now but, as part of this reorganisation, at where we are going for the future, and at how we can better use AI and modern capabilities and technology to help improve police performance on the ground.
I therefore say to the noble Lord and noble Baroness, who are both my colleagues, that they have a very positive role to play in helping to design this service. However, ultimately, we cannot stay where we are. Rightly or wrongly, we think that the police and crime model has not worked efficiently and that we have too big a patchwork; we need to review and make a difference to it. It has been acknowledged for a long time that we have too many police forces. I say to both contributors that the police welcome this, from the Chief Constables’ Council through to the inspectorate and police forces across the country. We have an opportunity to redefine policing for the next 25, 30 or 40 years. This is a real opportunity to get better value for money, better performance and better efficiency, and to ensure that we meet the challenges of future crime.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, the bedrock of British policing is the office of constable. That is an office under the Crown. The Government are now going to introduce the licence to practice, given by the Government. At the same time, it appears that the Government are going to reintroduce targets for policing. The experience under the Blair Government was that policing targets distorted police behaviour and meant that, all too often, local policing priorities were ignored. The Government are also going to introduce a huge national bureaucracy in the national police service, and we read of a “hands-on Home Office” and greater powers for the Home Secretary.
Given this combination, how will the Government ensure that we will not see national diktats completely overriding local policing requirements and, particularly, that we are not going to see the police subjected to undue influence from the Home Office and the Home Secretary? I remember November 2008, when the parliamentary office of the then Member of Parliament for Ashford was searched by the police without a warrant, reportedly because of influence from Government Ministers. How are the Government going to ensure, in this centralised police service and centralised model, that there is not going to be undue political influence that relates not to the policing interests of the citizens but to the political interests of the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has great experience in this area. We have discussed this for many years, in shadow and government form. The Government are cognisant of the fact that the police service must be independent of government, have its own responsibilities, and make its own decisions around issues of arrest, suggestions about charges by the CPS and how to manage resources at a local level. Those are absolutely central, but this does not take away from the importance of the Government establishing the real areas of concern.
We are now saying that we need to have neighbourhood policing. As part of the grant, there will be an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers on the ground to look at the issues we think are important, such as anti-social behaviour, shop theft and a range of issues around policing in town centres. This is important for public confidence. It does not mean that we are interfering in policing. It means we are setting a number of potential targets which we think are important national and strategic issues.
On the national picture, the Police Minister is not going to be telling the head of the new policing body, “These are things I want you to do”, or “I want you to go round to X office, invade them and interfere in them”, but it is right for us to look at the strategic targets on counterterrorism, on serious organised crime and cross-border crime, and on crime that is coming into this country from the European Community, where we need to participate and co-operate. These are really important issues. It is right that the Home Secretary and the Government set these targets and some direction of travel in conjunction with the police, but still with that clear barrier between operational responsibility and overall policy setting.
The noble Baroness spoke about a police officer being an officer of the Crown. Through the licence to operate, we are trying to set a number of standards against which we check the performance of police officers so that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, we improve vetting, standards and management, and have a quicker way to remove police officers who do not meet our performance targets. These things will be done in conjunction with the police.
As I said in my opening remarks, the police have welcomed this at every level—from the inspectorate, through to the Chief Constables’ Council, to individual chief constables. I accept that that may be different for police and crime commissioners, but there is a real level of support among the police for the modernisation of the force. I hope that the noble Baroness will continue to hold us to account and that we will have this discussion as we continue.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the much-anticipated White Paper on the future of policing across England and Wales. I particularly welcome the focus on neighbourhood policing to better address everyday crime. However, the White Paper has not addressed the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations.
Three independent commissions—the Silk commission, the Thomas commission and the McAllister commission—have recommended the devolution of policing to Wales. It might be helpful for the House to be aware that, in First Minister’s Questions in the Senedd today, the First Minister stated:
“I want to make it clear that the Welsh Government has been clear that we want policing to be devolved to Wales”.
She went further to explain that the motivation behind this is to have
“better provision for the people in Wales”.
Will the Minister join the First Minister of Wales and Welsh Labour colleagues in the Senedd who are making the case here in Westminster for the devolution of policing to Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know where the noble Baroness is coming from. We have been very clear in the White Paper that the proposals for Wales are about organisation of the delivery and not about the devolution of policing. We have taken the view that policing is intricate within the whole legal system in Wales, which includes the court service, youth justice and a whole range of other matters. In the Labour manifesto, we said we would look at the devolution of youth justice. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are looking at this now, but we do not think that the devolution of policing is right for Wales at this time.
We will have to explain this judgment to all Members of the Senedd and I have to explain it to the noble Baroness in this House. We think that Wales is better served by a UK-based England and Wales service which looks at the main issues of national interest, such as counterterrorism, along with the other devolved Administrations. In the Welsh context, the discussions we will have with whoever forms the Government in the Senedd after the election will be about how we make a better structure in the period after the abolition of the police and crime commissioners.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I note that when the original Statement was made in the other place, it began and ended with a reference to Sir Robert Peel. In my capacity as the co-chair of the National Police Ethics Committee for England and Wales, I probably talk more about the Peelian principles than I ever thought I was going to do in earlier life. One of those essential principles is that policing is a civilian force: it is people, the citizenry, policing themselves.
I welcome much that is in this report. It represents a way forward and I am sure that my committee will go along with it. But there are two challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady May, has already referred to one, and she gave an example of it. I will give another brief one from when we were looking at Covid in a precursor to the present committee. During Covid, the Operation Talla policing ethics committee was largely set up under my chairmanship because police chief constables were under such pressure from Government Ministers, who were announcing things, often on social media at nine o’clock at night, saying “This is now the law” when it was not. The police wanted somebody independent who could support them in the face of that kind of ministerial overreach. So I worry, as the noble Baroness, Lady May, does, about the risks of ministerial overreach and the powers being given centrally.
On the other side, on neighbourhood policing, again we are hearing all the right reassurances here, but that is so essential. During Covid, the Metropolitan Police at one point had, I think, an absence rate of about 10 times that of Kent Police, the neighbouring force. Kent Police was policing its local communities while the Met was busing people in crew buses all the way over the capital, where they were all giving each other the disease. It was not neighbourhood policing in any way, shape or form. So how can we ensure with the new policing structures that it really will be people policing locally who are that local citizenry, not somebody drawn from three counties away across a much larger area? But with that said, I appreciate what we are doing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a lot in there. The main thing I can say to the right reverend Prelate is that the purpose of our policing is to have the police working with the community at a local level. That is why we have to focus on neighbourhood policing, why we have put in an additional 13,000 officers over this Parliament, and why we are on 2,500 to 3,000 currently in terms of increasing neighbourhood policing, taking people away from warranted officers doing back-room jobs into warranted officers doing front-line policing and community reassurance. That is why the basic issues, as I have said before, of shop theft, anti-social behaviour—things that happen in the high street or on the estate—should be the focus of the local police force.
How do we better deliver that? Do we look at that in a regional context? Whoever takes over this examination of regional force levels might look at a region and say, “We need to have this as a force size for this region because there’s a synergy between this city and that city and this regional area”, but underneath there is still that local neighbourhood police model. We are trying to ensure that we have local governance that is better than the patchwork we have and, at the same time, we will look at the national challenges and ensure that the Police Minister and/or the Home Secretary sets some realistic targets but does that in conjunction with the police. Ultimately, we get asked all the time in this House what we are doing about shop theft and anti-social behaviour. Some level of co-operation and ambition has to be set between the Home Office centrally and the local police forces, but they still have to operate independently and manage their resources in a way that gives them local community confidence.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister is leaving the British Transport Police alone. In my experience, it works very well and is led by an outstanding chief constable. I may have missed it, but I am not sure he said where royal protection is going to sit in this tier of policing. It is a significant cost, particularly for a county such as Gloucestershire, where we are blessed with a number of members of the Royal Family, including one of the homes that belongs to His Majesty the King. It is a significant cost to the force.
My real concern is that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about accountability. We already have an issue with police being abstracted from rural areas to do public order policing in big urban centres. If we have larger police forces, I can see that getting worse. How are we going to make sure that rural communities get the level of policing that they deserve and, importantly, that they pay for through their council tax precept, without a democratically elected leader at a very local level?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Starting with the question of royal protection, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not comment on that, because we do not normally comment on those issues in a public way. At some point, we will obviously make some further statements on it, but I do not wish to open that discussion now. On his comments on rural funding, we are as part of this proposal looking at reviewing the formula that currently exists within police funding. The police settlement that we announced a couple of weeks ago put significant additional resources into policing, but we recognise the need to modernise the funding formula, so part of the review that we are undertaking now will be on how we do that very task.
At a local level, there will still be somebody accountable politically for policing, but what I am trying to do, and what we are trying to do in the Home Office, is address the fact that at the moment we have police and crime commissioners, which is a patchwork model because of the advent of mayors. We have another pile of mayors coming on stream very shortly. We have some areas where there will not be a mayor, but nor will there be a police and crime commissioner in future, so we are still going to review those organisational models. At the end of this process, there will still be somebody who is accountable for policing, but not in the directly elected way, solely on police and crime issues, as the police and crime commissioner currently is.
Earl Russell (LD)
Serious organised waste crime is a national disgrace that is costing the UK economy over £1 billion a year. The Environment Agency, as a regulatory body, appears to be ill-equipped and fundamentally unable to control it. These police reforms offer a co-ordinated approach to serious organised crime, yet I can find no mention at all of waste crime in the plans, so can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to give the new national police service responsibility for tackling organised waste crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Environment Agency currently has a role in managing waste crime, but I think it is important that we put some focus on the fact that it has become increasingly clear, and this is a relatively new phenomenon, that serious organised crime is behind many of the large illegal waste dumps around the country at the moment. Our effort to improve performance will involve regional and national police forces, regional organised crime units, serious crime, nationally, and the National Crime Agency, over time, to look at how better we can tackle serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis, with support from the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Serious organised crime now manifests itself in illegal waste tips and could manifest itself in drug importation, weapons importation or a range of other things. The key thing is that we have some national co-ordination of regional crime units and national units to look at serious organised crime.
Lord Walney (CB)
The reforms to public order policing in the White Paper are welcome, in particular the commitment to greater data sharing between forces to enable this. Can the Minister confirm that that will include a greater level of intelligence sharing, which was one of the gaps that I found in my review of this wider area that was presented in 2024?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. One of the things we are trying to do is to improve the IT systems and bring them under central control. That means improving data sharing and it also means using new technology, such as AI, to improve analysis of data and to give a central lead to performance measures, to get better outcomes for the community at large.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the Government should be commended for coming forward with bold proposals. It is clear that the existing structures are rooted in a situation from way before we had the levels of mobility, technology and new crimes that are coming forward and taking up so much of the police’s time. Having 43 police forces, therefore, is no longer fit for purpose, so it is good that the Government are showing leadership and taking bold steps. I was very struck by the cautious notes that my noble friend Lady May came forward with and, indeed, some of the dangers that lie here.
There is a lot of emphasis in the White Paper on accountability and performance, and that really is where an awful lot of the opportunities lie here. We are at an inflection point. There is the opportunity for considerable dividends from this, but there are also significant potential risks. I just ask the Minister to give a little more detail to the House about the process of determining what the eventual patchwork will look like—the size of forces, the allocation of resources and so forth. Could he also tell us how the mergers and essential integrations will be carried out without, essentially, dropping the ball? There are significant risks here but, overall, I think the Government are heading in the right direction.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Viscount’s support on this matter. In response to his question about force sizes, we will be announcing a review very shortly, which we hope will be done by the summer. That will set the template for the Government to determine ultimately how many forces there will be and how we begin the process of changing that system accordingly. When parliamentary time allows—in that time-honoured phrase—we will bring forward measures to end the role of police and crime commissioners. This will be done by the time of the next election due for electing police and crime commissioners. In the initial phase we will also look at bringing together IT, forensics and procurement into a national service, but over time. Again, this will require parliamentary legislation to bring together the National Crime Agency and other bodies, including counterterrorism, into that body as a whole.
We also have a separate paper coming forward shortly that will look at fraud, which is currently the responsibility of the City of London Police as the lead force. We will be looking at how we can improve performance on that issue as well. These will not be quick fixes but if I look three to four years ahead, police and crime commissioners will have gone, the new structures will be in place for the new forces, and there will be accountability through the mayors or councils. We will be quite well down the road of the establishment of the wider national police service, bringing in training, national services and the roles of the National Crime Agency and counterterrorism police.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, Robert Peel talked about policing by consent, emphasising public approval, but his key recommendation was crime prevention, and a primary goal was dealing with disorder. He saw that merely punishing crime after the fact was a failure. All the statistics we get are for the number of arrests that have been made or the number of crimes prosecuted. We never get the number of crimes that have been prevented. In this new White Paper, which I welcome strongly, how are we going to get to the position that we have got to in health? A good health service actually prevents people becoming unhealthy. How are we going to get that balance?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s commitment to the proposals in the White Paper. If we look at government policy as a whole, in parallel to that a great deal of work is being done by my noble friend Lady Smith on education, on prevention and on strengthening citizenship in schools. There is a need, through the Ministry of Justice, to look at improving sentencing outcomes and better performance in prisons to stop people reoffending. Through the Sentencing Bill, we are looking at a wide range of community sentences that people could be put into rather than prison. That all has the objective of reducing crime and recidivism and preventing people getting involved in crime in the first place. In this White Paper, we are again trying to have that strong focus on what needs to be done about serious organised crime at the national level. At the same time, we need to focus on building community resilience, improving neighbourhood policing, and meeting the Peelian principles that the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned: the police are the public and the public are the police, and that happens at a local level as well.
On all those fronts, we are trying to prevent and reduce both crime and repeat crime, give the public confidence, improve standards in the police force and deal with significant, severe future challenges in organised crime and international issues such as internet and AI crime. I hope that reassures the noble and right reverend Lord. That is the Government’s plan, and we will no doubt be held to account on it by this House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:20 - Division on Amendment 209 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 132 - Amendment 209 agreed.
22:25 - Division on Amendment 216 (to Amendment 215) - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 216 (to Amendment 215) disagreed.
22:36 - Division on Amendment 215 - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 215 agreed.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Allergy safety provisions in schools(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, all schools in England must—(a) adopt a school allergy and anaphylaxis policy,(b) obtain individual healthcare and anaphylaxis action plans for all pupils with allergies,(c) purchase and store in-date adrenaline auto-injectors on school property,(d) provide training for school staff on allergy awareness and administrating adrenaline auto-injectors, and(e) record any allergic reactions in the pupil’s individual healthcare and anaphylaxis action plan.(2) The Secretary of State must provide guidance to schools on the implementation of subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Bill is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 209 and to support the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for moving this amendment in Committee, as unfortunately I could not stay in the Chamber that night. In turn, I have taken on the amendment because my noble friend Lady Prentis has been unable to take part in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Bennett, for adding their names to the amendment.
As this amendment was debated at the previous stage of the Bill, I will not repeat all the arguments. In summary, it seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England. It marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021 when he was only five. An inquest last year concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable. It was caused by the accidental ingestion of cow’s milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him.
I know that we have heard this before, but I want noble Lords to think about it for a moment. Outside of homes, schools are the setting where the most allergy fatalities occur. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that there are adequate protections for the two children in every classroom who have allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I pay tribute to the work of her Member of Parliament, Alicia Kearns, to other campaign groups and to other families—I know we will hear from noble Lords about this—who, sadly, have been through these tragedies and campaigned so hard. There are also the families who live with the fear of allergic reaction and sensitivities every single day when they send their child off to school or another setting, although we are talking about schools tonight.
The current government guidelines for schools do not mention allergies. There is one line on food and one link to an anaphylaxis charity. We now know that schools do not necessarily have the adrenaline auto-injectors or any plans and training in place. The key aim of this campaign is for schools to have spare adrenaline auto-injectors, trained staff and a proper policy in place. I understand that the Government would prefer any change to be in guidance rather than legislation, as proposed here, but there are strong feelings, as I am sure the Minister and her colleagues are aware, that this would not give the guarantees necessary. Hence the debate on this amendment.
Between 1998 and 2018, 66 children died from allergic reactions. There are 680,000 pupils in schools in England who have allergies. That is one or two per classroom, according to the Benedict Blythe Foundation’s REACT report of March 2024. The Department for Education is rightly focused on the attendance crisis; children miss half a million days of education due to allergy every year. Adrenaline auto-injectors are life savers. The Benedict Blythe Foundation estimates that their rollout in English schools, plus training, would cost only £5 million.
I remember a similar campaign to put defibrillators into every school. That was done. It was, as I understand it, funded by the department, at least initially, so I hope the Minister will address the call for these adrenaline auto-injectors and proper training and policy to be put in place in schools.
I am going to come back to funding in a moment. The reason I sort of ran towards my seat in the Chamber is that I was receiving an email about the costs which I think will be relevant to how we proceed this evening.
I want to say something about the department’s approach to this matter. On 5 August last year, the department said in response to a proposal for a Private Member’s Bill by Chris Bloore MP:
“We do not believe the School Allergy Safety Bill is necessary because in the autumn we plan to bring forward proposals for supporting pupils with medical conditions, including allergies”.
No proposals or consultation were published during the autumn. The House debated this amendment on 16 September, which is almost five months ago. There have been plenty of opportunities for engagement with Helen Blythe, the other campaigners, their MPs and me, but instead a rather rushed round table was convened yesterday morning, and in the last week statutory guidance has suddenly been promised and presented to campaigners to have a look at. If there is going to be statutory guidance, I know that a number of noble Lords will have questions for the Minister, but I seek reassurance from her on two key questions, the first of which is, will the guidance make it clear that it will be mandatory for every school to have spare adrenaline auto-injectors? We will come back to the fact that there could be other treatments, but it is particularly AAIs, and spare ones, not just relying on pupils to have their own, that are critical.
On the issue of central funding, we know that school budgets are squeezed and that if schools are left to find the money, some will and some will not. That is not because they do not care, it is just because there are other priorities. The reason I was slightly running in was that I was being briefed. The current model, which is the total annual spend on additional AAIs that can be reallocated, is just over £9 million a year. The proposed model is £5 million for the total cost of rolling out spare adrenaline auto-injectors to schools nationally, and there are some additional costs for training and programme support. That would suggest a potential saving, as a result of the introduction of Benedict’s law, of £1,000,032.15. We can obviously argue about the pounds and the pence, and I understand that it is not the role of this Chamber to help government spend its money, although we can all have strong views on that; but it is critical for noble Lords to hear tonight exactly how the Government think that policy is to be funded. That has not come up in discussions with campaigners so far.
Earlier engagement would have been helpful, because we would all have had the time to work together to get the wording right on things such as the use of the injections. I understand that there are now needle-free, more user-friendly adrenaline delivery options available, and I would have been very amenable to changing the wording of the amendment, had there been earlier engagement to help us to come to a conclusion about how this amendment could be the best it possibly could be. This lack of engagement is why people are tired of politics. It takes too long to get anything done because no one steps forward quickly enough to say, “We can put this right, so let’s make this sensible change”.
My understanding is that pretty well all noble Lords, I hope, will agree with the overall thrust that we want children with allergies in school and it is right that their parents and families know that there are spare treatments—injections and other treatments—available should the worst happen. Often, the child does not know that they are going to have a reaction so it is not a question of saying that they will have their injections with them. The first time a reaction happens may well be in a school setting. It is also right to say that teachers and schools deserve proper training to be put in place.
Lord Freyberg
“(aa) ensure that the school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy applies to any external catering provider operating on school premises and that such providers comply with the policy when preparing and serving food to pupils,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy must also apply to external catering providers operating on school premises, ensuring that caterers follow the same procedures as school staff when preparing and serving food to pupils.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209 goes to the heart of what families rightly expect schools to do: keep children safe. This is not a novel or radical proposal. It responds to a long-standing and well-evidenced failure of the current system. For too long we have relied on guidance and good will, yet allergy safety in schools remains inconsistent and, in some cases, dangerously inadequate. This amendment matters because it moves us from aspiration to assurance.
Children continue to experience severe allergic reactions at school. Some have died. Families live with the daily fear that a simple mistake—a contaminated surface, a misunderstanding, a delayed response—could be fatal. The tragic death of Benedict Blythe exposed not a single error but a systemic lack of preparedness. His family’s determination to prevent another such tragedy deserves our respect—and action. I also recognise the work of the National Allergy Strategy Group and its member organisations. Its position paper, produced with the Benedict Blythe Foundation, sets out in calm, forensic detail why voluntary guidance has failed.
Schools are under huge pressures, as we have heard, and without a statutory framework, allergy safety too often slips through the cracks. I understand that the Minister met the group yesterday, as we have heard, which is welcome, and I hope she will update the House on the outcome of that discussion and any assurances given.
I became involved in this issue for a simple reason: a neighbour’s child is afraid to eat in his own school canteen because of his allergy. When a child cannot safely eat at school, something is plainly wrong. That quiet daily anxiety is shared by thousands of families. Amendment 209 is proportionate and practical. Without legislation, we cannot guarantee consistent protection for all our children.
The four amendments in my name are probing. I seek reassurance on how the framework will work in practice. Amendment 210 addresses a well-known gap: external catering providers. Compliance with allergen labelling law does not in itself create a safe school environment. Unless a school’s allergy policy clearly applies to caterers and is reflected contractually, responsibility becomes blurred and children are put at risk. There must be no opportunity for third parties to argue that the school’s policy does not apply to them.
Amendment 212 extends that principle to other external providers. Schools, as we know, are busy places and well-meaning third parties can inadvertently introduce serious risk if they are not bound by the same policy. I have heard of a case where a third-party supplier brought a box of sweets into school as a gift, entirely unaware of the danger this posed.
Finally, Amendments 213 and 214 raise a practical question about costs and responsibility. Who should fund adrenaline auto-injectors, and how should supply and replacement be organised? An approach that relies on individual schools risks duplication, inconsistency and waste, particularly where children already receive these devices from the NHS. The same question arises in relation to training to use them. If the provisions in Amendment 209 become mandatory, responsibility for funding and facilitating proper training must be equally clear.
We have done this before. As the noble Baroness has said, the Government funded defibrillators in all schools, because the case was compelling and the cost proportionate. The same logic applies here. I hope the Minister will address these points directly, but, if the drafting of Amendment 209 is not quite right, I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments at Third Reading. What matters is not ownership but outcome. We must not miss this opportunity to put allergy safety in schools on a statutory footing and prevent further, avoidable tragedies. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 209, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, so powerfully introduced. I express my strongest possible support for Amendment 209 and commend the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for making important points in his amendments.
I will tell a little tale of how I got involved in this. Like most people involved in politics, I have encountered around the country parents who say that they are worried about allergies and their child at school. In my case, I was walking down a corridor of this House, past the dining rooms, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation was holding an event to highlight the issue. I was almost literally dragged in to meet Helen Blythe, who has such a tale of horror but a powerful voice to say that she does not want this to happen to any other parent’s child. That is a demonstration of where we have got to today: campaigning works and people can make a difference through their actions. I particularly want to record that.
The case has been powerfully made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cotes, said that there may be further technical solutions to injector pens. We do not need to argue about that. It is about the idea that every school has these instruments, whatever they are, guaranteed to be in date because the law says they have to be, and has teachers and other staff confidently trained to be able to use them in a moment of crisis. That should be absolutely basic. There should never be any question that, when something goes wrong, people are asking, “What do we do?”, “Who knows?”, “Where do we find it?”, “Is the cupboard locked?” We all know that those kinds of things can happen, unless the rules are set down in black and white in legislation. That is why I very much hope we will hear positively from the Minister that the Government are prepared to put this in the Bill, whatever the fine detail, because a child’s life is so important.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a parliamentary ambassador for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.
In doing so, I will not see my youngest daughter this evening, who is severely allergic to peanuts, because of the rather unusual hours that our House sits. I hope I will see her tomorrow evening, Chief Whip permitting, as she will be off to school in the morning very early—and, like the rest of us, I need to sleep sometimes. No doubt she will use this opportunity to ask me to explain, not for the first time, what exactly it is that we do in the House of Lords and why so much of it is done after dark. I very much hope that tomorrow, I will be able to give her the best of all possible answers.
I will remind her that, a few months ago, on 16 September to be exact, rather late that night, along with many other noble Lords who I see sitting here in the Chamber this evening, I was adding my voice in support of an amendment designed to keep children safe—children like her, in fact, who have the misfortune to suffer anaphylactic shock if they come into contact with a small piece of peanut or some other food, as she has twice, frighteningly, done. Along with others, and with the excellent support of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Benedict Blythe Foundation, I argued then that the Government should ensure that all schools have spare EpiPens available in case of such emergencies and that staff are trained in their use.
As the clock ticked towards midnight that night, my noble friend the Minister responded as follows:
“The measures to support children with allergies proposed in this amendment could be achieved without requiring primary legislation; we will consider how we might take them forward”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2187.]
Tonight, I am hopeful that this is precisely what has happened, and that my noble friend the Minister will stand up and confirm that the Government will shortly be issuing statutory guidance setting out in detail how all schools will be required to properly protect children with allergies, and, in particular, that noble Lords will be assured that there will be statutory guidance requiring schools to have effective allergy policies in place, to have adrenaline devices such as auto-injectors available, and that staff will receive mandatory training on the use of adrenaline devices such as auto-injectors. In which case, I will be able to tell my daughter that these late nights can achieve remarkable things, and that it is precisely because of the way the House of Lords works that this has been achieved.
After all, we are talking about an amendment which has strong support across the House, led by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It is supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, among others, who has professional expertise in the subject, and has been encouraged by those impressive charities. To give due credit, we are talking about a Government who listen to the evidence and act accordingly, assuming that I have understood correctly what my noble friend the Minister will announce shortly.
I would still prefer to see my daughter in the evenings more often, but I am happy not having been able to do so on 16 September last year and this evening if the House acts to protect children at school with allergies. She will be happy too, and, in due course, so will thousands of parents and their children at risk of anaphylaxis. What an honour it is to be a Member of this House which can change lives so effectively.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and particularly Amendment 209, in the names of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and other noble Lords who have added their names.
I have a granddaughter, now aged 10, who from birth has been allergic to dairy, eggs and nuts. Through a lengthy medically managed programme she has been able to reduce substantially her reaction to dairy and eggs, but remains extremely vulnerable to peanuts and sesame. She carries an EpiPen, although mercifully she has not yet had cause to use it. These allergies remain a constant concern to her and her parents. Yet I regard her as being one of the fortunate ones. She is conscientious and very aware of what she can and cannot eat, but the inherent risks are heightened away from home, whenever, say, she is at a friend’s house or in a restaurant. Most importantly, she attends a school which has adopted and follows the policies and procedures stipulated by Amendment 209.
I regard these as minimum standards to be followed by schools. They surely should be regarded as best practice. However, it appears that, despite allergy being the most chronic childhood condition in the UK, my granddaughter’s school is in the minority in specifying these protections and our legislation lags behind global comparators. This cannot be right. During term time, children spend most of their waking hours at school. Schools act in loco parentis, with all the legal duties of care that that entails, but current statutory medical guidance, as we have heard, is not specific to allergies. It is vague and open to interpretation. It has created a worrying gap in allergy safeguard provision. Even were this adapted specifically to address allergies, it would remain just guidance. Unless the Minister can assure us otherwise, it would not be mandatory and it is unlikely to be comprehensive, so it would not achieve the step change required. The adoption of Amendment 209, on the other hand, would go a long way towards filling this gap.
I am also fully supportive of Amendments 210, 212, 213 and 214 in the name, principally, of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Amendments 210 and 212 in particular would ensure that external providers, including catering providers, follow a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy. If we are sensibly to mandate schools to have such a policy, for compliance with which they will be held responsible, we should give them the tools to enforce that policy.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it was 19 years ago that I had the privilege of chairing the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into allergy for this House. I remind the House that, even then, we were saying that half of those who died from an allergic reaction had not had any previous serious reaction, and we highlighted the need for adrenaline auto-injectors and the fact that they were not being used effectively. The failure of pens was for several reasons, usually that the injection was not given intramuscularly, there was poor training or pens had passed their expiry date, were being used too late in a reaction or were not available at the time of the reaction. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and of my noble friend Lord Fryberg are incredibly important and are 19 years overdue. We really cannot carry on like this.
There is guidance on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors in schools from the Department of Health in 2017, but it states:
“This guidance is non-statutory”.
It goes on to say:
“The Children and Families Act 2014 requires governing bodies of English schools to make arrangements for supporting pupils with medical conditions”.
The problem is, of course, that the management of allergies is not statutory, and children present with a very wide range of medical conditions, but there are not that many that present the medical emergency that an allergic reaction can present.
The summary states that schools are not required to hold adrenaline auto-injectors. If they do not have one when a child is collapsing, even if the child has their own with them, the risk of that child’s death goes up significantly. The guidance is also very clear that the MHRA expert group from 2020 said that adrenaline should be administered at the first sign of a reaction, and that the risk of delay outweighs harm. I suggest that the cost of delay is absolutely massive and must be properly considered in terms of the cost of providing these pieces of equipment that can be stored, and incorporating training, as we have already heard.
The guidance is very clear: if in doubt, give adrenaline and, if there is no improvement after five minutes, give another dose. Children’s schools must have the ability to recognise allergy wherever that child is and react rapidly, because five minutes is not very long. You cannot run from one side of a school to another to try to find somebody who knows what to do because, by then, tragically, the child may have had a cardiac arrest.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 209, 210 and 212 and declare my interest as the chief operating officer of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.
While some schools manage food allergies well, too many do not and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, expertly put it, with around two children in every classroom living with a food allergy, and one in five food-related allergic reactions occurring at school, the absence of clear policies and consistent staff training continues to place children at risk. These failings also affect attendance and undermine inclusion.
Amendment 209 seeks to address these long-standing gaps. If it is accepted by the Government, that would represent a fitting tribute to five year-old Benedict Blythe, who tragically died from anaphylaxis at school, and to his mother Helen, whose tireless advocacy has brought us to this moment.
Earlier this week, as others have said, Helen Blythe and representatives of national allergy charities met with the Minister for early years to discuss the urgent need for a robust statutory approach to allergy management in schools. The response and commitment from the Minister were extremely welcome and I hope that, tonight, those commitments from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern will be confirmed from the Dispatch Box. At the outset, I shall list quite a few points where confirmation and clarification are needed, so, if my noble friend is unable to cover all these points today, will she commit to write to me and place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see?
For the benefit of campaigners, allergy charities, clinicians and parents and carers of food-allergic children following this debate, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern could confirm the Government’s position on a number of points. First, will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention to address the long-standing and well-evidenced gaps in the management of allergies in educational settings, and that this will be taken forward through statutory guidance?
Secondly, will my noble friend confirm that such statutory guidance will require schools to have a whole-school allergy policy, and ensure that all staff on site receive training in allergy awareness, risk reduction and the recognition and emergency management of anaphylaxis, and that school will be required to hold accessible, in-date, spare adrenaline auto-injectors on site for emergency use?
Will my noble friend also confirm that the Government intend to ensure leadership and accountability for implementation of such a policy, including the expectation that school governors will take a leadership role and that Ofsted will be asked to take allergen management into account in its inspection framework?
On emergency response, will my noble friend confirm that, alongside a requirement to hold spare, in-date auto-injectors, the existing 2007 guidance on the use of AIs in schools will be revised to make it explicit that, where an adult suspects anaphylaxis, they should call 999 immediately and administer the AI without delay, whether with a prescribed or a spare device, and that administration of the second AI will not cause any harm and may be life-saving?
Will my noble friend also confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward an SI to enable schools to take advantage of the new adrenaline delivery devices, including nasal sprays, as they become available?
With regard to policies and training, I support Amendments 210 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Will my noble friend confirm that training and policies are intended to apply to all staff on site, including external providers operating on school premises, and in particular school caterers? Food provision remains a significant risk area for pupils with food allergies. Effective management requires clear systems, and it should be a shared school responsibility.
Lastly, the Bill makes provision for a unique number for every child in England to support the sharing of information for safeguarding purposes. Is allergy data being considered as part of the pilot project in Wigan testing the use of the NHS number as a unique identifier in children’s care? If not, will my noble friend consider allergy health information within that work? Will she facilitate a meeting for me and relevant representatives of charities, including school caterers, to explore this issue further with colleagues in the relevant departments?
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for moving this amendment, and I associate myself with the excellent speeches made in support of it and the other amendments in the group. I also associate myself with the high praise for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I have the highest regard, and for the Benedict Blythe Foundation and the remarkable dedication of Helen Blythe. Her son Benedict was five years old when his milk allergy took his life. A plan was in place, but it was not followed.
My son was five years old when we first discovered that he had a severe nut allergy. We had no idea—there were no signs or indications. He suffered a severe anaphylactic shock and we did not know what was happening to him. His life was saved by our extraordinary good fortune that it took place on a cruise and immediate hospital-level treatment was available. I am profoundly struck that his life was saved by being in proximity to the crucial care that he needed.
For the most severe, like my son, auto-injectors are only a means of providing enough time to get necessary hospital treatment. At that time, if he had had such an attack in school, it is most likely that he would not have survived. Some 30% of children affected have their first reaction at school, the most frequent location outside the home setting. While progress has been made in some schools, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation research has shown, school preparedness for dealing with allergies is dangerously and tragically low, as evidenced by the fact that half of all schools have no spare auto-injectors. However, I stress that auto-injectors are not enough; it is strategy, training and other elements that will ensure that lives can be saved.
The amendment proposes a sensible and comprehensive approach to create the right capacity and capability in all schools. I hope the Minister will provide reassurance that the Government are committed to a mandatory and comprehensive allergy safety policy framework, as set out in the amendment, and either are open to accepting the amendment or can provide details of how these objectives can be achieved.
Lord Storey (LD)
Every child must be safeguarded and safe from harm when they attend school. I remember, 15 years ago, what were called EpiPens. I had never heard of them until a parent came into school and told me about her child who had a particular allergy. We stocked EpiPens—one in each classroom, clearly labelled—and we trained the staff. I remember the staff being fearful, so we stabbed a grapefruit in those days to train ourselves. We did that on our own initiative because we understood our duty of care, but children’s lives cannot depend on individual schools taking the initiative. This must be guaranteed by government policy.
The current system, I am sorry to say, is a postcode lottery. Some children are fortunate to attend schools that are honest about what they can guarantee. Others face confusion, inconsistency and danger. Children have learned from the age that they first enter school to bring their own food to school, to every meal, and to self-administer treatment, because the adults around them are untrained and unequipped.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand how crucial allergy safety is in schools, and access to adrenaline auto-injectors is pivotal. Centralising and co-ordinating policy across education establishments is a much-needed step that would standardise current voluntary safety measures such as the provision of AAIs and provide a universal level of access to all students. That is a principle in Amendment 209, referred to as Benedict’s law, that we support.
It would be remiss of me not to remind noble Lords: half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% of schools do not have the recommended measures of spare pens, training and allergy policies, and individual healthcare plans in place; and 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children or young people in England happen in schools.
This is a critical issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that it was “basic”, the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, referred to it as “best practice”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the cost of delay is “massive”. They are entirely correct.
We also support the principle behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It makes sense that those contracted on school premises should predominantly follow the same policies as the schools themselves. This is all the more important when catering firms are involved, given the obvious heightened risk of allergic reactions to food.
While there should, as always, be an appropriate analysis of the impact on both the taxpayer and the affected firms, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the great importance of these measures. We hope, as many noble Lords have hoped tonight, that the Government see the merit of focusing on this and agree that schools should be safe places for everyone—and that should be non-negotiable.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in concluding this group, I start by paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard on school allergy safety, especially Helen and Peter Blythe, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, in introducing Amendment 209 this evening. The tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and Natasha Ednan-Laperouse are a stark reminder of the dangers of anaphylaxis. We have heard other examples of that this evening, including the personal experiences of noble Lords.
Amendment 209 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools, including policy adoption, individual healthcare plans, adrenaline auto-injectors and staff training. As stated in Committee, schools have existing duties, under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions including allergy.
However, I am pleased to set out the Government’s plans to transform allergy safety in schools and take forward the campaign for Benedict’s law. Before September 2026, we will issue new statutory guidance and we will consult on it imminently. For the first time it will put specific focus on allergy safety alongside other medical conditions. Through statutory guidance, we will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy. This will set out how the school will manage the risks of allergy and anaphylaxis. It will emphasise the importance of whole-school awareness and understanding, grounded in training for all staff. As this training will be set out in statutory guidance, schools will be expected to comply with it.
Schools need to be conscious and active in managing the risks of allergy, and they need to take steps to minimise the risk of pupils coming into contact with their known allergens. We will be clear that pupils with allergy must be fully included in the life of the school, with arrangements to support them on external trips and visits. Our guidance will set out that a school’s allergy safety arrangements need to be managed actively, with a named governor and senior leader. The reports of incidents, near misses and safety drills will provide evidence to review and improve policies.
But no precautions can be perfect. In many cases, as noble Lords have said, children with no history of allergy will have their first reaction while at school, so it is essential that schools have robust emergency response procedures. While many of those with severe allergies carry their own prescribed adrenaline auto-injectors, schools are able to purchase their own as spares. Many do so, but our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so.
This is an important responsibility for schools. Two adrenaline auto-injectors can be purchased at a high street pharmacist for around £150, and many schools already stock them as part of their existing allergy safety arrangements. They must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that schools are able to purchase spares as easily and cheaply as possible.
Strong school-wide policies are essential, but it is equally important to capture key information for each child or young person. Our guidance will be clear that every child whose medical condition requires active management by their school should have an individual healthcare plan which specifies the arrangements that will be put in place. This includes those with allergy.
As others have mentioned, yesterday my colleague, the Minister for Early Education, met sector experts, including members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. We have invited them to help us co-produce our new statutory guidance. We are working quickly so that we can consult and issue new guidance as soon as possible. For that reason, let me be clear that we do not disagree with the principle, the objectives or the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendments, but we are already introducing robust measures to address those concerns.
Amendments 210 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would require schools to include detailed allergy provisions in contracts with external caterers—policy compliance, allergen information sharing, measures to prevent cross-contamination, and actions if an allergic reaction occurs. I recognise the noble Lord’s determination to secure robust safeguards. However, prescribing contractual content through primary legislation is far too inflexible. Requiring catering providers to comply with each school’s individual allergy policy would be enormously bureaucratic and difficult, probably driving up costs to schools. It is also unnecessary. I understand the concern that caterers should be clear about the requirements to protect children with allergies, but they must already provide allergen information and must manage allergens safely as set out in food regulations and in Food Standards Agency guidance.
Amendments 213 and 214, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would make the NHS responsible for providing adrenaline auto-injectors to schools. The NHS already provides devices to individuals on prescription, and regulations permit schools to purchase spare adrenaline auto-injectors, as I have already outlined. As I have also said, that is an important responsibility for schools, and they must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that they can be secured as easily as possible.
Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I believe I have covered the majority of the questions she asked, but I understand that I have not covered all of them. I undertake to write with anything that has not been covered in my response so far.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the considerable and important progress that has been made, thanks to the engagement of the department and my honourable friend the Minister for Early Education with campaigners who have, as we have heard, made an enormous difference to children. Everybody in this Chamber should be pleased to have ensured that, and I commit the Government to—
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I get the impression that the Minister may be about to finish so, before she does, may I just ask her two very specific questions? First, I do not think she has addressed the funding point. If I have missed it, I apologise, but please could she clarify whether the Government intend to back up the statutory guidance they propose by September this year with central funding of those spare pens, training and everything else? Secondly, as I understand it, the Minister said that the draft guidance states that schools “can” purchase AAIs. That is not the same as saying that schools must have spare AAIs. Is the Minister open to changing that wording, or could she just clarify the position? Schools must hold spare AAIs. It is of critical importance, for the reasons we have heard.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the second point, I said that schools are able to purchase their own spares. Many do so, but I said that our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so. The statutory guidance will say that schools should have those spares.
On the point about funding, no, I am not saying that there will be centrally provided funding. I was identifying, by talking about both the cost to schools of buying the adrenaline auto-injectors from high street pharmacies, for example, and the ongoing work with the Department of Health and Social Care, how we will ensure that, by schools using their funding, as half have already done, those auto-injectors are available as cheaply and easily as possible.
I just reiterate, though, that I did say that training would be part of the statutory guidance, as well as an expectation that that training happens across the school.
On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. We have paid tribute to the campaigners; many of them will be watching these proceedings tonight. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, that the House works best when we have the kind of debate we have had on this, and that, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, what matters is not ownership but outcomes.
I think we were all moved by the personal examples that have been shared and the family members who are deeply affected by this. I thank the Minister for the assurances she has been able to give about a mandatory policy and training. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is 19 years overdue and that there are undoubtedly significant costs of delay in treatment for pupils.
Although the Minister has been able to help on the first point, about spare AAIs—although I wait to see the wording—I know, as we all do, that school budgets are under pressure and that when it comes to government commitments without funding there is a danger that they do not happen. The point is that the schools which are committed to doing this will find the money and those for which this is not a priority—they are not going to match the guidance—will find a way to say that they do not have the money to do it. That is a postcode lottery for our young people.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Before the noble Baroness tells us what she is going to do, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to find out what he is going to do with his amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I am sorry for that cliffhanger. I am still learning about procedure after six and a bit years.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
May I just prolong the cliffhanger slightly? I reiterate that I was clear that this is statutory guidance which all schools should follow unless there are very exceptional reasons why they do not. The point that the noble Baroness makes about the postcode lottery is not right because all schools will be covered by this statutory guidance covering all the issues that I identified.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I take the Minister’s point. I understand what she is saying and I know that schools will want to follow statutory guidance. But we have heard the example of the defibrillator rollout: the department was able to find the money. We are talking about money that I think the Government would be able to find. Without government funding behind a key policy, schools will have to think about whether or not they do it.
The other point is that we have heard powerful speeches from the Minister’s own Back Benches this evening, all of which have been in favour of this amendment. I think that the way this House works best is to test opinion. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Prohibition of smartphones during the school day(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, all schools in England must have a policy that prohibits the use and possession of smartphones by pupils during the school day.(2) Any policy implemented under subsection (1)—(a) may provide for exemptions from the policy, or for an alternative policy, for sixth form students, in so far as such exemptions or alternative policies do not negatively impact upon the wider policy,(b) may provide for exemptions for medical devices,(c) is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate, and(d) may, where implemented by a boarding school or residential school, include appropriate guidance for the use of certain devices during other periods in which their pupils are on school premises, subject to such policies safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in accordance with relevant national standards.(3) For the purposes of this section—“smartphone” means a mobile telephone that is able to connect to the internet and whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study;“the school day” includes all time between the start of the first lesson period and the end of the final lesson period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires schools to ban the use of smartphones during the school day.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The decision before us this evening in relation to Amendment 215 is whether we support the Government’s recent policy shift to tighten the guidance to schools about phones or whether we need to amend the Bill to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones in schools. On these Benches, we are absolutely clear that it is the latter. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Cass, who all bring exceptional expertise in this area, for adding their names to my amendment.
I will cover three points in my remarks. First, we need to be absolutely clear what we are trying to achieve with this amendment. As we heard in the debate on my noble friend Lord Nash’s Amendment 94A, on access to social media for under-16s, we need to reset our own and our children’s relationship with smartphones and social media, as smartphones are so often the gateway drug to social media. This is essential given everything we know about the impact of extensive screen time on a child’s ability to learn, to concentrate and to get a good night’s sleep, and on their mental health, as well as the harms that children are exposed to online. Resetting social norms is something our schools can play a crucial part in.
We should be in no doubt about the nature of the harms created by having smartphones in schools, and indeed on the bus, to and fro: photos taken without consent and then sexualised via a nudification app, and that are then traded online; exposure to live-streamed content, including children watching a live suicide on the bus home; and, of course, endless potential for distraction from learning. These harms do not happen with dumb phones; they are specific to smartphones.
The second point that it is important to stress tonight is that head teachers want a ban on smartphones. This sends a clear message about the harms smartphones can cause, it sends a clear message to parents and, crucially, it will result in consistency across our schools. The flexibility inherent in the new government guidance is portrayed positively as giving schools and communities discretion to adopt an approach that suits them best. But the reality for many school heads is that the exercise of that discretion is difficult, and it leaves schools facing off against pupils and parents. That seems to be why the “no see, no hear” policies have taken hold. It is a compromise to placate a vocal, emotional, and at times physically challenging minority of pupils and parents.
Thirdly, we do not believe that the Government’s approach of introducing stronger guidance will work, any more than the guidance we introduced when we were in government did. The entirely predictable result of leaving it to teachers to decide how they wish to tackle mobile phone misuse is that the pupils and schools that need help with behaviour and learning the most will be among those least well positioned to help themselves. By contrast, a statutory ban would provide all schools with a shield against pupil and parental complaints.
Guidance leaves heads exposed to parents who disagree, as it is their decision to make their school genuinely smartphone-free rather than down to legislation. Heads have reported that some parents can become very vocal and at times physically violent. It leaves heads having to spend considerable time and energy on deciding on a policy and then implementing it and convincing parents. As one head reported recently in the Times:
“I’m not exaggerating. I’ve spent hundreds of hours on this”.
When we were in government, we introduced guidance which set clear expectations about the use of phones in schools, but we were also clear that if it was not effective, we would consider moving to a full ban. In reality, after testing this approach in practice, only 11% of schools have effective bell-to-bell bans, so the time has come for legislation to support schools to implement a ban. My amendment would mean that smartphones specifically would not be allowed in schools except for limited exceptions for medical requirements, for sixth forms and for boarders in the evenings, for all the reasons that the House is well aware of. Of course, all phones need to be absent during the school day, but dumb phones or Balance Phones do not have the same addictive properties and do not create any of the problems that we have heard about from head teachers.
We do not support Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It would allow smartphones into the classroom for children with special educational needs and disabilities and would undermine the whole approach. Of course, these children should have access to the assistive technology they need, but not via their personal smartphone.
The point of principle that noble Lords need to decide this evening is whether we want to leave the burden of trying to manage phone use in schools to head teachers or whether we want to take this opportunity to give children their childhood back and start to get smartphones out of their lives. We need to be ambitious. We need to be clear-sighted. This is a prize worth fighting for. I beg to move.
Amendment 216 (to Amendment 215)
Lord Addington
“(ba) may provide for exemptions for assistive technologies that are deemed necessary for a student’s education,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add assistive technologies that are necessary for students' education, to the list of exemptions that can apply to the prohibition of smartphone use and possession.
Lord Addington (LD)
This is fairly straightforward. There is a bit of passion being stirred up and a nice pace, so let us not delay too long. The reason I am suggesting that we include smartphones as assistance to those with special educational needs is because smartphones fit in your pocket and are a great way of carrying technology with you.
Chris McCausland, who noble Lords have probably seen on “Strictly Come Dancing”, did a lovely little programme showing all the assistance you can get if you are blind that can be loaded on to your phone. I, as a dyslexic, have good voice-operated systems that I can carry with me everywhere and use because they are on my phone. It gives you personal independence. It means that you can operate these systems, and we have only just started to scratch the surface. If there is another personal device that does it, I am all ears. I do not know whether there is another one.
You can block social media so the phone itself can be used for other purposes. It is a plastic and metal box that carries technology; it is not the devil’s passport. If we use it correctly, we can change it so that it actually supports and gives independence to a person who otherwise has it restricted from them. I ask all noble Lords in this Chamber: do we want to give independence to those who have disabilities?
This amendment would not solve everything, but it would address certain things. It would make sure that pupils could interact with lessons more easily. If they are restricted to a computer in front of them, that may well be better, but, for instance, they will not be able to take notes quite as easily—as in my case—or communicate quite as easily. The Carers Trust has been in touch to say that it does not like the proposal and would like an exemption for some of the people it is dealing with. This is moving very fast—there might be other groups.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to do but let us not be too rigid and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Technology is a way of helping to give independence, allowing people to access education. Please accept the fact that an absolute ban has downsides—downsides we can avoid. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for a very moving speech there, but I will address his point directly.
This amendment does not object to a child having a basic phone for safety. My plucky 11 year-old son travels to and from school every day with a big rucksack and a violin on the Circle line and the Jubilee line, come rain or snow. It worries the hell out of me every time he leaves the house, and I am not happy until he is back home. That is why he has a Nokia dumb phone in his pocket, so he can call me if he needs to. I confess that he sometimes plays “Pong” on a black and white LED screen when he is bored, but that does not damage his frontal cortex or bring him into touch with predators. He does not have a smartphone with all its nasty algorithms. Until they invent such a box as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite reasonably described, that is what a smartphone contains.
I do not, for instance, allow my son to go to the local pub, the Westbourne, where he might be beaten up. For the same reason, I do not let him on Instagram, with all its bullying. I do not allow him to go to the Ministry of Sound—wonderful organisation though that is—because he will be confronting sexual predators. For the same reason, I do not let him on Snapchat. I do not give him methamphetamine—whizz—or Es, because they are addictive and would mess with his brain, as do TikTok and YouTube reels. I do not, for instance, allow him on X, where he might see internet filth. For the same reason, he is not allowed to go to Soho to watch peep shows.
Toxic digital platforms are designed for adults and are engineered for addiction, fraudsters and predators—and, I am afraid, they are screwing with too many of our children’s brains. A simple device that makes calls and sends texts poses none of these challenges. That is what children should have. That is why schools should be in a regulatory position to ban smartphones during school hours.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken on this issue so many times in this House that I am not going to repeat myself—really—except to say that I have never taught in a school that allows mobile phones either in school or on the way to school. I have taught in some of the highest-performing schools—non-selective state schools that are some of the highest performing for pupil progress in the country—and I do not think the two are unconnected.
We do not need mobile phones in schools. They distract and they disturb. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I am sure we can take a smartphone, take out all the stuff the student needs and give it to them for the day. We do it with laptops for the pupils all the time. We do not need them on the way to school. It is a huge irony that we pack our children off to school with many hundreds of pounds-worth of equipment in their pocket and then worry about their safety. As part of a strategy to build a safe environment for our children online, the first step is very simple: ban phones from schools entirely.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 216 in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington, who has great experience in matters concerning children with special needs, so I fully support his amendment. I shall speak on Amendment 215 on behalf of my daughter, who is a secondary school teacher and has considerable experience regarding the issue of children using smartphones in schools. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that she is fully in favour of this amendment, like so many other teachers up and down the country. Her school has a phone ban and she tells me that it works really well, as it allows teachers to concentrate on lessons and not spend valuable time policing the use of smartphones during the school day.
It works also because it is a great discipline for children to resist the temptation to access their phones during school and lesson time. On the other hand, I have spoken to teachers at education conferences whose schools do not have a ban on smartphones, and they long for that change. They have told me that they spend a great deal of time preventing pupils using phones instead of concentrating on teaching. They express their frustration at how some children cause disruption and are offensive to teachers who tell them to put their phones away. Often, pupils are distracted or bullied and harassed on social media and messaging apps. Girls especially are very intimidated by boys sharing upskirt videos of them and making offensive sexual suggestions. These are some of the reasons why Amendment 215 is asking for a ban on the use of phones by children during school hours.
On arrival at school, pupils will simply be asked to leave their phones in a secure place until the end of the school day. In the event of an emergency at home, the school can be contacted and act on the situation appropriately. Pupils can be taken out of class and given back their phone to contact their home if necessary. Actually, I believe that if a child were to receive an upsetting emergency message on their phone in the class or playground, it could be very traumatic for them to deal with. My daughter told me of a case of one of her pupils whose father passed away unexpectedly. The school was contacted and the child was taken out of class and received pastoral care to help them deal with the distressing news and take in the devastating loss.
We know that the use of smartphones can be addictive and cause mental stress, depression, fear, anxiety and harm, which can be very difficult to deal with, especially in the school environment. Incidentally, this issue very much runs parallel with the current move to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media accounts, which I very much support. It was great to see that Spain announced today that it will bring in an under-16 ban, too. Hurrah!
I urge the Government to accept these amendments, give clarity and make a general policy across all schools, state and private, that phones are banned, except in the circumstance of children with special needs, as highlighted in my noble friend Lord Addington’s Amendment 216. Let us give our children some respite from social media, YouTube and messaging apps during school hours; let us get away from the distractions and harms they currently cause to our children and help those children concentrate on their special education. Because, as my mum always says, “Education is your passport to life”.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 216. The amendment to ban mobile phones in schools was introduced to safeguard children’s well-being, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. But it is therefore imperative that we consider all the ways that a mobile phone can be vital for a child’s well-being and security.
I was recently contacted by a mother of a diabetic child who relies on a mobile phone app to monitor her glucose level and manage insulin treatment. Without that device, her child would be at serious risk. For students who depend on assistive technology, whether for communication, medical monitoring or learning support, a mobile phone is not a distraction: it is a lifeline. We must ensure that, in our efforts to protect children from the harms of excessive screen time, we do not inadvertently endanger those who rely on these technologies to participate fully and safely in school life. This amendment provides the necessary clarity and protection for vulnerable students and I urge the House to support it.
Incidentally, I was contacted today by young carers who need access to a phone because of their caring roles. One young carer said, “I’m not going to go into school, then, because I’ll be too worried that something might happen to the person I am looking after”. So there are nuances to this issue and one of the ways of dealing with them is by supporting the amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Addington.
On the general issue, whether it is teachers, parents or grandparents, everybody has concerns about mobile phones in school. It is interesting to remember what the head of Ofsted said. He said that they had played a part in the ongoing scandal of poor school attendance,
“whether by chipping away at attention spans and eroding the necessary patience for learning, or by promoting disrespectful attitudes and behaviours”.
He also linked mobile phones in schools to the massive increase in permanent exclusions—which, in 2023-24, were up to a record 10,885 children and young people permanently excluded from school—and to the increase in the number of suspensions. I do not know whether they are a direct result of having mobile phones in schools, but clearly Ofsted’s chief inspector thinks that that is the case.
I think a ban will have to be agreed, but I hope that, when this comes back on ping-pong, the Government might clarify some of the ways that we deal with these exceptions, because there are issues as well. If, for example, a child or young person needs their mobile phone to monitor their glucose levels, how will that phone be handed in or given back? Will there be a register for that? It all needs to be thought through but, yes, we need to ban mobile phones in school.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too added my name to Amendment 215 but, like my noble friend Lord Hampton, I have spoken on this issue quite a lot and anyone who would like to know my view can find it in Hansard—reams of it.
However, I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the Government’s current position. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister declare that no one thinks you should have phones in schools and that schools are expected to be phone-free by default. I am particularly pleased because that is a shift in government messaging: in the last two debates on this issue, I was told that the guidance was sufficient as it is and that 90% of secondary schools already have policies in place that work.
I am delighted, but I want to understand what recycling the guidance is going to do to change the experience on the ground for children. Only 15% of children say that phones do not affect their lessons in some way. How will the new guidance help?
My second question is around Ofsted inspections. Ofsted inspects about a quarter of schools each year, so each school gets between three and four years between inspections. I would like to hear from the Minister because I am concerned that, if we pass this today and stick with the Government’s guidance, there are some schools that will not be inspected for another four years. We have a problem in the real world. We will have new guidance, but with a system that will be checked at some time in the future. I am worried that many things could happen in that gap.
Thirdly, I looked at the government website, where Ofsted’s national director of education wrote:
“If a school chooses not to follow the guidance, inspectors will continue to explore the impact of mobile phones on pupils’ behaviour, safety and wellbeing”.
Can the Minister state under what circumstances not having a bell-to-bell restriction would be appropriate, given what the national director of education has said?
Finally, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a little support. I have long advocated for a bell-to-bell restriction, for support for schools to store phones during the day, and for exemptions for children, carers and even for pedagogical reasons—teaching about phones—and for pupils who need assistive technology. But this has taken so long, and we cannot let the exemptions undermine the need to act. If this goes through tonight, will the Government come back with something that is sensitive to these exceptions but does not undermine the purpose of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran? We cannot have an expectation of a phone-free school day, an inspection regime that means that, even if we arrive on this today, some schools will not have seen it in four years’ time, and a policy which the inspectors represent as a choice. This does not add up.
The reason most often given by Ministers against this policy is that it is worse at home. I beg the Government to give the kids a break and eight hours off. The Government are in loco parentis when children are at school. This would be a marvellous thing for the Government to do for parents.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading—which seems a million months ago, but perhaps it is not quite that long—I said that I was not convinced about having a ban on phones in schools. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that I should listen to the arguments.
Whether we agree with online content and what children should access from smartphones is, in a way, a separate debate. There are two main arguments tonight which mean that I will support Amendment 215. First, as we have heard, this should be about supporting good educational outcomes. There is no doubt that having phones in schools is a distraction. We should give our young people the best possible opportunity to concentrate and focus for those eight hours in school.
Secondly, Ministers have said that there is guidance which strongly encourages schools to have policies that mobile phones should be put away. When I speak to teachers and heads, they say that, without something a bit tougher, it is very difficult to police, particularly when parents or families come in and say that there is an exception or why it should not apply. Sometimes they are even very aggressive towards teachers and heads who say that the pupils should not have phones. We should take the opportunity to support education outcomes and those who have to police this policy on the front line by supporting this amendment.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak to this amendment for two reasons. One is that my name is on it. The second is for nostalgic purposes, because the first time I spoke in this House was in a debate that my noble friend Lady Kidron was leading on smartphones in schools. I stood up and spoke in her shadow—nothing changes, more than a year later. My niece was sitting nearby, observing democracy in action. Afterwards she said, “Well, what happens then? Do you just talk about it and then forget it?” I can tell her that we did not forget it and that it is still a work in progress.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to share the experience of schoolteachers, particularly head teachers. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, were on a call earlier this week with three head teachers from different parts of the country and from very different economic backgrounds. Their plea was: “You need to help us, because at the moment we have different policies on phones”. One, interestingly, was banning year 7s from having phones but not others. Another was to say: “Put it away. As long as we do not see it, it’s not a problem”. Others have pouches. A lot of their time is being taken up by a small group of vocal and often aggressive parents who demand that their children have their phones at school. Those head teachers are being distracted from their core duties to deal with this, and they were pleading with us, particularly with this vote tonight, to send a clear message to the Government that head teachers want to teach children rather than police smartphones.
The other thing I want to share is about the harms. We have talked a lot about social media, but often phones in schools lead to further bullying. We all saw a few years back the craze of happy slapping, where young people in playgrounds came behind others and slapped them, and the footage would be used and shared.
There is one other thing I want to share that is very personal. When one of my sons first started at a school in Rotherham, he was very keen to fit in—because we are from Sheffield—and he wanted to make friends. Unfortunately, a small group of so-called friends followed him into a toilet a few moments after he had gone in and, while he was sat on the toilet, they kicked the door in and took footage of him on the toilet. He did not tell me or the family. I got a phone call from a local community centre a week or two later to say, “Shaf, we are horrified by what we’ve seen. We’ve seen footage of your son. He didn’t know what to do, he couldn’t get up, and these kids were laughing. We saw it, and we think you should be made aware”. To their credit, the parents of the two young men who were involved came straight to our house when they found out; they were mortified. The school itself tried its level best, but, I have to say, we had to leave that school, and my son had to go to the other side of Sheffield to give him a fresh start.
There are real consequences. That is why, tonight, I will be backing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the amendment of my good friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Addington, on the requirements for people with special educational needs.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to make just one point, following up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The medical devices exception in the amendment is already provided for. If a more general exception were made for special educational needs—that is already close to 30% of children—the pressure on parents and pupils would be to game this, and the proportion of children with a special needs label would rise to truly stratospheric levels, at which point the phone ban would clearly have no meaning whatever. I urge noble Lords to think about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on other ways to provide the assistive functionality that might be needed.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, very briefly, it will come as no surprise that, when I was going to school, I did not have a smartphone, just like many of you here this evening, probably; we did not have that opportunity.
I fully support the principle of Amendment 215. I find a difficulty, though—this is a follow-up to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—on the policing of this issue in schools. Doing your homework is a requirement at school; not every kid does it. Bullying and fighting in the playground are not allowed, but it still happens. I fully appreciate that the son of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is not allowed a smartphone, but not every young person is accommodating like that: not every young person has the respect for their parents, let alone for their teachers.
It is okay making these laws, but, unless we have some type of policing and enforcement, it will not be of any benefit, because you are going to punish the people who willingly give up their phone when going into school. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, says, “It is okay, they will simply be asked to leave their phone at the door”, but they will not all leave their phone at the door. Some will have a phone hidden. How do we police and manage it? That is my serious question, because I absolutely know that not every young person will willingly do it. What do you do? Are you going to criminalise teachers for not taking the phones? Are you going to criminalise parents for allowing children to go to school with their phones? It is not that simple.
I fully support the principle of the amendment. Let me be clear: I wish phones had never been allowed in school. But the management, policing and enforcement of this is something totally different and it is not dealt with in this amendment or anywhere that I can see in this legislation. I am willing to support this amendment, by the way, but it needs a lot more doing to it before it is finished.
Does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, think that, if those kids had been asked to leave their phones at the door, it would have stopped them breaking into the toilet cubicle with a phone hidden in their sock or down their shirt? This is an incomplete amendment that I am willing to support, but unless something better and deeper is come up with that allows it to be enforced and policed without criminalising teachers and parents, I am afraid it is not going to be of much use.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I have great suspicions about this amendment. It underestimates the operational difficulties of what is proposed, not least because the catchment age of this Chamber does not really allow us fully to experience or understand them. Therefore, I agree with the Government’s contention not to go straight to a statutory measure. However, it would help us if the Government made it plain, in the light of the experience in Australia—which we will be able to estimate in the next few months—Spain and so on, and of the experience of non-statutory guidance, whether they are open to considering statutory legislation somewhere down the line. It would be helpful if we understood that we have an open mind on this.
Lord Nash (Con)
I rise to support this amendment. The Government have, as I understand it, proposed non-statutory guidance that all schools should prohibit smartphone use by pupils in schools. This is indeed a move from their previous position, that most schools are already doing this and thus a firm rule is unnecessary. However, those of us who actually work in schools know that some schools do have a strict, clear smartphone policy which is actually effective. For instance, in my patch, students either cannot bring them with them, or they are taken off them when they arrive and locked away, or they have to go into a locked pouch. We are experimenting with all three to see which is the most effective, but I can say that they have all been highly effective in improving the behaviour and focus of students.
On the point about enforcement, if a smartphone is seen, it is confiscated for a long time. This is a firm and clear policy, and it is working. However, many schools, possibly most, have much a looser policy, rather along the lines of the Government’s now proposed non-statutory guidance: a weak and ineffective policy allowing children to use them in the loos and in the corridors, out of sight. I do wish sometimes that the Government would just admit they got it wrong.
When I was taking legislation through your Lordships’ House—five Acts as a Schools Minister—I took many amendments from Opposition Benches because they were sensible and I agreed with them. Clearly, the Government have moved on this; they accept they were wrong, but they will not admit it. They should go the whole way, and rather than producing some wishy-washy non-statutory “should” guidance, they should accept a clear rule or duty, as in Amendment 215. Teachers want it: they want a clear, firm rule consistently applied across all schools, as do parents, particularly those with children in different schools, who can find different policies very confusing.
I support this amendment because it is clear, strong and effective.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, will you allow me to introduce another voice—a voice that is not of this House? On 18 January 2016, Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life aged 14, said on BBC television that a total ban of smartphones would be wrong. Why? Because he saw that the greatest danger is not mobile phones or smartphones, but social media. You can ban phones from school, but then the children go home and log on to social media.
Social media causes far greater damage because of the algorithms used. Ian Russell was clearly of the view that what is needed is careful thought and for those who know the dangers of both, and the complications involved, to make recommendations to the Government on how to tackle the use of smartphones in schools and the use of social media because of the damage it is causing all our children. I do not think banning mobile phones on its own will deal with the real danger of social media algorithms.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the House is probably keener to hear from the Minister than from me. I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks. It was clarified that there are exceptions in the amendment around medical devices. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of course, we want children with special educational needs to be independent and would be very happy to work with the noble Lord to look at that. But I agree completely with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we risk having one in three children in a classroom then being allowed to have a phone, which I know is not what the noble Lord wants either. With that, along with the rest of the House, I would like to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impact of mobile phones in schools, including the distraction from learning and the wider effects on children’s well-being. For this reason, we have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools.
It was clear from the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that schools can deliver this. Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that the overwhelming majority of schools already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. However, it is also clear that the old mobile phones in schools guidance inherited from the previous Government did not deliver the clarity or consistency that schools need to implement mobile phone-free schools.
Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires schools in England to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones during the school day. As I say, the vast majority of schools already have policies in place that restrict access to mobile phones. The problem, therefore, is one of clarifying the guidance and enforcing those policies. That is why we have acted to address both. On Monday 19 January we published strengthened guidance which is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day and pupils should not have access to their devices. That includes lessons, time between lessons, break times, lunchtime and in the loos. Not only does the strengthened guidance remove any ambiguity as to what effective prohibition of mobile phones looks like, but it includes practical, real-world case studies, demonstrating how schools are successfully implementing and sustaining these policies.
We know that schools need help. Where they do, they can get one-to-one support from the DfE’s attendance and behaviour hub lead schools, spread across all regions of the country, that are already effectively implementing mobile phone bans and have exemplary track records of supporting other schools to improve their practice. We have gone further: to reinforce the importance of effective implementation, Ofsted will, for the first time, check school mobile phone policy on every inspection, with schools expected to be mobile phone-free by default. It will check how effectively these policies are implemented when judging behaviour during inspections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, questioned whether that would be effective, given the, in some cases, four-year gap between inspections. To be clear, Ofsted is one of the most powerful signals that the department gives to the sector on its priorities for teachers and leaders. While not all schools are inspected every year, the prioritisation of mobile phone policy in every inspection will improve policies across the system. From my time teaching, it is my experience—and I am sure it is the same for others across the House, including the former chief inspector—that Ofsted does not have to be on the premises to have an impact on what schools are doing.
We have already communicated these changes to the sector, but I make it clear that schools have our full support in taking this forward. This is a national reset on mobile phone use in schools, and we expect all school leaders, pupils and parents to follow this guidance. But this is not the end of the conversation, and we will continue to listen to the voices of parents, teachers and children on this issue.
I remind the House that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced that the Government will launch a short, sharp consultation on how to improve children’s relationship with social media and mobile phones. This will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Reid, as part of this the consultation will seek views on whether the mobile phones in schools guidance should be placed on a statutory footing, working through the evidence and bringing any proposals forward once these views have been taken into account.
Amendment 215 addresses the issue in a way that the Government cannot support. It is unclear what “possession” is meant to cover. If we define possession too tightly, we create problems for schools. On the radio this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, was praising the use of, for example, sealed pouches as a way to prevent the use of phones but also promoting this amendment. Of course, many schools already use sensible, effective approaches such as sealed pouches, stopping pupils accessing their mobile phones throughout the school day, which is the intention of this policy, but an overly strict definition of possession could make those approaches non-compliant, and we should not undermine what already works.
Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is an amendment to Amendment 215, and requires schools to provide exemptions for pupils who use mobile phones as assistive technology. Our strengthened guidance is clear: exceptions to the mobile phone policy may be required for children with specific special educational needs, disabilities or medical conditions. That includes users of healthtech or assistive technology. For example, pupils with diabetes might use continuous glucose monitoring with a sensor linked to their mobile phone to monitor blood sugar levels. Where mobile phone use allows pupils to manage their medical condition effectively, our guidance ensures that these cases are protected. Where school leaders need to make additional exceptions to or flexibilities in their policies based on a child’s individual needs, we trust them to do so.
For these reasons, and given the wider action the Government are taking to improve children’s relationship with technology, mobile phones and social media, I hope—although I do not have a lot of hope—that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that the Question before the House is on Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so we must first deal with that before we return to Amendment 215.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as it appears that everybody wants to vote on this, I would like Amendment 215 to be in half-decent shape. I think it needs my amendment; therefore, I beg leave to press my amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister says that phones have no place in schools and that the Government want a national reset. I say that we need our amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Barran
“Permanent exclusion: assessmentAfter being informed that a pupil has been permanently excluded from a school or academy, the local authority must carry out an assessment under paragraph 3 (assessment of children’s needs) of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the local authority to undertake an assessment of the needs of the child if they are permanently excluded from school.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments returns to the issue of balancing the rights of children who are excluded from school with those of other children and staff in the classroom. All three of my amendments were tabled in Committee. Before I speak to them, I want to acknowledge the very positive evaluation of the impact of the behaviour hubs programme that was just published, and I thank all those involved.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the statutory Working Together guidance, which says that the local authority and partners should identify problems and unmet needs, including for children facing multiple suspensions or permanent exclusion from school. She referred again to the changes that the Government are making to local authority children’s services with a greater proposed emphasis on early help. Of course, this is how all of us would hope that the system would work but, by definition, when a child is permanently excluded, that early intervention has not achieved its goals.
To take my amendments in reverse order, Amendment 219 would make it clear that there is a presumption against reinstatement in a mainstream school after a child has been permanently excluded twice. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said in Committee, there is good evidence that these children do not go on to thrive in mainstream and are more likely to have their needs met through high-quality alternative provision. We all know that there is not enough of this currently, but that is for a different debate. Perhaps the forthcoming schools White Paper will address it. However, can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to make it clear in future updates of the suspension and exclusions guidance that if a child has twice been excluded from a mainstream school, there is a presumption against placing them in another one?
My Amendment 218 reflects the anxieties that many parents and head teachers have about having a child in their classroom who has committed serious violence or sexual assault. We heard several examples of this in Committee, and the Minister talked about how the Government would,
“trust head teachers to use their professional judgment based on the individual circumstances of the case when considering whether to exclude a pupil, and we will protect their right to do that”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2132.]
However, in Clauses 54 to 56 the Government are strengthening the ability of local authorities to require academies to accept a particular child via a managed move, so we need the clarity that my amendment brings. Again, can the noble Baroness confirm whether that will be in the forthcoming guidance?
In these debates, we rightly focus on the excluded child, but we too rarely speak with equal clarity about the children who remain, those whose learning could be disrupted, whose classrooms become unsafe and whose trust in adult authority is eroded when serious behaviour is not addressed decisively. Exclusion decisions are not made in a vacuum; they are made in the context of 30 other pupils and the staff responsible for them. Any system that weakens the ability of head teachers to act risks failing not one child but many. This is about not giving up on children but recognising when repeated failure in mainstream indicates that a different setting is more likely to meet a child’s needs and keep other children safe.
Finally, Amendment 217 aims to ensure that children who are permanently excluded are guaranteed a proper assessment by the local authority. I understand that schools need to inform the local authority when they permanently exclude a child. Of course, in strong local authorities this results in an assessment, but it is not consistent. I know the Minister understands just how vulnerable a child who is permanently excluded can be, so I hope she will agree to make this assessment a requirement. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one year ago today, on 3 February 2025, 15 year-old Harvey Willgoose was tragically stabbed in the heart at All Saints Catholic High School in Sheffield. It happened in the school courtyard in the lunch break, and the perpetrator was Mohammed Umar Khan. An independent review has been commissioned by the school’s trust on what it calls “missed opportunities” and “too many red flags” about Mohammed Khan’s previous behaviour. Khan’s record showed around 130 incidents of concern relating to violence, anger issues and even carrying weapons, yet somehow teachers did not feel able to handle that. Allegedly—the trust is looking into this—some teachers said that they raised the alarm but were ignored or it was pushed away from them.
It is important that we note that teachers should never be frightened to intervene for whatever reason by asserting adult authority. One problem we have to address is making sure that we do not in any way send a message that teachers cannot have the tools that they need to deal with challenging behaviour in schools. It is therefore important that suspension and permanent exclusions are part of the tools that reinforce and deter serious misconduct across schools, signal that certain behaviours have severe consequences and allow boundaries to exist and be reinforced. That is beneficial to all pupils as well as staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that sometimes we forget those children who are sitting there and are victims of the misbehaving or violent child. It is for that reason that I have added my name to Amendment 217, which would require local authorities to undertake an assessment of the needs of any permanently excluded child. I am sure that one reason many head teachers are nervous about permanent exclusion is that they do not want that to be the end of the educational road for the child and they do not want the child to disappear. It is very important that we do not allow that to happen.
Amendment 218, which probes the Government’s willingness to introduce a presumption against the reinstatement of a child excluded for very serious matters, such as possession of a knife or other weapon, sexual assault or assault against a teacher, would be key in backing up teachers’ ability to be authoritative and feel safe when teaching. Pupils need to be relocated to an environment more suitable to their challenging behaviour and then they should be followed up because we do not want an argument to be used that permanently excluded, difficult, challenging children will end up in the wilderness with no possible options. These amendments cover that really well, and Amendment 217 aims to prevent that bleak outcome.
On Amendment 219, under which if pupils are excluded on two occasions it would not automatically be assumed that schools would have to take them back, I think that is important and I will be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about it, because it could prevent heightened risk to other staff or students. But I also think we should not presume that it is okay simply to move the problem to another mainstream school. It just feels lazy, like moving the deckchairs. More pupils are then put at risk in another school, but the problem is never tackled. They might actually need to be relocated to a more suitable environment.
I should say that, at one point, I taught for several years in a further education setting pupils from the age of 14 upwards who had been excluded from schools in the local area. They were, to say the least, challenging. Many of them had been violent in their classrooms, but many of them had literally just gone from pillar to post, pillar to post, with no particular regard to the issues they had. When they were actually in a special class—I am not saying it was special because I was teaching it—at least it meant that we could focus on the difficulties they had.
My final thought, having sat through a lot of the discussions, is that we need to be aware that the deterioration—and there has been a deterioration—of young people in schools does not come out of a vacuum. We have just heard the discussions and the tensions around mobile phones. We do have to think that sometimes our policies can make matters worse. In that instance, I think that the question that was asked earlier about how we are actually going to police and enforce any ban on mobile phones in schools was worth asking, because the teachers are going to have to police it. That could lead to a lot more tensions.
Also, to refer to an earlier amendment, suspensions and permanent exclusions rose sharply when schools reopened after the Covid lockdown period, with suspensions up by 21% and permanent exclusions up by 16%. Following on from the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in relation to lockdowns, I think we should understand that that period really did damage young people and led to a decline in behaviour. We have to take some responsibility for that.
In general, I think that the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, are a really useful way for us to reconsider how we tackle this issue.
Lord Storey (LD)
Children have a right to learn, and teachers have a right to teach. Permanent exclusion is far more than a disciplinary measure; it is a pivotal moment that can shape a child’s future. Consider the 2023-24 academic year, when almost 10,900 children were permanently excluded in England, with nearly four in 10 due to persistent disruptive behaviour. Without careful support, these exclusions can set children on a path of disengagement, low attainment and tragically increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
We know that exclusions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. Children eligible for free school meals or with special education needs are far more likely to be excluded, highlighting the urgent need for support that is tailored rather than one size fits all. All too often, excluded children simply fall out of the system, their potential left unrealised.
This amendment would require local authorities to carry out a formal needs assessment, ensuring that support is timely, targeted and responsive. Professionals will be able to identify barriers to learning, social or emotional challenges and offer suggestions for appropriate interventions, whether that be reintegration into another school, alternative provision or targeted mental health and well-being support. Whichever route this intervention follows, it is essential, as evidence shows that without such structured intervention excluded children face long-term education disadvantage and reduced life chances.
This is not mere bureaucracy; it is a practical, evidence-informed measure, designed to safeguard children and give them a chance to succeed. It aligns with the Government’s commitment to exclusion and equality of opportunity, recognising that every child has value, talent and potential. It is our collective responsibility to provide a safety net for those most at risk. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, not as a mere procedural formality but as a moral and educational imperative. Let us ensure that no child is left behind simply because they have faced challenges in their schooling.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I will speak very briefly to Amendment 217. I know from my own teaching experience—and anyone who has seen the film documentary “Idris Elba: Our Knife Crime Crisis” will know—exactly how important it is that permanently excluded children are folded into some support system before they are lost to crime or worse. This is a very simple amendment that could save young lives.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The amendments in group 8 relate to the school exclusion framework. We firmly believe that every pupil, no matter their background, deserves to learn in a safe, calm and orderly classroom. Supporting good behaviour in schools is essential to achieving this, and we will continue to back teachers and school leaders in maintaining high standards.
Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to assess the needs of children under the Children Act 1989 whenever a pupil is permanently excluded. Section 17 of the Act already places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. Naming specific groups risks narrowing eligibility and limiting local flexibility.
The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance makes clear local authorities and partners should identify emerging problems and unmet needs, including for children facing exclusion. Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, supported by over £500 million this year, will embed education experience within multi-agency teams. We are introducing a duty on safeguarding partners to ensure education settings are represented at both strategic and operational levels.
Amendments 218 and 219, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to introduce a presumption against reinstating pupils who have been excluded twice and for extremely serious behaviour such as possession of a knife or offensive weapon, assaulting a teacher and sexual assault. To be absolutely clear, no child or teacher should ever feel unsafe at school. Safe, calm and orderly environments are central to the Bill and to our support for schools and teachers, and head teachers must retain the ability to use appropriate sanctions, including exclusions, to maintain safety and good behaviour.
Governing bodies play an essential role in reviewing exclusions and deciding on reinstatement on a case-by-case basis. A blanket presumption of reinstatement would remove their ability to judge whether an exclusion was lawful, reasonable and fair, and could risk limiting a child’s access to mainstream education and opportunities for successful reintegration. For this reason, we do not have plans to change the guidance in the way the noble Baroness asked about. School leaders should use early intervention and multi-agency assessments as soon as concerns arise, to identify needs early and avoid escalation.
The Government are delivering a strong package of behaviour support, including new attendance and behaviour hubs targeted at the schools most in need, and plan to consult on an internal suspension framework to help schools use these sanctions effectively, minimise lost learning and keep children engaged in their education. The Bill represents a major strengthening of safeguarding legislation, reinforcing the importance of safety, well-being and behaviour in schools. Importantly, it aligns with wider action to protect young people from harm, including banning dangerous weapons, tightening online knife sale controls and expanding programmes that prevent youth violence.
For all these reasons, we do not consider that removing governing boards’ discretion through a presumption against reinstatement is necessary or appropriate, and I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for those remarks. They are slightly disappointing, and certainly the Government’s reforms are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. I am not going to press my amendments, but it is with a heavy heart, particularly in relation to Amendment 217. This is not about narrowing the scope of Section 17 of the 1989 Act; it is about saying that these children are children in need, almost by definition, so let us make sure we look at it systematically. But I hope that the Government’s reforms will work the miracle that the Minister believes they will. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 217.
“Child rights impact assessment(1) A Minister of the Crown must prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment in relation to any legislative provision, policy decision, budgetary decision, or other decision of a strategic nature that has or will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing, social care or education.(2) The purpose of a child rights impact assessment is to secure better or further effect of the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).(3) A child rights impact assessment must include consideration of the views, wishes and feelings of children and young people affected by the decision, insofar as the Minister is able to ascertain those views.(4) A child rights impact assessment should be undertaken on all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing, social care or education at the earliest possible opportunity and prior to making final decisions.(5) As soon as is practicable after the end of each three-year period, the Secretary of State must publish (in such a manner as they deem appropriate) a report on the steps taken to ensure that child rights impact assessments undertaken fully consider all relevant articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and are carried out consistently for any legislative provision, policy decision, budgetary decision, or other decision of a strategic nature that has or will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing, social care or education.(6) A report published under subsection (5) must include—(a) an assessment of how CRIAs have contributed to securing better or further effect of the rights set out in the UNCRC in relation to children’s wellbeing, social care and education;(b) steps taken to promote understanding and awareness of CRIAs across government departments;(c) guidance and training provided to government departments to support the production child rights impact assessments.(7) The UNCRC includes the rights and obligations set out in—(a) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1;(b) Articles 1 to 6(1), 6(3) and 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict;(c) Articles 1 to 10 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;(d) any other Optional Protocols to the UNCRC that the United Kingdom may in future ratify.(8) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act are subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom as may be in force at the time.(9) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act should be interpreted in the light of General Comments prepared by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under rule 77 of its procedure and Concluding Observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in response to a United Kingdom report under Article 45 paragraph (d) of the Convention.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers—and thereby government departments—to routinely prepare and make publicly available a children’s rights assessment of the impact and/or expected impact of any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary decision or other strategic decision as they relate to children’s wellbeing, social care or education, and to periodically report on the steps taken to ensure that such reports fully consider all relevant articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and are carried out consistently across government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my fellow signatories to Amendment 221, those who supported a similar amendment in Committee, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, UNICEF UK and the NSPCC for their assistance. I also thank Minister MacAlister for a helpful meeting to discuss it.
In a nutshell, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers to prepare and publish a child’s rights impact assessment—CRIA—on any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary or other strategic decision related to children’s well-being, social care or education, and to publish periodic reports on the steps taken to ensure that CRIAs are being carried out to a high standard.
I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady Blower, who moved this and a related children’s rights amendment in Committee, on my behalf. I am bringing back this one amendment, minus a reference to operational decisions—in response to my noble friend the Minister’s comments in Committee—as a practical and proportionate way to ensure a children’s rights perspective on the issues covered by the Bill.
Crucially, since Committee, the report of module 2 of the Covid inquiry has recommended that
“the UK Government should introduce legislation to place child rights impact assessments on a statutory footing in England”.
This was in response to the inquiry’s finding that children’s needs and rights were not properly considered or understood by the Government during the pandemic, and its conclusion, based on extensive evidence, that the use of CRIAs could have guided better outcomes for children during the pandemic.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister accepted that CRIAs offered policymakers a “valuable tool”, but argued that they should be “effective and proportionate”, and that voluntary rather than statutory CRIAs would be more manageable and less challenging. But experience, including that of the pandemic, suggested that a voluntary approach is not working. Only a small number have been undertaken across government since the DfE’s introduction of a template in 2018, practice is highly inconsistent, there is no oversight of their quality and there is no guarantee that the few that are concluded are published, which is necessary in the interests of transparency and accountability.
Under the previous Government, it was all too obvious when scrutinising relevant legislation that a CRIA had not been undertaken. On the rare occasions when one was finally produced in response to parliamentary pressure, it was nothing more than a post hoc tick-box exercise: a far cry from being a “valuable tool” that would help ensure that children’s best interests were addressed from the very outset of policy-making.
When questioned about CRIAs, other Ministers and officials often point to the inclusion of age in equality impact assessments as being sufficient, but equality impact assessments are no substitute for CRIAs. They do not engage with the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which include taking account of the views of children themselves.
I therefore hope I can persuade my noble friend that a statutory duty to undertake CRIAs would not be the challenging and disproportionate burden on departments that my other noble friend fears. Here I will draw on the experience of Wales, which I learned about at an inspiring parliamentary round table chaired by my honourable friend Helen Hayes MP, chair of the Education Select Committee. The experience of Wales, and indeed of other countries that have mandatory CRIAs, is that they can be easily embedded into existing policy-making processes without a disproportionate impact. Typically, they include an initial screening stage to assess whether a full CRIA is required, so that in practice not every policy is subject to one. They are designed to be light-touch and proportionate. They inform every stage of policy-making and are published in the interests of transparency and accountability. The Welsh Government have developed a manual and comprehensive support system, and I am sure we could learn a lot from this, rather than reinventing the wheel.
The Welsh experience and wider research by UNICEF UK have confirmed that, where properly applied, CRIAs result in better outcomes for children, reflecting their rights as set out in the UN convention, to which we are a signatory. Identifying and addressing potential rights breaches early can help to prevent poor decision-making, saving time, public money and, most importantly, avoidable harm to children. They are thus both proactive and preventive. As it is, though, England is seen very much as an outlier. Do we really want English children to be the poor relation compared with children in Wales and Scotland, or the treatment of Welsh and Scottish children to continue to be dependent on whether or not it is a reserved matter?
The amendment is now supported by the Children’s Commissioner for England and by around 160 organisations spanning a wide range of children’s interests, around 40 more than in Committee. Rejection of it would in effect mean rejection of the Covid inquiry’s recommendation, the need for which has been reinforced by evidence of the children and young people’s module. Acceptance of it would be widely applauded by civil society. It would strengthen and underpin the Bill, ensure that children’s voices were heard in policy-making and provide a lasting legacy to help ensure that children’s rights were properly recognised by future Governments.
If nevertheless my noble friend rejects the amendment, I remind her of what my noble friend Lady Smith said in Committee when she acknowledged that CRIAs provide
“an important toolbox of ways in which policymakers can be, rightly, driven to consider the rights of children … We need to improve the way in which we use that toolbox across government”.
She finished with the very welcome assurance that
“we will continue our work to ensure that child rights impact assessments will be delivered across government and that children’s rights and interests will be at the heart of decisions made by this Government”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; cols. 2430-32.]
Could my noble friend now tell us what steps exactly the Government are taking to achieve these aims, and could she give a commitment that they will evaluate the effectiveness of this voluntary approach with a clear timeline to inform their formal response to the Covid inquiry’s recommendation? This should be done in partnership with the key organisations that have worked hard on this amendment. It would show the way for the introduction at a future date of statutory CRIAs, as recommended by the Covid inquiry, so that children’s rights in England are protected and promoted as well as in Wales and Scotland.
I will conclude with the words of Ben, a 13 year-old boy who is following the Bill, who was quoted in Committee and who wrote to me again last week:
“I think the CRIA amendment would make a significant difference to children’s lives ... For me personally it would feel good to know that the government is taking my concerns and the concerns of other children into account when they come to pass the Bill”.
I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 221, cogently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to place child’s rights impact assessments on a statutory basis for the purposes referred to in her amendment.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the
“shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; col. 2429.]
Last week, in answer to a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, described the UNCRC as
“an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; col. 764.]
There is therefore no doubt about the Government’s stated intentions and commitment, but those make it only more difficult to understand why there has been a reluctance to act on the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, as long ago as 2023, for stronger national frameworks with greater efforts to embed child rights into law by full incorporation. That would be the best way to maintain and raise standards, enhance accountability, and show that children’s rights are regarded as truly important and should have a strong influence on decision-making.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too have added my name to this important amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and indeed with the late great Judge Munby, that a full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the gold standard to which many of us campaigners have long aspired. Tonight, however, we are talking about just one little part of it—a very important part.
Devolution has often allowed the devolved nations and regions to do something different and more adventurous—to show the way. Wales and Scotland have done just that, particularly in relation to children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said in her opening speech, both Wales and Scotland already have a mandatory system of child’s rights impact assessments. As a resident of Wales, I will say a little more about how it works there, though I also congratulate Scotland on its approach.
Over the years, in discussion with former Minister Edward Timpson and former Minister Zahawi, sometimes accompanied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, if I remember correctly, I have promoted CRIAs for the sake not only of the children themselves but of effective and efficient government. In similar conversations today, I could have now called in aid the fact that, in Wales, research has shown that CRIAs, where properly applied, result in better attention to children’s rights under the UNCRC and better outcomes for children. Crucially, in the interests of efficient government, they help to prevent complex and expensive litigation later when things go wrong. These proactive and preventive measures can ensure that we get it right first time; surely, that is what we all aspire to do in making policy.
The recent debate on the regular report of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales showed how deeply the language of children’s rights has permeated parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the Senedd. Over 250 CRIAs have already been carried out, covering multiple areas. They have not been found to be disproportionate, as the Minister seemed to think in Committee when she said that voluntary arrangements would be less challenging and more manageable. As a matter of fact, I think they should be challenging. However, as with the Welsh laws on mandatory reporting of child abuse, the CRIA system has been implemented in a way that is both sensible and proportionate, with a screening procedure at the start, which indicates whether UNCRC rights are engaged by the policy under discussion.
Many years ago, I had a discussion with officials at the DfE about how the Government prepare for their five-yearly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, according to their obligations under the convention. There appeared to be no system at all, resulting in a bit of a scramble every five years when the report date was looming. I pointed out that if CRIAs were done and recorded routinely, not only would they produce better policy but they could form the foundation for the regular report without a lot of fuss. By the way, it would certainly result in more favourable concluding observations in the Committee’s final report. I am afraid we really are an outlier in several respects.
However, although a template was produced in 2018, soon after Minister Zahawi took over from Minister Timpson, they have not been routinely used, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. For the reasons that I have outlined, this is a missed opportunity. I hope the Government will have a rethink in line with Amendment 221.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we admire the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her relentless focus on this issue, which is obviously well intended. But as we made clear in Committee, we are not in a position to support this amendment. Our reservations stem from the belief that its remit would extend to every ministerial decision that may have, either directly or indirectly, an impact on the well-being of children. It may add an additional legal layer of bureaucracy to a legislative process that is, unfortunately, already weighed down and could therefore hinder the decision-making process. While it is no doubt intended to improve the well-being of children, it has the potential to be detrimental to swift and decisive action in the best interests of children, and for those reasons we are not able to support it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would place a duty on Ministers and officials to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, in relation to all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will impact on children’s well-being, social care or education prior to the decision being taken.
I restate this Government’s continued commitment to upholding children’s rights and the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We continue to work closely with key stakeholders that advocate for the rights of children. As stated in Committee, members of the department meet quarterly with representatives from children’s rights charities, providing Ministers and officials with opportunities to hear directly from experts in the sector, helping us to put children’s rights at the heart of policy-making.
We agree that impacts on children should be carefully assessed as part of policy-making; however, such an amendment is unnecessary, as upon ratifying the UNCRC in 1991, the UK Government made a commitment to give due regard to the UNCRC when making new policy and legislation. Compliance is demonstrated through the periodic reporting process every five years when the Government report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress the UK has made in upholding children’s rights.
To pick up on the points about devolved Governments, powerfully made by different contributors—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly wanted to speak about Wales—as we say, these are devolved matters. Devolved Administrations are free to develop their approach to children’s rights and we are confident that the UK Government’s approach fulfils our duties under the UNCRC. This Government are committed to being child-centred and will continue to put children at the heart of our decision-making. We will continue to assess the impact of the devolved Governments’ changes, including the duty on their Ministers to complete child rights impact assessments for relevant work.
Safeguarding children’s rights is of utmost importance, but assessments should be effective and proportionate. Introducing a statutory requirement for Ministers and officials to prepare and publish CRIAs for all measures that affect children would be a significant undertaking. Government departments will continue to complete CRIAs where necessary, including on this legislation, which has been published and will be updated. The Covid inquiry noted that where mandatory arrangements are in place, for example in Scotland and Wales, CRIAs were not completed.
Furthermore, we have heard the strength of feeling on this matter in this House and in subsequent engagements, including between the Minister for Children and Families and my noble friend Lady Lister. My department will therefore be upskilling officials across government on the importance of children’s rights in policy-making. This includes delivering training to officials across government on the importance of children’s rights and supporting the completion of the CRIAs when developing policies or legislation that may impact on children and young people.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who spoke in support of the amendment. I am disappointed with my noble friend’s response, although I welcome what she said about upskilling officials. I hope that that will be done in conjunction with the stakeholders to whom she referred, with whom the Government have had regular meetings, because those very stakeholders are behind this amendment, and they clearly do not think that what happens at present is sufficient.
I am disappointed that it is not possible to accept the recommendation of the Covid inquiry now. I am glad, obviously, that it will have to be looked at and there will be a formal response, but here was an opportunity to do something about it. These Bills do not come along that often, so, even if the Government do accept the Covid inquiry’s recommendation for statutory CRIAs, when will that become law?
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child regularly recommends that we produce CRIAs, so, clearly, it does not think we are sufficiently meeting the requirements of the UN convention. It is simply not enough just to have signed up to the convention. But it is late, and I know people want to get home—I do—and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Storey
“National tutoring guarantee(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report outlining the steps necessary to introduce a national tutoring guarantee.(2) A “national tutoring guarantee” means a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure access to small group academic tutoring for all disadvantaged children who require academic support.(3) A report published under this section must include an assessment of how best to deliver targeted academic support from qualified tutors to children—(a) from low-income backgrounds,(b) with low prior attainment,(c) with additional needs, or(d) who are young carers.(4) In preparing a report under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—(a) headteachers,(b) teachers,(c) school leaders,(d) parents of children from low-income backgrounds,(e) children from low-income backgrounds, and(f) other individuals or organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.(6) Within three months of a report under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take steps to begin implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining the steps required to introduce a national tutoring guarantee, and to begin implementing its recommendations.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 222 in my name. This would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining the steps needed to introduce a national tutoring guarantee and to begin implementing its recommendations. I brought this recommendation forward because the Covid-19 pandemic exposed and worsened education inequalities. Many pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, were left behind. Without targeted support, these gap risks become long term, limiting life chances and future opportunities.
High-quality tutoring has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to help pupils catch up. That is why the national tutoring programme has played such an important role since 2020. In the 2023-24 academic year alone, the programme delivered 1.5 million courses and reached approximately 1.7 million pupils across England. Around 45% of these pupils were eligible for free school meals and 28% had special educational needs. These figures show that the programme has successfully targeted some of the pupils who need it most. However, they also highlight that, despite this reach, the support remains temporary and unevenly guaranteed.
That is why a national tutoring guarantee is so important. My amendment would require the Secretary State to set out a clear plan for it and begin implementing it without delay. It would ensure that access to high-quality tutoring is equitable, consistent and based on evidence rather than dependent on local decisions or temporary funding. A national tutoring guarantee would mean that no child’s opportunity to catch up is determined by postcode or parental resources. It would demonstrate that the Government take seriously their responsibility to support pupils at risk of falling behind.
We know that gaps in learning can have lasting consequences that affect exam results, life chances and employment prospects, making this not merely an educational measure but a vital investment for our young people. For these reasons, I commend this amendment to the House and urge sending a clear message that every child deserves the opportunity to succeed, regardless of the circumstances that they face.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 243E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard. It is late, and I promise to be brief.
In Committee, a cross-party group of Peers spoke in support of an amendment that would have guaranteed a place on an apprenticeship to every 16 to 18 year-old who wanted it. Such a guarantee would have improved the supply of skills in this country at a time when they are needed more than ever, not least because of the Government’s success in curbing immigration. It would have enhanced growth and, more important still, improved the lives of young people who struggle with the academic education system.
Sadly, the Government were unable to support the amendment at that time. However, I was grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for the positive spirit in which she responded. Since that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I have had constructive meetings with DWP officials. We have therefore sought to soften the amendment to bring it into line with what Ministers and officials have said to us.
We are mindful that resources are finite, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I have redrafted the original amendment to take this into account. All we are asking now is for the Government to endorse the principle that they will prioritise the provision of sufficient apprenticeships for qualified 16 to 18 year-olds as soon as resources permit. In effect, we are asking for the Government to sign up to the principle of a guarantee, not to its immediate delivery.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is unable to be here today due to a long-standing engagement, but he has asked me to make three very short points. First, by the age of 18, one in three of our young people have ceased to receive any education or training. This proportion is much higher than in any comparable competitor country and is terrible for our productivity and the prospects of these young people.
Secondly, it is not these young people’s fault. Most of them would like to learn while earning, but the opportunities are just not there. Three times more people apply for apprenticeships than the number who obtain them. This is totally different from the university route, where nearly all applicants find a place.
Thirdly, the top priority in education policy should therefore be to ensure that there are enough apprenticeship places up to level 3 for all qualified applicants. That is what this amendment proposes. This is a hugely important issue that relates to one of the greatest problems facing our country. I hope that the Minister agrees that this should be put into law, but, if she cannot, can she at least make an oral commitment to this principle?
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 241 in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a report on the educational attainment of school-aged children with a parent in prison. This is a focused and proportionate amendment. It does not prescribe policy. It does not require new programmes or spending. But it does seek to ensure that we understand properly the scale and nature of the problem before us.
During the progress of this Bill, there has been extensive discussion about vulnerable children, about those facing disadvantages and about the barriers that prevent too many pupils in our schools from fulfilling their academic potential. Children with a parent in prison are one such group. They are often invisible in our data, our systems and our schools.
I should make the House aware of my interest as a trustee of the national charity, Children Heard and Seen, which supports children and families impacted by parental imprisonment in their own community.
It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children in England experience parental imprisonment at some point during their childhood. Evidence suggests that these children are more likely to experience disrupted schooling, lower educational attainment, poorer attendance and higher levels of emotional and behavioural difficulties. Despite this, there is no comprehensive national assessment of how parental imprisonment affects educational outcomes, nor a clear understanding of what interventions within the school system work best in mitigating these harms. Without this data, schools may struggle to identify affected pupils, local authorities may fail to plan appropriate support and national policy risks overlooking a group of children who face significant but often hidden disadvantages.
This amendment simply seeks to address that gap. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to commission a report on the educational attainment of school-age children with a parent in prison and to make recommendations as to how their attainment could be improved. Importantly, it would also require this report to be published and laid before Parliament, ensuring transparency and enabling informed scrutiny and debate. This is not about labelling children, nor about lowering expectations. On the contrary, it is about honestly recognising barriers so that they can be effectively addressed. Schools cannot support what they cannot see, and policymakers cannot act confidently without a robust evidence base.
Education is one of the most powerful interventions we have to improve life chances, break cycles of crime and help children facing adversity to fulfil their potential. For children affected by parental imprisonment, school can provide stability, routine and a sense of normality at a time of upheaval. This can happen only if schools are aware of the specific challenges these pupils face and are equipped with the knowledge and tools to respond appropriately. By increasing awareness and understanding within the education system, this amendment would help to ensure that pupils affected by parental imprisonment are not inadvertently overlooked and are given the best possible opportunity to succeed academically.
This amendment is modest in scope, measured in ambition and entirely consistent with the aims of this Bill. I ask only that we shine a light on an issue that too often remains overlook and that we base future policy on evidence rather than on assumption. If we are serious about improving children’s well-being and about breaking cycles of disadvantage, then we must be able to understand the experiences of all vulnerable children, including those with a parent in prison. I hope that the Minister will share the ambition in Amendment 241 and recognise that it is a constructive step towards better outcomes for a group of children who deserve greater attention and support.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 243 deals with climate mitigation and adaptation. It would make statutory existing government guidance that new school buildings must be both net zero in operation and adapted to 2 degrees of warming, and would require the Government to produce a safe and resilient schools plan, laying out how existing school buildings would meet these targets.
One issue is that the Government do not seem to know the scale of the problem—for instance, the department does not hold information about the amount of lost learning time due to flooding. We have done a bit of research on the impact of extreme weather recently. Storm Chandra in late January caused 80 schools to close or partially close in Devon, Dorset and Somerset. Over 400 schools closed in Northern Ireland on 27 January due to weather, and Storm Goretti caused at least 278 schools in northern Scotland to close. That adds up to hundreds of lost school days across the UK. Of course we expect some of this—we cannot get around the snow—but my point is that weather events are increasing, and we could risk losing a lot of learning days, not to mention the soggy books and school equipment that are left behind.
The UK has no statutory reporting system, and what data exists is only at the local authority level; it is primarily for parents, not for anything strategic. Can the Minister commit that the department will start to track this centrally so that we have some kind of usable data?
The wider issue is that we lack a plan for how to deal with what is coming down the road. Everyone knows that climate change is getting worse, and we need a climate adaptation plan for schools. It needs to come from central government, otherwise we risk creating a multitiered system, where some schools do better and some do not. Probably, almost inevitably, it will be the poorest schools that end up being closed when there is a bad flooding event.
We have a template to follow; a few years ago, the Mayor of London commissioned a report which tailored plans for 60 schools. Many of the solutions were very simple, such as flood doors, shading and ventilation windows, which could be deployed widely and cheaply. The London report found that 93% of schools in the capital reported overheating as an issue, 78% said that it had a significant impact on learning and 43% experienced it multiple times or continuously through the summer term. Yes, London is relatively dry or hot and there will be different issues, largely flooding, in areas like the West Country. But the climate science shows that we are getting hotter summers and wetter winters, and that will only increase.
I know that there will be costs but, as with all things connected to our changing weather system, it is much cheaper to act now than later. As a starting point, will the Minister consider asking schools about this as part of annual surveys, and commit that the department will assess any plans that schools have made and issue general overall guidance on what to do? On the basis of these bits of information, I suspect that it will become abundantly clear that what we need is a Department for Education led safe and resilient schools plan.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 243A, I declare my interests as the director of the Free Speech Union and a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust.
The amendment would stop safeguarding policies and procedures in schools being misused for political purposes, a prime example being the recent cancellation of a talk by the Labour MP Damien Egan at a secondary school in his Bristol constituency, on the grounds that allowing a vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel to speak posed a safeguarding risk to children. The Bristol branch of the National Education Union said on its Facebook page, after Mr Egan was no-platformed:
“We celebrate this cancellation as a win for safeguarding”.
In another Facebook post, the Bristol branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign also described Mr Egan’s ban as a win for safeguarding.
At the Free Speech Union, we have come across numerous examples of school safeguarding policies being weaponised by political activists to silence their opponents, whether visiting speakers or members of staff. For instance, the Free Speech Union recently took on the case of a teacher in Henley who was referred to the local authority designated officer—LADO, the official in charge of investigating safeguarding concerns—because he showed his A-level politics class some Trump campaign videos from the 2024 presidential election. The teacher was accused of causing his A-level students, aged 17 and 18, “emotional harm”. In one document, local officials in charge of child protection suggested that the showing of the Trump campaign videos could amount to a “hate crime”. Incidentally, he also showed the students in his A-level politics class some of Kamala Harris’s campaign videos, but those did not raise any safeguarding concerns.
In another Free Speech Union case, a teacher at a primary school in Tower Hamlets was sacked and referred to his local child protection board after telling off some Muslim boys for washing their feet in the sinks in the boys’ lavatories. I could go on.
Safeguarding policies and procedures were put in place to protect children from abusive parents and sexual predators, yet the weaponisation of these policies by political activists risks local authority designated officers and local safeguarding boards not taking genuine concerns seriously. That in turn endangers children’s safety. It is hard to think of a more cynical form of political activism—but, of course it has the desired effect. What MP who is sympathetic to Israel in its war with Hamas will risk arranging a visit to a school in his or her constituency knowing, ahead of time, that they could end up being no-platformed and branded a safeguarding risk to children?
Amendment 243A would put a stop to this mischief. It says:
“When making safeguarding assessments or investigating safeguarding complaints in relation to teachers, visitors or volunteers in schools and other educational settings, no account may be taken of the political views expressed or presented by the subject of that safeguarding assessment or complaint, provided those views are not … unworthy of respect in a democratic society … in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or … affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”.
We urgently need to stop this cynical weaponisation of policies and procedures that were put in place to protect children from predators and abusers, not unfashionable political opinions.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to signal my support for Amendment 243E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. I added my name in Committee, and I am very sorry that, sadly, I missed the deadline for adding it on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, set out very clearly the purpose of this amendment and I do not want to repeat that. I just think it is very telling indeed that three times as many people apply for apprenticeships than the numbers who obtain them, and that is just because the places are not available. Just think how different that is from the university route, where nearly all applicants find a place. For me, it is fundamentally an issue of equity and parity of treatment for all young people.
We have seen the number of under-19s starting apprenticeships fall by more than a third since the apprenticeship levy was introduced. This amendment, as has been said, has been very carefully recrafted by the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Macpherson, into something which I hope very much goes with the grain of what the Government are trying to achieve. I therefore very much hope that we will hear something positive from the Minister on it.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my other amendment in this group, Amendment 243B, but I will just add a few words on Amendment 243E, following on from my noble friend Lady Tyler’s comments. We are in danger of abandoning an entire generation of young people who do not follow the traditional university route. While apprenticeship places at levels 5 and 6 continue to expand, opportunities at levels 3 and 4 are shrinking. This surely is a cruel paradox. Young people who have university degrees will be able to access higher-level apprenticeships. Meanwhile, those who most need levels 3 and 4 to begin their careers—16 to 18 year-olds without prior qualifications—are left stranded. These young people are not lacking in ambition or ability. They simply seek a different path—one that is rooted in practical skills and real-world experience. Yet we are closing the doors in their faces at the very moment that they are ready to step through them.
We saw at first hand the transformative power of apprenticeships for young people who thrive outside traditional academic settings. This amendment would ensure that, as we develop apprenticeship policy, we do not forget the young people who need these opportunities the most. It is about fairness, opening pathways, and giving every young person, regardless of whether they go to a university, a genuine chance to build a meaningful future. I urge the House to support it.
On my Amendment 243B, we know that schools are not VAT-rated, and that sixth forms in schools are not VAT-rated. Then along came the academisation of our schools, and a very clever move was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—I hope I am not using his name in vain; he is not here—who saw a very quick way to enable sixth forms to become part of multi-academy trusts. So, guess what? The sixth forms that chose to go into a multi-academy trust were not VAT-rated. Those poor sixth forms who decided to stay on their own and not be swallowed up by a multi-academy trust are VAT-ed: they have to pay VAT. How unfair is that?
The average stand-alone sixth-form college turnover is around £15 million, and it spends 80% or more on staff, examination fees, food and depreciation, which does not attract VAT. So a 20% refund on what remains would save them about £500,000. But, of course, would it be unthinkable that the DfE would bring sixth-form colleges into Section 33: in other words, they would not be VAT-rated but would not be FE colleges? Imagine what that extra money would do to attract students and further the skills agenda that is so important to the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us clearly why these stand-alone sixth-form colleges cannot be treated in a fair and equitable way, like sixth forms in schools or sixth forms in multi-academy trusts.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging group and we thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions.
Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is indeed well intentioned and highlights important issues, but we hold reservations that a national tutoring guarantee may risk diverting resources and overstretching teachers. It would be our preference for schools themselves to decide whether a tutoring programme works and then to identify the most suitable approach for their pupils. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his approach, but we are not able to support him on this particular amendment.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mott, it is clear that more needs to be done to support children with a parent in prison. If we understood it correctly, the Minister previously suggested that the Government were undertaking an analysis between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice to address this issue. We would be most grateful if the Minister could update your Lordships’ House on what that work is which is being undertaken, and when actions will be evidenced to answer the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mott.
Regarding Amendment 243 in the name of my noble kinswoman, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, schools should absolutely be safe and resilient, and we seek assurance from the Minister that the Government have this covered.
We welcome Amendment 243A the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is clear that we should not allow safeguarding procedures to be misused for individual political preferences and means. It is entirely correct that this is given the full weight of the law if it is not consistently applied by both teachers and heads. We thank my noble friend Lord Young for his commitment to this issue and urge the Government to stand united on it.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I think I win the prize tonight for the most wide-ranging set of amendments that could possibly come together in one group.
I turn first to Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I appreciate the noble Lord’s arguments, which were also put forward in Committee. I thank him for raising them again. However, my view on this remains the same: schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option. Although the national tutoring programme has ended, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, which can be used to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this proposed amendment. Guidance based on evidence gathered through the programme is available to support schools to deliver tutoring.
In addition, the noble Lord may be aware that on 26 January the Department for Education announced plans to co-create AI tutoring tools with teachers and leading tech companies. This programme will develop and robustly test our AI tutoring tools so they are safe and work for pupils, including the most disadvantaged, and school staff to complement high-quality, face-to-face teaching. We need to have confidence that schools are best able to go forward and use their resources appropriately.
On Amendment 241, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns about the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. We had a good discussion in Committee and we have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. We welcome the intent of this amendment and assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to determine how we can best identify all children affected, not just those of school age, sensitively and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive.
I think that emphasis on sensitivity is crucial here. I stress what I have said before, which is that we must not make any assumptions in this area about the experience of individual young people and must make sure that their needs are met across the board. It is a complex picture and our approach is to make sure that we link to a consistent nationwide support offer. We are working through the details of exactly how we can do this. Sharing information and increasing awareness have to be fundamental measures that we look at in this. While I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I hope he recognises the seriousness with which we take this subject.
Amendment 243, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and for action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I can confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net zero carbon in operation, designed to be climate resilient to a two-degree centigrade rise in average global temperatures and future proofed for a 4% rise, and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and promote biodiversity. The DfE’s sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan. This is supported by the Climate Ambassadors Network, which provides free expertise to schools.
The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in the setting’s climate action plan. As I say, guidance has been published, and I hope that schools are aware of the programme of support that is available to help them put the plans in place, with the sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education from the department. The requirement for a climate action plan has also been included in the recently updated estate management standards. This policy is designed to ensure that action is taken at a responsible body and/or setting level to ensure that children and young people are prepared for a changing future and that sustainability and climate resilience is built into the operation of the setting.
Turning to Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment: to prevent safeguarding procedures being misused for political purposes. The Government cannot support it, however. Safeguarding teams must be able to consider all relevant information to keep children safe, and restricting their ability to take account of political views would make that vital work harder. We recognise the difficulties that schools face when making decisions that require consideration of safeguarding and security risks alongside political impartiality and freedom of speech. However, we can all agree that the fact that my honourable friend Damien Egan MP was unable to visit a school in his constituency was a completely unacceptable situation, and I think it triggered, in part, the amendment. All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency without any fear of antisemitism or prejudice.
Ofsted has inspected the school in question and found no concerns, but it is also vital that we fully understand the circumstances of this case. That is why the Secretary of State has asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened so that key lessons can be learned. The Secretary of State has also announced an independent national review to help ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems, processes and support available to identify and respond effectively to antisemitism and related issues, as has been outlined. It is important that we do not pre-empt those reviews, and the DfE will of course continue to look at all schools and colleges across the board through the lens of the work they are doing.
On Amendment 243B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I am aware that the VAT status of all further education colleges is an area of continued interest for the sector. Colleges are unable to reclaim VAT incurred on their non-business activity, which includes providing free education. The Government operate VAT refund schemes for local authorities, including the schools they maintain, and for academies. These are variously designed to prevent local authorities needing to raise local taxes to pay for their VAT costs, and to support schools to leave local authority control by ensuring equal VAT treatment between schools and academies. Colleges do not meet the criteria for either scheme. In relation to business activity, colleges enjoy an exemption from VAT which means that they do not have to charge VAT to students but cannot recover it either. I stress that tax is a matter for the Chancellor, who takes decisions at fiscal events in the context of the broader public finances.
Amendment 243E stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, for laying out its content and for the work he does with my noble friend, who is regarded as a real champion in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for their comments. The amendment seeks to ensure that every eligible young person aged 16 to 18 in England who wishes to start an apprenticeship at level 3 or below has the opportunity to do so.
This amendment is in the context of an incredible drop-off in the number of people starting apprenticeships, and the unforgivable rise in the number of young people who are NEET across the whole of the country. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Layard is such a champion of apprenticeships, and this Government share his ambition to support more of these opportunities for young people. For this reason, we are investing in young peoples’ futures and rebalancing apprenticeships back towards young people, who obviously have the most to gain from apprenticeships, regaining their confidence, against the backdrop of the fall in starts over the last decade.
Since we last spoke in Committee, we have announced our ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, backed by an additional £725 million of investment. We will expand foundation apprenticeships into sectors where young people are traditionally recruited, exploring occupations such as hospitality and retail. We are making £140 million available to pilot new approaches to better connect young people, especially those who are NEET, to local apprenticeship opportunities. From August, apprenticeship training will be completely free for SMEs who hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24.
We also continue to provide a range of financial support to encourage employers to offer apprenticeships to young people. We provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, or eligible 19 to 24 year-olds. Employers receive additional payments of up to £2,000 for eligible foundation apprenticeships. Employers are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance for all apprentices up to age 25.
However, we have to recognise that apprenticeships are jobs, first and foremost. We cannot compel an employer to hire—it must remain for employers to decide when they offer apprenticeships to meet their skills needs.
With those comments, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tarassenko
“Register of software tools permitted in schools(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare a register of software tools, including websites, which may be used by pupils for educational purposes in schools.(2) For their software to be listed on the register, a provider must—(a) ensure their software adheres to standards set out in—(i) the Age Appropriate Design Code,(ii) the Online Safety Act 2023,(iii) the ‘curriculum principles’ section of the final report of the 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review, and(iv) any other standards of privacy or online safety which apply to educational settings, and(b) provide a helpline or adequate system for reporting any hazards, privacy breaches, or safety failures.(3) In establishing that the software meets the standards set out in subsection (2)(a), the Secretary of State must consult with—(a) experts in data protection and online safety,(b) educators,(c) curriculum and school representatives, and(d) any other parties the Secretary of State deems relevant.(4) Software tools included on the register must be whitelisted by school network firewall systems.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure a minimum level of access to websites for students to learn about computer science and AI as part of their school education, by requiring the Secretary of State to prepare a register of suitable software tools which must be whitelisted - and therefore remain accessible - by school firewall systems.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 227 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We started with AI during Oral Questions what is now yesterday afternoon. We considered the use of AAI in the debate on Amendment 209 yesterday evening. We are now back with AI within edtech. Amendment 227 is about ensuring that a minimum level of provision of software tools, including websites, is available to every pupil in England, regardless of the school they attend.
Over the last six months, I have worked with Professor Peyton Jones from the University of Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation to develop proposals for a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. This is being done in consultation with the relevant team in the Department for Education.
Importantly, this level 3 qualification would not be just for those sixth-formers who will go on to read computer science at university but, first and foremost, for the professionals of the future, such as lawyers, economists and doctors. The aim is to give those pupils in the final two years of school sufficient knowledge and experience of up-to-date AI to enable them to use it properly in their time at university and at the start of their professional careers.
If the UK is to have a workforce ready to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers, AI education needs to begin at school. I know that His Majesty’s Government recognise this. They have just published a set of standards which generative AI products should meet to be considered safe for users in educational settings. However, these are intended mainly for edtech developers and suppliers to schools and colleges, not schoolteachers and administrators.
During a workshop organised by the Raspberry Pi Foundation last November, I met teachers from all types of schools who were keen to learn more about a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. I soon discovered that IT departments in many schools today have a strict, if misguided, interpretation of the Online Safety Act. As far as they are concerned, the safest way to prevent pupils accessing harmful or inappropriate material while on school premises is to bar them from accessing any website, even and especially OpenAI’s. There are other schools, of course, where the staff in the IT department operate a more nuanced firewall policy.
This amendment seeks to ensure that there is an irreducible minimum set of software tools, including websites, which every pupil in any school in England will be able to access during the school day. Pupils should be prevented from accessing websites which may lead to harm, but they should instead have access to websites with strong educational missions; for example, Code.org or MathsWatch. These would be included in a register of software tools permitted in schools and whitelisted by the school network firewall system.
Schools would be free to add other websites if they wished to do so, but the amendment would ensure that all pupils in England had access to a minimum set of whitelisted software tools, enabling them to learn about data science and AI as part of their school education. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 238 to 240 are in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Cass and Lord Russell. I support Amendment 227 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko. I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for the engagement that we have had since Committee. These amendments, unlike in the previous grouping, are all about a single thing: the uses of technology in our schools. I feel that they are long overdue; we have seen many of them before in our deliberations on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, as well as earlier in this Bill.
Less than a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State delivered a speech in which she said that we are in the middle of a technology revolution in education and that technology is moving so quickly that:
“The world of even 5 years ago is gone forever—already a lost, obsolete age”.
We are in a time of change, but I am very concerned that this uncritical view of tech is difficult for schools. The Secretary of State is dismissing long-standing educational practices, honed by experience and research, in favour of technology, some of which is proven to be unsafe and to invade privacy, and much of which has yet to be tested.
I will go through the amendments quickly. Amendment 238 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a statutory code of practice on the efficacy of educational technology within 18 months of the Act’s passing, and a certification scheme for minimum pedagogical standards for edtech procurement in schools. In December, the Minister wrote to me to say that the Government were developing a new approach to certify edtech products to make certain that they are safe and fit for purpose, through an accreditation service and statutory guidance. It seemed from the letter that she was referring to filtering and monitoring, which I will come to, but I would be grateful if she would clarify that when she responds.
The problem is that the process by which we are interrogating edtech is far slower than the process by which we are introducing it into our schools. Although I welcome the idea that the Government will test novel products and consult a wide group of people, unless I am mistaken, the regime does not offer a certification scheme that guarantees the learning outcomes of edtech.
It is for that reason that I also support my noble friend Lord Tarassenko’s Amendment 227. He and I have worked on a number of issues that seek to apply existing rules to technology to ensure that those who develop it consider the needs of individuals and communities into which it is deployed. Given that my noble friend has given a detailed explanation of his whitelist amendment, I will not reiterate it now, but I commend this amendment to the Government, because it is a model for how we should deal with edtech more broadly: insist on existing standards, make adherence visible and, in doing so, make a well-designed, private, positive use case for tech in schools. Without the existing standards, we cannot see what the edtech is doing.
Amendment 239 requires the Government to set statutory standards for filtering and monitoring systems used in schools. This amendment is marginally different from the one that I tabled in Committee, in that it clarifies adherence to data collection practices, that there is nothing in them that prevents staff carrying out their safeguarding duties, and that the standards would be checked with real-time tests established through a certification scheme with which Ofsted would check that schools complied.
I have been pressing this issue for over five years and yet we have failed to solve the problem. The introduction of generative AI means that we are going backwards and I believe that the Government have turned to guidance again: they have updated their filtering and monitoring standards only this month. I am pleased to see that that guidance now clarifies that barriers to illegal content must be switched on at all times and I believe that the Minister will also commit to consultation.
However, experts at the UK Safer Internet Centre suggest that seven of the 24 filtering and monitoring systems used in the UK do not currently meet the standards that filter for illegal content and only three of them currently provide clear evidence that they can analyse and block generative AI content in real time, as the new standards require. The same experts say that market compliance is uneven, that schools are dependent on providers’ self-assessments and that there is a serious gap between policy intent and consistent implementation. We need to remove the inconsistency, meet basic safety requirements and insist that they are routinely checked. It is not right that schools are left with the burden of working out what the system they have paid for does or does not do. I understand that many school leaders believe they comply with filtering and monitoring standards, but do not. I worry that the Government are overestimating compliance overall.
It is a tragedy that we are discussing this at midnight. This amendment should have been put in front of the House. I remind noble Lords who are in the Chamber or reading this in Hansard that Frankie Thomas lost her life, and her parents, who campaigned fiercely for these amendments, have for five years been told by Minister after Minister that this would be put right, and it still has not been. I ask the Minister to give me some hope that this will be put right in statute at the basic level we require and that experts are asking for. Obviously, there will be no vote this evening.
Finally, Amendment 240 would require the ICO to issue a code of practice for educational settings. On Report of the data Bill, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, gave firm commitments that the Government would use their powers to require the ICO to publish a new code of practice. In Committee of this Bill, the Minister said the ICO was under a commitment to produce an edtech code of practice, but the Minister’s letter to me of 16 December said the Government will lay regulations in the second half of 2026 requiring the ICO to begin work on the edtech code. This is political snakes and ladders. I am back at the beginning. In the old world—which is gone for ever and obsolete—it was not doable that every movement, emotion and learning outcome of a child could be taken by a commercial company from school and pushed into the commercial world to be exploited.
Amendment 240—which I have been promised twice by two different Ministers—would set a clear time limit of six months after the Act’s passing within which an ICO code of practice for education must be established. As set out in the Minister’s letter, it will be more than 18 months from when Ministers first committed to it that it would be started. Can she speed that promise right up?
Each of these amendments asks the Government to set the standards so that tech can do the technology, the teachers can do the teaching and the children can flourish. Anything less is putting big tech ahead of children.
Baroness Cass (CB)
I will be brief, given the time. I will talk about only two things and try to keep noble Lords awake with them: academic passion and the gut microbiome. That will keep noble Lords on their toes.
On academic passion, when I was president of the paediatric college, we thought we did not have enough female professors of paediatrics. I adhered to that view until, one day, two of them were in my office at the same time, tearing strips out of each other so aggressively that I thought: “Yes, we need more of these people, but we should never let two be in one room at the same time”.
I saw similar passion at an educational conference; the passion of those educational academics was quite something. There were arguments about whether assessment drives learning, between those who believe in it and those who do not. Similarly, there was an equally colourful argument about teaching children to read with phonics versus other methods.
The striking thing about these academics is that, while years have gone into academic research and there are all sorts of controversies, the point is that everyone who is in this field is interested in educational outcomes, not commercial incomes. That is the difference with what we are seeing in the technology we are serving up to our children.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for a very simple reason. An awful lot of what we have been discussing today, and in recent days in Committee, is about trying to make this Bill as child-centric and school-centric as possible. There is a common theme running through many of these amendments. Given the pace at which the world is changing and the challenges that parents, schools, teachers and children have, to allow each individual entity to try to navigate their way through these changes in a wonderfully sort or British laissez-faire way will be wholly unrealistic and will not produce good outcomes.
Whether or not one likes to compare this country to them, examples of countries that have very centralised approaches to identifying what is safe and what is not safe for children include the People’s Republic of China—which, I remind noble Lords, has the only parliamentary assembly larger than your Lordships’ House—and France, to which some hereditary Peers perhaps have some antipathy for ancestral reasons. In both cases, those countries take it upon themselves systematically to proactively try to identify what is safe and what is not safe.
As an example that I think I may have mentioned in Committee of what can go wrong, and is going wrong, one of the best known technologies in classrooms now is Google Classroom. Let us say that you are on Google Classroom, provided through the school, you are being asked to use that to do a project, and that project is something to do with geography. To complete your project, you naturally go to Google Maps, which is conveniently there on the screen as part of the cluster of products linked into Google Classroom. The minute you leave Google Classroom and go on to Google Maps, you as a child and you as a school lose every protection you previously had for your data. Everything suddenly becomes visible to Google, and the data becomes saleable. It is making money out of the schoolchildren who are using the apps linked to Google Classroom.
One has to understand the financial model that these very successful companies use. We cannot expect individual schools and the data-processing officers within schools, who will be teachers who probably have multiple other responsibilities, to be on top of all the changes taking place in the products being sold in a very alluring way to schools. The companies will often say that this is being done with the overt or tacit approval and backing of His Majesty’s Government, which may or may not be true. It is extraordinarily difficult for these schools to identify what is safe and not safe, and what is effective in terms of outcome and what is less effective, because there is no moderating body at the moment that is trying to make sense of this on behalf of these schools, which are being assailed on all sides by multiple pressures.
On the one hand, we have a Government who are implying that this is good and we need more of it. Simultaneously, there is all the debate we are having about the amount of time we are spending on screens and the way we are using screens possibly having very unfortunate side-effects. To have all of this going on at the same time without any clear guidance and sense of direction from His Majesty’s Government is distinctly unhelpful. All these amendments are simply asking the Government to take a lead, to provide in a totally apolitical way some clarity about what is safe and what is not safe, to put processes in place to ascribe responsibility to those bodies capable of doing this, to do it in a co-ordinated way and, above all, to remember that we are talking about are the short, medium, and long-term interests of children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is a bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, having the two doctors in the room and great passion. It reminds me a bit of this Chamber, actually: we can certainly go for it at times.
I normally shy away from edtech, but I thought, “No, come on, grow up, Storey, you need to look at this carefully”. I went into teacher mode, I am afraid. I have some general thoughts. All the amendments grapple with the tension between protecting children and preparing them for the digital world. We need to balance parental rights, children’s educational needs and teachers’ autonomy. Technology is neither inherently good nor bad, and implementation and context matter. Finally, there is the risk of one-size-fits-all solutions not accounting for diverse school context and pupils’ needs.
I turn first to Amendment 227:
“Register of software tools permitted in schools”.
There are positives, are there not? This would ensure minimum safety and privacy standards for educational software, protect children from inappropriate content or data harvesting, and address current inconsistencies in firewalls, as some schools overblock, preventing legitimate learning. What are the concerns? There is a risk of creating a bureaucratic bottleneck as innovation in edtech moves faster than government approval processes. It could stifle teachers’ ability to use emerging tools or respond to pedagogical needs. Whitelisting requirements could be too rigid. What about trial periods for new tools? And who decides what meets curriculum principles could become politically contentious.
Then I look at Amendments 234, 235 and 236 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Their intent is to reduce screen time for young children, which is particularly important for early years development and the reception baseline. They address equity concerns that not all families might have reliable devices or internet access at home. Handwriting skills and motor development remain important, especially for young children. The amendments reduce the potential for cheating or AI assistance in assessments. They give parents agency over the child’s screen exposure. From head teacher experience, I say that some parents are deeply concerned about excessive screen time and lack of control.
The concerns are that reducing screen time might disadvantage students who are more comfortable with digital tools. It could also limit the development of general computer skills and risk making education feel out of step with modern skills. It could create additional administrative burdens for schools, as managing two parallel systems could be impractical for certain subjects beyond just computing, and might inadvertently stigmatise children whose parents opt out. So it is over to the Minister to unravel the pros and the cons and tell us what we should do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging, as I am sure others in the House felt while listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, her many years of battling—I am sure it feels like battling—on this important area. I hope I speak on behalf of all of us, and I think I do, in thanking her for her work in this field.
Every day we see more options to include edtech in our classrooms and different forms of technology and tools, and indeed in our homes for homework purposes. With that in mind, I express the support of these Benches for Amendments 238, 239 and 240 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope very much that we will get a firm date for the publication of a code of practice on the efficacy of edtech and on the use of children’s data. That is ever more pressing in a week when the Government have promised to roll out AI tutoring in schools. Of course, they are doing so with the best of intentions, but it creates an imperative to ensure that such tutoring is effective not just in engagement, where the evidence is pretty good, but, crucially, in learning, where the evidence is much less so. Indeed, a recent international study showed that the use of AI tutors resulted in improved homework grades but worse exam results when compared to those children who followed traditional approaches, suggesting that, without great care, edtech tools can be adopted that do not translate into long-term memory and deep learning.
The message we have really heard in all the speeches tonight is the need for pace from the Government, and I am sure the Minister has heard that. The noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, also made a powerful case for his Amendment 227 and the strength of using existing standards to try to accelerate things and come up with a plan as quickly as possible.
I have brought back the three amendments that I tabled in Committee. Amendment 234 would ensure that all public exams could be completed by hand, Amendment 235 would remove the use of devices from the reception baseline assessment, and Amendment 236 would give parents the right to opt out of device-based homework, with some limits to accommodate medical and other needs. These need to be seen in the context of an ever-growing use of devices, which includes not just the ability to complete homework but also, in the case of personal devices, the power to distract through social media in particular. Parents are clear that when children are expected to use a personal device for homework, that erodes their ability to make the case for a phone-free or device-free evening or weekend.
I understand that some schools have concerns about how this would work in practice, but I think the Overton window has shifted on this issue too in the less than six months since we last debated it. It seems like the Government are moving in the opposite direction with the introduction of AI tutors, but I hope the Minister will reassure the House that that is not the case. As one expert wrote recently:
“If exams go fully digital, handwriting instruction could quickly be marginalised, and note-taking by hand be swapped out for a digital device with AI aids by pragmatic teachers and tech-loving students”.
Similarly, he wrote:
“Homework already jumps to online apps with assistive supports and AI guidance. There is little thought or complaint about how our brain may respond differently to screen scrolling and that of the physical act of writing on the page”.
There is so much evidence about the importance of physical handwriting in learning, and we are concerned that the move to using ever more screen-based learning will impact on that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As we turn to the amendments in group 11, which are, of course, on educational technology, I thank noble Lords for their focus during this debate on safety, effectiveness and fairness. The Government share these aims. We want schools and parents to have confidence in the tools being used and innovation that supports learning while protecting pupils’ data and well-being.
We are clear that technology used in our schools must support learning and children’s development. It must not expose children to harm, undermine trust or operate without appropriate safeguards. The question before the House is not whether action is required—action is already under way—but how we ensure that protections are robust and enforceable and can keep pace with rapid technological change.
I turn first to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and Amendment 238, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which seek to strengthen assurance that education technology is safe, effective and permitted for use in schools through the introduction of a statutory mechanism. At this point, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for the work that he was talking about with DfE to develop important new qualifications, which we are grateful for and which the Government will certainly want to maximise the use of.
However, the amendments before us address that concern—the concern about whether tech is safe and effective—in a way that the Government do not believe is appropriate and cannot support, because they do it by treating safety and educational effectiveness as the same regulatory question when they are not. There is a clear distinction between product safety and pedagogical efficacy, and it is essential that we respond to each in the right way. If a tool is not safe, it should not be used in schools at all.
That is why we have already introduced robust safety standards for generative AI, which will set clear expectations for tech companies to follow. That said, providing clarity for schools is key, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for providing additional information on this point earlier this week. We are committed to going further, and we are therefore considering the benefits of consulting on a certification scheme to apply to generative AI tools in education.
Product safety cannot be achieved through a rushed government-compiled register but must be delivered through legally robust and independent certification. Educational effectiveness is different. Whether a tool improves learning is not a universal yes or no question, and it cannot be certified in the same way as safety. What works will vary by age group, subject, setting and approach, and it will evolve over time as the technology itself develops. Attempting to fix this through rigid certification risks undermining professional judgment and stifling innovation without delivering better outcomes for children.
That is why we are working with AI and education experts on new benchmarks for AI use in education, including tests to make sure that products meet national expectations for pedagogy. Our EdTech Evidence Board is developing a clear, publishable framework for assessing effectiveness, including expectations on pedagogy, evidence, outcomes, equity and inclusion, and clarity for schools.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for clarifying the intent of his Amendment 227 by stating that he was looking for a minimum list of approved tools. I believe that our work on evidence will precisely support that aim.
We are also investing £23 million to expand the edtech test bed into a four-year programme to test technology and AI tools in real classroom settings with independent evaluation. This approach provides schools and colleges with confidence in what works without locking them into a static list. Our aim is to establish a credible pedagogical bar that is fair to suppliers, usable for schools and capable of evolving, rather than a rigid statutory regime that would quickly fall behind technological change.
Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, focuses on filtering and monitoring systems and seeks to increase confidence, through certification, that products used in schools are effective and appropriate. As I noted in Committee, schools are already expected to have filtering and monitoring systems in place through the Keeping Children Safe in Education framework. However, we agree that more can be done to provide clarity and confidence. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will consult on a scheme to certify filtering and monitoring products used in schools, which would reinforce safety standards and allow schools to be confident that products are aligned with them. Alongside this, we have strengthened our guidance to make it clear that filtering solutions must be designed so that illegal blocklists cannot be disabled, overridden or altered. Consulting will allow us to develop a certification scheme that is proportionate and effective in education settings. We therefore do not feel that a statutory obligation is necessary at this stage.
Amendment 236, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raises concerns about on-screen homework and proposes a parental right to exemption. We share the principle that no child should be disadvantaged due to a lack of access to devices, but we remain clear that decisions about homework are best made by schools in partnership with families and reflecting local circumstances. Many schools already work closely with parents to understand access issues and provide alternatives where needed. We do not have evidence to suggest that legislating in this way would be proportionate or beneficial.
There has been considerable debate about screen time, but it is important not to conflate personal and educational use. When applied well, education technology can improve outcomes and accessibility and help pupils, including neurodiverse children, to engage more confidently. The aim is not more screen time but better learning delivered safely. The Government’s recent announcement of £1.6 million for assistive technology lending libraries reflects this commitment to inclusion, particularly for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
I turn to Amendment 235, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the reception baseline assessment. We share the belief that assessment should be appropriate and fair. However, a blanket prohibition or rigid requirement in primary legislation would remove needed flexibility, including where digital approaches support accessibility while non-digital options still remain available. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the reception baseline assessment includes some digital elements, but it also uses verbal responses and small toys, with no expectation of prior screen use; a paper-based version remains available in exceptional cases. The revised version has been in development since 2018 and was trialled extensively with pupils during that time. It has been in general use since September, and we have received positive feedback from teachers on pupil engagement. For these reasons, a restrictive legislative approach is not necessary, and the proposed timescales would be impractical and expensive.
Amendment 234, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that secondary education exams are completed by hand rather than with a digital device, subject to specific exceptions. Ofqual is currently consulting on how on-screen exams should be regulated. It is proposing a highly controlled and limited introduction, with rigorous safeguards. The vast majority of exams would still be with pen and paper. Each exam board could submit proposals to introduce a maximum of two new on-screen specifications, but not in the highest-entry subjects. We have worked closely with Ofqual to consider the potential benefits and risks. Ofqual has also published the evidence base that has informed its consultation. Research shows that on-screen exams may deliver a range of potential benefits over the long term, including improving assessment validity, accessibility and efficiency. We therefore remain of the view that it is not appropriate to fix a highly restrictive policy position in legislation, but of course we encourage interested parties to respond to Ofqual’s consultation.
Finally, Amendment 240 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to require the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce an edtech code of practice for children’s data. We fully agree on the importance of strong protections for children’s data. At Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology confirmed that the Information Commissioner would be required to publish codes of practice for AI and automated decision-making, followed by a dedicated edtech code, and this sequencing is deliberate. Developing the AI code first will inform the edtech code, providing greater clarity and coherence for organisations, schools and families. Accelerating the edtech code ahead of this work would risk duplication and confusion rather than strengthening protections.
I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on 16 December to confirm that regulations will be laid requiring the Information Commissioner to produce these codes, beginning with the AI code and followed by the edtech code. I am pleased that work on the AI code is already in progress. I am also aware that DSIT officials have been in touch with the noble Baroness to discuss the development of the regulations that will require the ICO to prepare the AI code, and we would welcome her support in getting those regulations right. We share the same aims, but we do not believe that legislating in the way proposed would deliver better outcomes for children or schools. The Government’s approach is proportionate, evidence-led and capable of adapting as technology evolves. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she talked, in relation to my Amendment 236 and homework, about the Government’s concerns about equality of access to devices at home, but she did not address the point I raised about the increasing number of parents who want to have a screen-free evening at home, or screen-free weekends as a household. What would she say to those parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In those cases, I would expect every school thinking about its homework policy to have engaged with parents on the details of how that homework policy was going to work, but I think what was proposed by the noble Baroness in this amendment would limit the ability of schools to have those conversations and to make the decisions that were appropriate for them. It is on that basis that we are resisting it.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
Very briefly, given the time, I just want to reassure noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that none of the amendments—not just mine—stops the use of edtech; they introduce rules for its development and introduction into schools. For example, the whitelist is an irreducible minimum to ensure that all students in schools in England would have access to this minimum set of tools. Of course, schools will be entirely free to add to the whitelist appropriate websites that they felt would help the educational attainment of their children. So it is not about stopping but enabling, through a minimum set of tools, a whitelist, and about schools being able, if they felt it was appropriate, to add to that whitelist.
Lord Addington
“Obligation to deliver the National Curriculum to a child with SENDIn exercising any duty to secure that the National Curriculum is taught to a pupil for whom special educational provision is made, the proprietor of a school must ensure that—(a) there are effective arrangements in place to identify, as early as reasonably practicable, pupils who may have special educational needs or disabilities,(b) for each such pupil, a written SEND support plan is prepared and regularly reviewed, setting out the adjustments, adaptations or disapplications from the National Curriculum, and any additional provision, reasonably required for that pupil to make progress, and(c) teachers and other staff have sufficient time, training and access to specialist advice to implement that plan, and to refine it in response to the pupil’s progress.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that, in relation to children with SEND, the duty to teach the National Curriculum must be exercised in a way which enables schools to identify needs early and to prepare and deliver a tailored SEND support plan. It is intended to give schools greater capacity and professional agency to adapt or depart from the National Curriculum where necessary, and to ensure staff have the time, training and support needed to act on children’s SEND needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group were designed to, shall we say, spur the Government to tell us where we are with the developments on special educational needs. Basically, they are saying that we should have a structure you can teach all the way through. I do not think there is much point in saying any more, so I will ask but one question. Is the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, in a position to give us a date, preferably not in general terms of “soon”, “possibly” or “imminently”, but a date in time—possibly the number of weeks: let us start low and build up—when we will get the White Paper? When will we start to see what the Government think is appropriate? That is not too much to ask; it is already roughly half a year late. So, just that: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name to try to extract an answer from the Government.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his two amendments. The establishment of a national body is a factor that needs to be considered in the important and pressing issue of special education needs and disabilities. There is certainly the argument for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence equivalent for SEND. But the most important point, in our view, is that, whatever the approach taken in the Government’s forthcoming White Paper, it is based upon firm evidence.
The same principle applies to the noble Lord’s other amendment, which would introduce an obligation to deliver the national curriculum to children with special education needs and disabilities. Whatever approach is taken, it must also align with the existing evidence base.
An incredibly diverse and wide-ranging list of requirements is put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Although it may be possible to deliver the national curriculum in line with these—we note that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, allows for disapplications—if the Government were to accept this, we would suggest an extensive pilot scheme to undertake a full, top-down and bottom-up approach, ensuring rigorous testing before introduction.
We hope, in line with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Minister will also be able to confirm that curriculum policy will feature in the coming White Paper—and please can we have a date?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much as I try to satisfy Members in the House of Lords—for all the good it does me—no, you cannot have a date. Come on—everybody knows that you cannot have a date, even at one o’clock in the morning. But I will try to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendments.
Just to be clear, as a starting point, we share the noble Lord’s ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are determined to fix the SEND system and rebuild families’ trust by improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, giving teachers the tools to identify and support needs early, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments the noble Lord has raised speak to the heart of our vision: an inclusive education system, built on strong leadership, evidence-based early intervention and high-quality teaching for every learner.
Amendment 228 seeks to place a new statutory duty on schools to adapt the national curriculum for individual pupils. We agree that children’s needs must be identified early and met well, but we fear that adding a new statutory requirement risks creating vague expectations around “sufficient” time and training, which could invite dispute rather than help schools.
Since Committee, we have continued constructive engagement with SEND organisations, including on identifying and supporting needs early and consistently, and on workforce development. We have recently announced £200 million to be invested over the course of this Parliament to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery, ensuring a skilled workforce for generations to come. This builds on at least £3 billion for high-needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30, to support children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision.
Amendment 229 proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them. However, as stated in Committee, we are concerned that a new body would simply create unnecessary bureaucracy. Our reforms will be set out in the forthcoming schools White Paper and will be underpinned by principles in line with the concerns the noble Lord has raised, and informed by continuing engagement with parents, teachers and experts, including through the recent national conversation on SEND. We are committed to supporting children with SEND through early identification, access to the right support at the right time, high-quality adaptive teaching and effective allocation of resources.
Noble Lords will not have too long to wait. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
Well, it was worth a try. At least we did not hear that when the moon is full and the wind is high, we shall get a report, but it sounded almost like that. I look forward to this when it happens and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Establishment of a national children’s wellbeing measurement programme(1) The Secretary of State must establish a national children’s wellbeing measurement programme.(2) A programme established under this section must—(a) conduct a voluntary annual online national survey of the wellbeing of children in relevant schools in England;(b) make provision for school, parental and student consent to participation in the survey, ensuring that participation is voluntary and that results are handled confidentially;(c) provide central analysis of data and support for schools in the administration of the survey;(d) regularly publish the results of the survey and provide relevant data to participating schools, local authorities and other public bodies for the purposes of improving children’s wellbeing.(3) For the purposes of this section, “wellbeing” includes the drivers of wellbeing, including nutrition, physical activity, participation in arts, culture and entertainment and any other factors the Secretary of State deems relevant.(4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant schools” includes academy schools, alternative provision, maintained schools, non-maintained special schools, independent schools, and pupil referral units.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the department to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme, based on a survey that would be voluntary for schools and pupils. The intention is to protect the anonymity of participants, ensure that no one is compelled to take part, and safeguard the privacy of any information provided.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 233, to which my name is attached, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who apologises that he is unable to be present. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 237.
I am sure many of us were struck by the passionate arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and others in Committee for a national well-being measurement programme. The need for a holistic, regular survey of young people’s experiences remains pressing. Surveys show that the UK’s young people have some of the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD, according to PISA data.
Amendment 233 would provide for an optional online well-being survey, delivered annually in schools, with centralised support, administration, analysis and data storage. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Watson, for adding their names to this amendment as well. It is not calling for that data to be published or used in any way to penalise schools, and the wording requires confidentiality and consent at three levels: schools, parents or carers, and pupils. It is a fundamental point of this amendment that the survey is optional.
A national scheme such as this would give young people a louder voice and would create a shared evidence base that would allow us to make a shift to prevention and early intervention across a wide range of services and issues that impact on well-being. It would also promote action outside school gates to support young people. This is important because schools alone are not responsible for our children’s well-being; we all are. The new national youth strategy highlights that fact, but without good data the Government will fund the scheme yet be unable to measure its impact.
I recognise that since we began debating this Bill, the Minister’s department has begun consulting on a pupil experience framework, and this is a positive first step. However, there are two notable exceptions in the draft that I feel substantially reduce its potential. First, there are no proposed questions on psychological well-being and, secondly, there is no intent to collate or publish any of the data. I am very keen to hear from the Minister whether the Government are willing and able in some way to address these concerns. On this amendment, I end by pointing out that it is popular. According to a recent YouGov poll, 75% of parents agree that to improve young people’s well-being we need to measure it. More than 60 organisations included in the Our Well-being, Our Voice campaign, which includes the Association of School and College Leaders and the Local Government Association, are keen to see this introduced.
I now turn to my Amendment 237 on the vital topic of mental health support in schools. Mental health support teams are already making an important contribution, particularly in providing early intervention for children with mild to moderate mental health needs. The Government’s commitment to expanding these teams and, indeed, to piloting an enhanced model, is very welcome, but the evidence from schools, families and practitioners is clear. The current model does not work for all children. There is a well-recognised group of children whose needs are too complex for these low interventions, yet who do not anything like meet the threshold for specialist support. These children are often referred to as the missing middle. Too many of them are left without timely or appropriate help, and their needs often escalate as a result. As a consequence of perverse incentives within the system, children must become more unwell before they can access the support they need.
Many children also experience distress to do with family relationships or developmental issues. They benefit from therapeutic support that cannot always be delivered within the strictly structured and time-limited interventions often offered by mental health support teams. This amendment seeks to address that gap by ensuring that, alongside existing provision, children can access school-based counselling delivered by appropriately registered practitioners. It would create a clearer and more appropriate pathway for those whose needs are not currently being met and reduce pressure on CAMHS. I know that many schools are already trying to fill this gap by funding counselling services themselves, often at a significant cost to already overstretched budgets. The result is an uneven and unsustainable system in which access to support depends on geography or local resources rather than need. By placing this expectation in legislation, I feel that we can create greater consistency and equity. I also very much support Amendment 242 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I will leave him to outline. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, nine months after Second Reading, in which I spoke, it falls to me to speak to the last of the, by my tally, 254 amendments on Report, on top of 725 amendments tabled in Committee, so we certainly had maximum scrutiny of this Bill in your Lordships’ House.
I shall speak to my Amendment 242 and support the two other amendments in this group. Amendment 242 is similar to the one I moved in Committee in September. In that debate and in subsequent correspondence, the Minister confirmed the Government’s commitment to the principle of whole-school approaches, but she also made it clear that existing guidance will remain non-statutory and that the key support programmes that are now closed will not be reintroduced.
As a result, significant inequity in provision remains, and that is the reason that I have returned with this amendment on Report. Children’s mental health and well-being are a significant concern, and recent statistics highlight that school is a major determinant of children’s lived experience and mental health, but the voluntary guidance on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being has reached its limits after being first published in 2015.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 233, which I also supported in Committee. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the UK’s young people have the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD. We rightly talk about improving children’s well-being but, without reliable data, we are left guessing what works. This is costly, inefficient and ultimately unfair to young people, who face increasing pressures today from rising anxiety to declining physical activity to a lack of opportunity.
As we have heard, this amendment would help to address that gap by proposing a voluntary, confidential national survey. This would give schools and policymakers a clear picture of what children are experiencing academically, emotionally and physically. Better data leads to better policy and ultimately to better outcomes.
The key point is that this is voluntary, not compulsory. I believe that most schools would welcome the opportunity to participate, because good data helps them identify issues earlier, target support more effectively and spend their money better. My noble friend Lord Moynihan expressed his strong personal support for this amendment when it was before us in Committee and said that regular well-being measurement can also support early intervention, helping schools to identify problems before they escalate and reducing cost and long-term pressure on health and education services.
This amendment provides a proportionate, evidence-led way to support schools, strengthening accountability and improving outcomes for young people, and capturing key drivers of well-being such as physical activity, nutrition and access to arts and culture. Well-being, attainment and long-term opportunity are inseparable. If we want a policy to be driven by what generally helps children to thrive, this national children’s well-being measurement programme would be a very good step forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 233, as I was not able to speak on it in Committee. I am supportive of the other amendments in this group too.
The Labour Party manifesto stated that
“nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children”,
which is music to the ears of many of us. But if we are to know what the state of our nation is through the lens of children’s well-being, we need to measure that well-being nationally, comprehensively and regularly.
Many of us warmly welcomed the idea of a children’s well-being Bill but, when it emerged, were a bit disappointed that it did not have that much to say about children’s well-being explicitly. This amendment would help to put well-being explicitly at the heart of the Bill, with implications for both the main parts. I hope the Government will now look favourably on this modified version of the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I strongly support Amendment 233, as I did in Committee, as well as the other amendments in this group. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who reflected what many of us have been saying: the children’s well-being Bill has been short on well-being. Earlier—much earlier, yesterday now—we were talking about sport, culture, PSHE and citizenship education. But we need to see what does and does not work if we are going to deliver some of the changes that are clearly so urgently needed.
I will refer to one survey: the National Parent Survey 2025, conducted by Parentkind, which found that unhappiness among children doubles between primary and secondary school. The parents said that the chief reason that their children were unhappy was that they were finding lessons uninteresting: the figure was 42%, which really is telling.
I return to the Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2025, already referred to, which of course was reporting on the opposite. One of its recommendations was:
“Introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme”.
It is just such an obvious thing for the Government to do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches, as is true across the House, of course we want our children to have the highest standards of mental health and well-being, and the data to support this, but, as in Committee, we do not support the specifics of these amendments.
On Amendment 233 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, presented this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we felt that the Minister’s response in Committee was a constructive way forward and substantially addressed the goals of the amendment, albeit perhaps not in the way that the signatories would prefer or advise. My reading of the Minister’s remarks was that the Government did commit to providing non-statutory guidance, including a standard set of questions and additional tools and resources to support implementation.
As in Committee, I am sympathetic to the gap in provision that Amendment 237 from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to address: in particular, the postcode lottery that she highlighted in her remarks this morning. I also recognise that it expressly prescribes the provision of qualified practitioners and implicitly prescribes that any interventions have a sound evidence base. As my noble friend Lady Spielman pointed out in Committee, too many interventions have been used in schools in relation to both mental health and well-being, which Amendment 242 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, addresses, which have been shown subsequently to have caused more harm than good. That is clearly something we need to avoid.
I return to the point I made in Committee and that we have heard fervently debated on Report, including today: the single most powerful thing this Government can do to restore the mental health, well-being and sense of belonging of our children would be to keep smartphones out of school and prevent access to social media for the under-16s. Teachers, parents and their children will not thank this Government for being slow to act.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, as we approach nine hours of considering the 13 groups that we have got through today, I note—and I am not being churlish—that if everybody who stood up and said, “I will speak only briefly” spoke only briefly, we would have saved a reasonable amount of time.
However, let us move to the amendments. I start by assuring noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. Of course, we are focused on, and have already made considerable progress in, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. With that in mind, I turn to the amendments.
Amendment 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, intends to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. We welcome the added emphasis that the measurement should remain voluntary for schools. While we are committed to supporting more schools to do this effectively, legislation is not necessary.
As stated in Committee, the Government have already committed to publish non-statutory guidance helping schools to measure and act upon factors related to well-being. To do that, we are working with measurement experts, including from the Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition, to establish standardised questions for schools to ask pupils about key modifiable factors that impact their engagement in school life and their well-being, including how this can inform their approach to promoting and supporting mental health. This will enable benchmarking, aggregation, and sharing of data and practice between schools and with partners. We are exploring whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, we will continue to publish annually the data we collect centrally on pupils’ well-being and experiences in school.
Amendment 237, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would require the Secretary of State to ensure access to professionally accredited counselling or equivalent therapeutic support in schools, alongside government commitments to expand mental health support teams. As we said in Committee, this Government will expand mental health support teams from 52% coverage of pupils and learners at the start of April 2025 to 100% by 2029. The noble Baroness makes an important point about ensuring that we provide support for pupils whose needs are too complex for low-intensity interventions but do not meet the threshold for specialist child and adolescent mental health services. That is why we will pilot enhancements to mental health support teams, developed with a range of experts, including from the counselling profession, to support more complex needs such as trauma, neurodivergence and disordered eating.
These teams already integrate with a school’s existing well-being offer, which can include counselling. However, while there is good evidence that CBT used by the teams can deliver lasting benefits, more research is needed into the effectiveness, implementation and cost efficiency of counselling in schools. Many pupils also benefit from other in-school support. It is important that schools continue to have the freedom to decide what pastoral support to offer their pupils based on need, making the best use of their funding.
Lastly, Amendment 242, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks to require statutory guidance for schools on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. As I said in Committee, existing statutory duties provide schools with a strong foundation to adopt whole-school approaches and secure the support that their pupils need. Our pupil engagement framework, to be published this year and developed with Mission 44, with support from other key stakeholders, will provide schools with guidance on whole-school approaches to pupil engagement and, in turn, well-being. Together with our ongoing work on measurement as part of this framework and the expansion of mental health support teams to 100% of pupils and learners, the Government are building on existing support in a consistent and equitable way—key components of my noble friend’s amendment.
Having described the progress that the Government are already making on the range of concerns that noble Lords have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. It is never great to get the graveyard slot, particularly on an issue that is so fundamental to the success of the Bill, and to feel so time-constrained—but that is just life, is it not? I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that I acknowledge the Government are making in this area. I still think there is more to do, which is what these amendments press at, but I was grateful for her acknowledgement of the importance of the missing middle and the involvement of the counselling profession. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Power to make consequential provision: Wales(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any of the following provisions of this Act—(a) section 11 (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty);(b) section 12(5) (service of documents under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000);(c) section 20 (ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17);(d) sections 31 to 36 (children not in school).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under—(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru passed before this Act, or(b) an Act passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument (see section 37A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(5) Except as provided by subsection (6), regulations made under this section are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(6) Regulations made under this section that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or an Act, are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(7) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill conferring power on the Welsh Ministers to make provision that is consequential on certain provisions made by the Bill in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
“Power to make consequential provision: Scotland(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on section 11 (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under—(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed before this Act, or(b) an Act passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.(4) For provision about instruments containing regulations under this section, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).(5) Except as provided by subsection (6), regulations made under this section are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(6) Regulations made under this section that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or an Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(7) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill conferring power on the Scottish Ministers to make provision that is consequential on Clause 11 of the Bill (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty) in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(i) regulations, or(ii) in relation to the amendments made to the Education Act 2002 by Schedule 3, an order;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the reference in clause 67(1) to orders is only to orders under the Education Act 2002 (as amended by Schedule 3).
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 67 at page 128, line 21, would change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” in consequence of changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to Clause 67 at page 128, line 6.