House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge events in the middle east over the weekend following recent developments involving Iran. The safety of British nationals and our armed forces personnel right across the region is our priority, and we pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women.
Service families make extraordinary sacrifices for our country, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well. The Department for Education proudly supports service children, including those in his constituency around Catterick and elsewhere, through targeted funding and clear guidance to schools. Service pupil premium provided £26 million this financial year. These measures address challenges arising from service life so that all service children can achieve and thrive in education.
Rishi Sunak
Can I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks and thank her for her thoughtful answer? I know that we both share a desire to honour the service of those in our armed forces by recognising and addressing the impact on their families. As the MP for Catterick garrison and nearby RAF Leeming, I see in particular the impact on service pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, which I know is something that she cares about. My local school leaders have recently implemented the Garrison Assist project, which seeks to address some of those challenges, and in light of the recent White Paper I met with those school leaders. Will she arrange a meeting for them with officials so that they might share their learnings and so that service pupils across our country can get the support that they need and deserve?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, of course; I will be more than happy to make sure that that meeting takes place. I commend the Garrison Assist project for its excellent work. We have looked at the work it has done, and that has given us a strong foundation for many of the changes that we are bringing forward in the SEND system. For example, education, health and care plans and individual support plans will be digital, and that will ensure smoother transitions when children move between local authority areas. It will make a big difference to many children, but particularly children from service families.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am really proud to represent so many service families, but many of those I have been working with are at the sharp end of failures in the SEND system. Regular moves between postings can exacerbate long waits for assessments and leave them particularly exposed to the postcode lottery in SEND provision. As we drive forward long-overdue reforms in this space, how can we make sure that we are centring the experiences of service families so that we can finally do right by those who do so much for all of us?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, as I set out, we are making changes to ensure that there are smoother transitions for service children—for example, by making both education, health and care plans and individual support plans digital—but there is still more that we need to do. All of us across this House have a responsibility to ensure that those who serve our country receive the best possible education and care for their children. I would be very happy to discuss this further with my hon. Friend or any other Members who have a local constituency concern in this area.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out ambitious SEND reforms to ensure the system works better for families and children across England. It is clear that families, and the teachers and wider staff trying to support them, have been failed by the system, and that that has had a profound impact on children and young people’s education and wellbeing. We are determined to work with families and professionals around the country to build a system in which children’s needs are met quickly and families do not have to battle because the right inclusive mainstream and specialist support will be available in their communities. We want to hear from young people, parents, teachers and all those who support them, so I ask everyone in the Chamber to bring the voices of their constituents to our consultation.
Yuan Yang
Secondary school students with special educational needs have told me of their struggles with academy trusts in south Reading and Shinfield that have failed to properly prioritise inclusion. Will the Minister set out how the schools White Paper will address that on the part of multi-academy trusts? Will she consider visiting Hartland high school and Oakbank school in my constituency to see the progress they have made on that front?
Georgia Gould
Accountability is a key part of our reforms, which is why Ofsted is now focused on inclusion. We have also brought in Ofsted inspections for multi-academy trusts. I very much enjoyed meeting one of my hon. Friend’s local academies, which is doing brilliant work, but I recognise that we need to put in the right resource and accountability to ensure that that is happening everywhere. I am always delighted to see best practice.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the Government’s decision to effectively write off about 90% of Devon county council’s SEND debts. I know that will reassure many parents in my constituency.
Will the Minister tell us how the new school curriculum will give schools the flexibility they need to support children with special educational needs across very different parts of the country, including rural areas such as North Devon?
Georgia Gould
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to ensure that children with SEND have the right support everywhere in the country. That means that we need to ensure that we have the right experts wrapped around schools and that the curriculum meets children’s needs. The Government’s curriculum and assessment review sets out our modern curriculum, including a breadth of learning and enrichment for young people, but we know that it is important to have the right adaptations and flexibilities, and we will be moving forward with that as part of our SEND reforms.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, there is much concern in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency about the off-rolling of children with SEND. Will the Minister elaborate on the reforms in the schools White Paper to ensure that mainstream secondary multi-academy trust exclusions will be measured, and that schools will be incentivised to provide the effective SEND provision that all our children deserve?
Georgia Gould
We are absolutely clear that every school has to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Every teacher has to be trained to be a SEND teacher, and every secondary school will be expected to have an inclusion base. We need to have eyes on children to ensure that no child falls through the cracks. That is why the Department for Education will be more closely monitoring pupil flow, including off-rolling. We will work with trusts and local authority schools when we see large numbers of children who are being off-rolled or are out of education in other ways.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I spend a lot of time visiting schools in my constituency and speaking to the hard-working headteachers about the pressures they are under due to spiralling costs and teacher shortages. With the Government’s proposed reforms placing an additional responsibility on schools to create individual support plans, alongside an ambition for more children’s needs to be met within mainstream schools, how will the Minister ensure that schools do not have to make sacrifices that harm the education of every child?
Georgia Gould
When developing this policy, we learned from the best schools in the country. I visited schools that have individual support plans for every student and wraparound support; those children are absolutely thriving. We want to make sure that that happens in every school. We are investing in a new national digital individual support plan, and we are putting £4 billion into schools and the services that support them to make that a reality.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely, yes; it is money that we have won to put into supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. It is a priority that we take very seriously. I have seen the failure around the country where, for too long, these families have not been listened to, and too many children are out of education; we need to change that. As part of the spending review, we requested and managed to get new investment that we are putting into schools and the “experts at hand” service to wrap around schools on top of the £3.7 billion we are putting into new specialist places. This is generational reform that will make a huge difference.
We want to work in partnership with colleagues across the House, but we still have not heard from the Conservative party. What are its ideas, and what—
Mr Speaker
Order. You are in government, so you do not need to—[Interruption.] Order. When I stand up, please sit. I am trying to be helpful. All these Members are trying to get in, and it is a big day with a big statement coming.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Trust among families with special educational needs is at rock bottom. Their voices have often been ignored—sometimes with tragic consequences—so while many are open to reform, there is real concern that under the Government’s proposals tribunals will lose the ability to direct specific provision in a child’s best interest, with the risk that families will be trapped in an endless doom loop of dispute with local authorities. If Ministers are serious about tackling that adversarial nature, will the Minister confirm how she will prevent it and protect children’s and parents’ rights?
Georgia Gould
We are committed to the tribunal being a backstop for families. We want a much more collaborative system, but we have heard from families how important that backstop of legal rights is, so the tribunal will be there as a backstop if parents are unhappy with the assessment process or the specialist provision package that they have.
When it comes to school placement, hon. Members across the House will know that in many cases, places are being named at special schools that are already full and it is just not safe for them to take those children. Parents will still be able to go to the tribunal, which will be able to quash a decision if it is unhappy, and then the local authority will need to look at it again.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department is providing targeted help for Cambridgeshire, including a specialist SEND adviser and sector-led improvement support from Islington council. We are actively monitoring Cambridgeshire’s recovery plan to reduce EHCP backlogs and secure better outcomes for children and families. On Monday, the Secretary of State set out our wider ambition for a SEND system that works better for children and families across England. I encourage parents nationwide to look at our consultation on how we will bring the change our children need.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The EHCP backlog in Cambridgeshire is a significant challenge. I appreciate what the Minister said about the help that is currently in place. Having read the SEND White Paper, I am struggling to see where the immediate impact will come. I had a letter from a constituent at the weekend who thanked me for helping her child get an EHCP after 74 weeks, and I can give examples that stretch up to nearly two years from an EHCP needs assessment being signed off. I am due to meet Cambridgeshire county council on Friday to discuss this issue in more detail. What advice can the Minister give it on how the SEND White Paper will help it to get on top of the EHCP backlog?
Georgia Gould
The hon. Member is right: the timeliness of EHCPs has been unacceptable, and it is something that we are taking seriously. That is why we have put the extra resource in—as part of the schools White Paper, we are putting £200 million directly into councils to support their capacity—but this is something that we will be monitoring closely. I am happy to talk to him in more detail about his concerns.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Mobile phones have no place in our schools. We have published strengthened guidance that is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day. Ofsted will be checking this at every inspection.
John Whitby
What assessment has been made of the magnetic lockable pouches that are being used in some schools as a way of preventing any smartphone access during the entire school day, including lunch time and breaks? Could a national roll-out of those be considered?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent support for the schools in his constituency. Lockable pouches are being used successfully by many schools and are listed in the Department’s examples of best practice approaches. Heads can rightly choose how they implement the mobile phone ban in their school to reflect what works best in context.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Last week, I spent time with teachers and students from Chichester high school who have implemented the use of lockable magnetic pouches. Students told me that this had improved their focus in lessons and, interestingly, that the number of bathroom breaks had halved. Their use has reduced the pull of the addictive features on phones, and teachers report that children are just being children at break times rather than being glued to their phones. I am glad that the Minister shares my ambition to see every school become phone free, but what support are the Government going to provide for schools that have really tight budget restrictions to enable them to achieve this?
Olivia Bailey
I congratulate the pupils and staff at Chichester high school on their great work in this space. It is fantastic to hear that the policy they are implementing is making a difference for the children. Phones should not be in schools, and we are going to be working with schools through our attendance and behaviour hubs, along with our toughened guidance, to make sure we support them to implement this policy properly.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Government are looking at ways to protect our children and young people when it comes to the use of screens. It is vital that teachers, parents and young people have strong guidance in place, as we know that excessive screen time can have an impact on eye healthcare, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that any forthcoming guidance addresses eye health and eye conditions such as dry eye disease and myopia?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her important campaigning work in this area and for her important question. I am happy to give her that assurance, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this matter in more detail.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I was a secondary school teacher before I came to this place, and even 10 years ago, although the school guidance was that mobile phones should not be in classrooms, enforcing that was a daily struggle. The presence of mobile phones undermines what schools are trying to do, causing distraction, potentially enabling cyber-bullying and exposing students to potentially harmful online content. We have been through all this. Sometimes it is important that guidance is supported by law, so will the Government turn the existing guidance into law and ban phones in schools?
Olivia Bailey
In the consultation we have announced today, we are consulting on whether a statutory ban is needed, but the action that we have taken addresses the root cause of the problem: the clarity of mobile phone policies and how well they are enforced. The vast majority of schools have a ban in place, but they are just not sufficiently effective. That is what we are working to address.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Secretary of State has bent over backwards to avoid backing a ban on mobile phones in schools. Her Back Benchers are making their views clear, so can she confirm whether she will be whipping them next week to vote against our amendment to ban phones in schools? We look forward to the Government’s 17th U-turn in as many months—the 18th if the one on Iran counts—but if a U-turn is not coming, why does she continue to stand in the way of parents, heads and her own Back Benchers, who simply want classrooms free from disruption?
Olivia Bailey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, but I am afraid he did not listen to the answer I just gave on this exact topic, which is that, in the consultation we announced today, we are consulting on whether a statutory ban is needed. Secondly, it is my firm belief that we have addressed the root cause of the problem, which is that the policies are not sufficiently clear and that they are not being well enough enforced. That is what we are doing by asking Ofsted to inspect these policies, and we are supporting schools through our attendance and behaviour hubs.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department has worked closely with NHS England to monitor, support and challenge Kent in making necessary SEND improvements following its area SEND inspections in 2019 and 2022. This has included regular review meetings, attendance at its SEND partnership board and commissioning the support of an expert SEND adviser.
Rosie Duffield
I recently hosted a constituency SEND roundtable with education leaders and officials from the Department, where teachers stressed yet again that years of underfunding and diminished support services had left schools on their knees, often unable to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children. Unfortunately, the Government’s funding announcement in their White Paper is just a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed to radically improve SEND services in east Kent. Can the Minister tell me what other steps she will take to deliver urgently needed improvements in SEND provision in my constituency, as the funding looks likely to equate to only a few thousand pounds extra per school?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend will know that we have recently announced support to local authorities like Kent in order to address 90% of their deficits. We are building three new special schools in Kent and putting in place £3.7 billion in capital investment, and the allocation for Kent will be coming onboard shortly. We have announced £4 billion of extra investment to wrap around schools, including for speech and language therapists as well as money directly into school budgets.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Our new SEND system will deliver a fully inclusive mainstream education, supported by £4 billion of investment. This Labour Government are tackling one of the thorniest problems that the previous Government left behind, with compassion, investment and reform. Children with special educational needs will access targeted and specialist support through a clear national framework, with individual support plans and stronger education, health and care plans for children with complex needs. We will work with education and health staff to prioritise early intervention and cross-service collaboration to ensure better outcomes for children nationwide.
Josh Newbury
I have spoken with teachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across Cannock Chase, so I know that many schools, such as Longford primary in Cannock and St Joseph’s primary in Rugeley, already have SEND hubs, but with no additional funding, they cannot offer the holistic, teacher-led support they would like to. Can the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities will be given funding to commission specialist bases to finally give many children with SEND needs the support that will allow them to thrive in their local school?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment. We will ensure that every secondary school, and a similar number of primary schools, have that kind of support, and we will work with local authorities to set up specialist bases. As part of our £3.7 billion high-need capital investment, we will create 60,000 new specialist places nationwide to make sure that more children get the specialist support they deserve. I encourage parents and staff in his constituency and across Cannock Chase to share their views during the consultation period.
Ben Coleman
This plan is to be welcomed. It rightly recognises that families of children with SEND are absolutely exhausted from having to fight and battle for the support they need. I therefore strongly welcome the commitment to end that and to give over 1 million children, for the first time, legally enforceable rights through the individual support plans. But concerns have been expressed to me that, without clear enforcement, ISPs risk repeating the same problem, so can the Secretary of State tell me what happens if a school does not follow a child’s plan? Will parents have a legal right to enforce what an ISP says? In short, how will the Government ensure that these are genuine entitlements and not just more promises that families have to battle to see honoured?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know he brings real expertise in this area. I completely understand the point that he makes and that parents have made, given the lack of confidence they have in the system after years of failure, but we are determined to put this right and turn the situation around to make sure that there is more flexible, earlier support available for children. Settings will have a duty to create individual support plans and deliver high-quality provision, drawing on national standards. If schools are not following the plan, it will be clear and obvious. Parents should seek to resolve that directly with the school. Where that does not work, we are strengthening the school complaints process, with independent SEND expertise on the panel. I encourage parents and staff across my hon. Friend’s community to share their views to ensure that we get this right.
Jo Platt
Families in Leigh and Atherton are exhausted from constantly fighting for the SEND support their children need, so I welcome the White Paper’s proposals, including individual support plans and more inclusion bases in schools, because inclusive education benefits everyone. These reforms must come with real oversight and resources. Can the Secretary of State reassure families that the battles for SEND support will end, and explain how local authorities and schools will be properly supported and held accountable?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend. This is about how we can deliver more support earlier to a much larger number of children than is the case at the moment: EHCP-like support without the fight to get that EHCP. There is already brilliant practice out there, showing the best of what can be achieved when schools work together with parents. We saw that last year when I visited Golborne All Saints Catholic primary in her community—a real beacon of what can be achieved. We want to see more of that, and the extra investment will make that possible in more schools and in more parts of the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Government have made some welcome commitments on education, but schools are then left to fulfil them. We have seen with free school meals, breakfast clubs and teacher pay awards that each time the funding falls short, and headteachers are left to make up the difference from budgets that are already on their knees. With the “experts at hand” service, can the Secretary of State guarantee that not a single school will have to raid its core budget to deliver this support?
Bridget Phillipson
This is significant extra investment of £4 billion, above and beyond what schools have already been told will be coming their way. In so many of the areas that the hon. Lady mentions, such as breakfast clubs and the expansion of free school meals, we are putting significant extra investment into ensuring that all children can achieve and thrive. We know that so many of the barriers that children face to thrive in education go well beyond the school gate, and our Government are tackling them.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Children with SEND do not conform to neat packages and definitions, and those with complex needs require fluctuating levels of support. There is real fear among my constituents that the Government’s proposals will downgrade the level of support available to those with high needs, and may not be flexible enough to respond to changes in children’s needs. Will the Secretary of State define “complexity”, and reassure parents that education, health and care plans will remain open to any child whose needs are not met by individual support plans?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, and I encourage the hon. Lady to share with her constituents not just our SEND consultation but the draft profiles that we have established for specialist provision packages, which will be developed by an independent national panel with health and education expertise. I encourage her constituents to look at that and share their views, so that we can deliver a better support system, including for children with the most complex needs, who are being badly let down by a system that is just not working.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Unlike maintained schools, independent special educational needs settings are not required to respond to consultation requests from local authorities, leading to long delays, children being out of school for extended periods, and conflict when parents believe that their children are not in the right setting. What assurance can the Secretary of State give parents in Mid Dorset and North Poole and elsewhere that any school receiving public money will be required to work with local authorities?
Bridget Phillipson
We will set much clearer overall expectations of local authorities, not least given the huge grant funding investment to bring down their deficits. With that money must come better outcomes for children. That is also true of the independent specialist sector. Although it offers much fantastic provision and caters well for children with complex needs, I am afraid that we cannot continue along this path of allowing money meant for education to be sucked into fuelling the profits of private equity.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We will consider ways to make the student loan system fairer, as the Prime Minister said last week. This Government have already reintroduced maintenance grants and raised the repayment threshold to above average graduate salaries, and we are acting across the board on the cost of living by bringing down inflation and tackling transport, energy and rental costs.
David Chadwick
Many graduates feel as if they are drowning in debt and that they were sold a promise—that a university education would help them to pay off their debts quickly—which has not come true. Their debts continue to mount. Will the Government consider scrapping the planned freeze of the repayment threshold?
Josh MacAlister
We had a Westminster Hall debate about this last week, and it is good to see that the debate continues. We will consider ways to make the system fairer; there are a range of options. The threshold freeze raises £5.9 billion next year, and it is incumbent on any party that is serious about fiscal prudence to set out how it would pay for changes.
Mohammad Yasin
Student loan problems long predate plan 2 loans. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making the system fairer after previous Governments ruined the university funding model. It is wrong that generational inequality is baked into the system, which leaves young people with debts for which they can service only the interest. Does the Minister agree that tinkering is not enough, and that fundamental reform is now urgent?
Josh MacAlister
I recognise my hon. Friend’s description of recent history and how we have ended up where we are today. We will consider ways to make the system fairer. As I say, there are a range of options, and we need to do it carefully.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Sammi from Keyingham in my constituency, who was one of the first in her family to go to university, graduated in 2016 after borrowing £40,000. She has now been working in the medical field for over four years, but that £40,000 has grown to £46,000. I was glad to hear the Minister’s previous answer, but Sammi and others want to hear that there will be concrete action to stop the outrageous interest, which is higher than one would expect for a personal loan or a mortgage. Will the Minister do something about it?
Josh MacAlister
I hope the right hon. Member started by apologising to Sammi in his correspondence, because the last Government froze the threshold on 10 separate occasions. I could list them all. They started in the year that the policy was designed and introduced—the same year in which the commitment was made to increase the threshold in line with inflation, which the Conservatives did not do.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Concerns raised in recent weeks about plan 2 student loans, including unilateral and unexpected change in the repayment terms and repayments based on the consumer prices index, are about the promise of higher education: whether working hard for an undergraduate degree really does result in a good quality of life when graduates face 30 years of student loan repayments on these terms. In the light of these escalating concerns, can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Treasury on this issue, and when we can expect to see the work that he promises to make plan 2 loans fairer for students?
Josh MacAlister
I know the Chair of the Education Committee is looking at these issues and the Government will be very interested in that work. We will set out the details of our work soon. My hon. Friend is right to highlight how transformational higher education can be. I would not want any young person outside this place who is listening to this debate to take away from it that they should not make every step forward to follow their talents. The Brit awards were just a few days ago and including some brilliant British talent, many of whom were on creative arts courses at university.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?
Josh MacAlister
I would like to think there is cross-party agreement that tackling educational inequality is one of the most important things that we can do. It is a shame on our country that we are one of the most unequal when it comes to the relationship between how well a child can do at school and how much money is in their parents’ pockets. The Labour party is all about addressing such inequalities, and that is what this Government are doing. That is in no way at odds with finding ways to make our student loan system fairer and fixing it after the 10 years of freezes on thresholds by the Conservatives that hit working graduates.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Our best start in life strategy is expanding access to childcare, saving working families £7,500 a year and getting record proportions of children ready for school. We work closely with local authorities to ensure the quality and sufficiency of childcare, including across Greater London.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Minister for her response. Late last year, with relatively little notice, the trustees of a pre-school in my constituency, Crofton Early Learners, decided to close the pre-school, meaning that 40 sets of parents had a very anxious Christmas wondering and worrying about what childcare they would have in the new year. The very good news is that—thanks to the dedicated work of former staff, volunteers and parents—a new setting called Phoenix Early Learners was opened within just six weeks. Will the Minister join me in thanking both Ofsted and the Charity Commission for fast-tracking the paperwork necessary, and in paying tribute to the staff, carers, volunteers and new trustees of the new early learning centre for all the great work they have done for the local community?
Olivia Bailey
Absolutely. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and all the parents and volunteers, Ofsted, and the early years professionals who have opened at impressive speed what sounds like a fantastic new provision for their community. I am pleased that the Government’s investment in childcare, which will total £9.5 billion this year, is helping ensure that more children have a fantastic early education and are supported to get ready for school.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I have talked to so many families who have had to watch their children fall further behind without the speech and language support they need. Alongside measures to address local authority deficits, we are providing £1.8 billion over the next three years for local areas to develop a new “experts at hand” offer, providing mainstream education settings with access to support from services including speech and language therapy.
Mrs Blundell
As the Minister knows, the SEND system is not working for children, families or local councils, and it has not been for some time. Despite the record of the Conservatives, we cannot allow children in need of speech and language therapy to lose out. Will the Minister assure me that when it comes to speech and language therapy, the new “experts at hand” service will be utilised effectively, so that each local authority will be able to provide all children with the support they need?
Georgia Gould
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend and I thank her for her advocacy on this important issue. We are rebuilding support across the community. Best Start hubs in every community will be supported by £200 million for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and we are investing £40 million to train up new specialist speech and language staff and educational psychologists to ensure that this support is available in every community.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On the subject of the provision of speech and language therapy for students with special educational needs, Westmorland and Furness council, in my area, was not one of the councils in financial difficulty—until last month, when the Government decided, for the crime of it being the most rural district in the country, to cut 31% of its budget over three years. What confidence can children with special educational needs and their parents in my community have that they are not going to be hit massively by these cuts, and what can the Minister do to put the cuts right?
Georgia Gould
We are providing dedicated support for speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and occupational therapists so that they are available to every primary and secondary school. In an average secondary school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, we expect that that will amount to about 160 days of support a year.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
As my hon. Friend knows well, ensuring that all our children, in every corner of the country, learn to read quickly and to enjoy reading is one of this Labour Government’s key priorities. We are building strong foundations for every child in this National Year of Reading. Our best start in life strategy will expand support to improve phonics teaching, and through our regional improvement for standards and excellence English hubs, we are doubling the reach of our “reading ambition for all” programme, so that every child achieves and thrives.
Anneliese Midgley
As the Secretary of State said, 2026 is the National Year of Reading. This week, I am reading “Ghost Town” by Jeff Young. Reading changed my life, and in fact I read a book a week. In Knowsley, one in four children fail their key stage 1 phonics standards, so will the Minister tell me how the National Year of Reading will help kids in my constituency improve their reading and discover the same love of a good book that I have?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her enthusiasm, although she has put us all to shame with her revelation about her amazing reading habits. The National Year of Reading is all about encouraging children to discover the magic of a good book, which can ignite a lifelong love of reading. There will be exciting online and in-person events, with lots of resources, happening in schools and libraries in communities up and down the country, including in Knowsley. I am sure she will be encouraging her constituents, schools and local children to get involved.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Reading daily to young children is shown to have a direct correlation with better outcomes, qualifications and social mobility later in life. Just one book a day means a child will hear approximately 300,000 more words by the age of five than those who are not regularly read to. However, many parents are not aware of this, so as part of the National Year of Reading, have the Government given any consideration to repeating the success of “Clunk Click Every Trip” and running a national advertising campaign to promote directly to new parents the need and the value of reading to their children every day?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the evidence of reading with children, and how even reading for a short time at the end of the day can really set children up to succeed. Through the National Year of Reading, we will be supporting exactly those kinds of initiatives, and through our Best Start family hubs we will ensure that parents get high-quality advice about the best ways to support their children’s learning at home.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
When I visit primary and first schools, teachers tell me that when given a book, more and more children starting school are swiping it, rather than knowing how to turn the page. If the Secretary of State is serious about raising phonics standards at key stage 1, will she act now to empower parents and get screens out of classrooms, and back a ban on social media for under-16s to create the right habits early? Or will she continue to drag her feet, given that it has already taken six weeks to even launch a consultation that we all know the answer to?
Bridget Phillipson
We have launched that consultation. I am clear that phones have no place in our schools, and schools should enforce that policy and ensure that it is being followed.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious and reasonable question about some of the challenges that we see when children arrive at primary school. That is why through our Best Start family hubs and the National Year of Reading, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that more parents and children are more supported. All of us as parents have to lead by example in that regard.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Every primary school in England will have a free breakfast club by the end of this Parliament, giving children a healthy breakfast and a great soft start to the day and improving attainment and attendance. Another 2,000 schools will open free breakfast clubs this year, including Pondhu primary school in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Noah Law
I am delighted that Pondhu primary school in my constituency has been a trailblazer for not just our Government’s free breakfast clubs scheme, but investment in school nurseries, which has been a resounding success. What assessment has the Minister made of the positive impacts of our free breakfast clubs programme on children and their families?
Olivia Bailey
It was a pleasure to spend time with my hon. Friend in his constituency recently, where he and I both enjoyed a range of activities with the brilliant Pinky, including our enthusiastic attempts at axe chopping. I know that my hon. Friend has worked really hard to support and encourage schools in his constituency to participate in our school-based nurseries and breakfast clubs programmes, and I thank him for that. In the south-west, we have opened 30 school-based nurseries and nearly 100 breakfast clubs, supporting thousands of children in St Austell and beyond to get the very best start in life.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The roll-out of free breakfast clubs and the Government’s wider child poverty strategy are supposed to be driven by data, yet the Department does not even hold information on which councils in England have implemented auto-enrolment for free school meals. If the Government do not hold that basic data, which would show that Devon has done so and given £1.5 million in pupil premium but that Plymouth has delayed doing so until 2026-27, how can the Government be trusted to roll out further taxpayer-funded support—such as free breakfast clubs—and how can they prove the impact that that has on child poverty?
Olivia Bailey
All our programmes are evidence based. When it comes to breakfast clubs, we know the data shows us that they will drive up attainment and improve attendance for our schoolchildren.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I thank everyone for their support on the publication of the “Every Child Achieving and Thriving” White Paper and the special educational needs and disabilities reform consultation. From the reception that it has received, it is clear that we are on the right track to reform the system. I look forward to working with Members across the House, education and health staff, parents and children to build a future in which every child can achieve and thrive.
Last week, I was shocked by posts on TikTok encouraging violence by schoolchildren. TikTok must take urgent steps to address that and support firm action being taken by schools, local authorities and police to respond. From September, children will learn about staying safe from violence in the new curriculum.
James MacCleary
Plumpton college in my constituency is celebrating 100 years of land-based education. It has gone from 17 students in 1926 to a nationally recognised centre for agriculture, viticulture and environmental studies, with more than 1,200 full and part-time students today. Farming and land-based producers are vital to our food security, rural economy and environmental stewardship. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Plumpton college on its centenary and set out how the Government will ensure that specialist agricultural colleges have the funding, certainty and support that they need for the next century?
Bridget Phillipson
I join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the amazing success of his local college. We want to ensure that we provide the kinds of support that he talks about, and we are investing more in further education and post-16 education. If he would like to raise further areas, I will ensure that they are picked up by a Minister.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are committed to investing in schools. Our plans include an extra £1.6 billion going directly into schools and £1.8 billion going into the wider “experts at hand” service, on top of increasing funding to the schools core budget. In this Parliament, we will continue to grow our investment in both SEND and schools to ensure that every child gets the best start in life.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Under what circumstances does the Secretary of State think it is appropriate for a five-year-old to socially transition?
Bridget Phillipson
I genuinely expected better from the right hon. Lady. I encourage her to go away and look at the guidance we have published, which will be statutory in nature and makes the involvement of parents very clear. My view—which is also the view of Dr Hilary Cass—is that we should let children be children.
Laura Trott
The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said.
In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?
Bridget Phillipson
No, absolutely not. While I am clear that universities should be places of open discussion and dialogue, where views should be challenged and questioned—that is an important principle that this party has long supported—there can of course be no place for hate speech or intimidation on campus. Anyone involved in that kind of activity should face consequences, but that is entirely different from the wider question that the right hon. Lady started with, which is about the wellbeing of children. We all have a responsibility to approach this issue sensibly and do what is right by children. She obviously has not read the guidance properly.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I really appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has been working closely with me on this issue. The Department sets clear financial management expectations for trusts through funding agreements in the academy trust handbook, and we are bringing in inspections of multi-academy trusts to ensure good governance and financial management.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State has quite rightly said that someone’s background should be no barrier to success, so if she does not propose to increase the pupil premium budget, will she confirm how many children will lose out when she seeks to rebalance it, and will she guarantee that the money will always follow the individual child, not where they live?
Bridget Phillipson
As the hon. Lady knows, we intend to consult on getting the best outcomes for children through the use of the money we are targeting at disadvantage. Free school meals are a rather blunt way of doing that, and we are keen to explore ways of ensuring that all children from less well-off backgrounds, including pupil premium children, get the very best from their education. However, it is a consultation, and I would be more than willing to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent, whose courage, commitment and care for others in the most impossible circumstances is truly inspiring. In the schools White Paper, we committed to consulting on changes to the school admissions code to promote fairness for all families. As part of that work, we will be looking at how to ensure that cases such as this are better supported through admissions policy in the future and, in the meantime, that schools and admissions authorities make use of the social and medical criteria.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, we intend to do that shortly. To be clear, universities should be places of open discussion, where academics can operate freely and everyone is exposed to views that they may sometimes find challenging and with which they may disagree. We have commenced many of the provisions within the Act that are upholding and safeguarding free speech and academic freedom in our universities.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for a technical excellence college in his constituency. We have launched the applications for 19 of those. They get to the core of what this Labour Government are about, which is creating opportunities in every corner of this country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
We were elected on a manifesto to deliver a limit on the number of branded items to cut the cost of school uniform. Unfortunately, some of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could have unintended consequences that would not tackle the problem we are facing, which is that children should be smart when they go to school, but it should not cost their parents the earth.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Literacy levels among Southampton’s children remain a challenge, and I commend the work of so many teachers in attempting to close that gap. Can the Minister say how schools in my constituency can best engage with the National Year of Reading? Will she join me in welcoming plans for a Southampton literary festival to inspire a lifelong love of reading in every child in Southampton?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I welcome and celebrate the launch of the Southampton literary festival by Bitterne Park school, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his advocacy in his constituency. The National Year of Reading is packed full of exciting events for all to participate in, and I encourage Members to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The children of Banks Lane junior school recently visited the parliamentary education establishment, and kindly invited me along. They were fizzing with enthusiasm and excitement for their learning. We know that attitudes to money are embedded at a really young age, so it is welcome that financial education is included in the curriculum and assessment review. We also know that 80% of teachers are reporting heavy workloads. What additional funding and training is coming in to ensure that children get what they need?
Georgia Gould
Children and young people often say to me that financial education is the big change they want to see in the curriculum. We are pleased that we are making that change as part of the curriculum and assessment review and including financial education at primary and secondary level. We are developing a new digital national curriculum to make things easier for teachers, and we are increasing funding for schools to implement these wider changes.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Scottish colleges are struggling to cope with huge cuts to staff and funding, including West College Scotland in my constituency. The Scottish National party has cut funding by 20% in five years. What can the Minister do, working with other Departments such as Defence, to ensure that Scottish colleges become engines of growth and opportunity again, particularly for the young people of West Dunbartonshire?
Josh MacAlister
The SNP’s track record on education is so poor they needed to pull out of the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—league tables because Scotland was plummeting so low. There is a chance to fix that in the elections later on this year. Skills policy is devolved, but as part of our defence boost we are seeing fantastic opportunities to bring colleges in Scotland along on that journey.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise the promotion of British heritage in schools? If so, will she bring in a policy to ensure that every school flies the Union Jack outside its premises, and that a different pupil gets the chance to raise the national flag every morning?
Georgia Gould
We already teach British values, and we are proud to teach our British heritage and our past to set us up for the future.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Given that this is Colleges Week, may I take the opportunity to mention Stafford college, which is widely accepted to be the best college in the country? It already has 1,150 students on manufacturing courses, and works with 250 local employers in the sector. Does the Minister agree that if Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group were made an advanced manufacturing technical excellence college, it could build on its excellent relationship with manufacturers locally?
Josh MacAlister
I gladly congratulate Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group on its recent Ofsted rating, which is fantastic, and I note my hon. Friend’s support for its application to become a wave 2 technical excellence college. The applications closed on 16 February, and we expect to make and announce a decision next month.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Alderley Edge school for girls, in my constituency, has just announced its closure, blaming increased costs, such as national insurance costs, and, most significantly, VAT on school fees. Given that the Secretary of State is responsible for its closure, what will she do to help minimise the disruption to pupils who are now being forced to change school against their wishes, and to look for places in schools in the Cheshire East area that either no longer exist or are full?
Olivia Bailey
I am sorry to hear about the closure of the school in the right hon. Lady’s constituency, but closures of private schools have been in line with historical trends. All pupils are entitled to a state school place, and the right hon. Lady should contact the local authority to discuss this further.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Education Secretary’s commitment to inclusion, but many children in York are not in school because of the disciplinary processes run by multi-academy trusts and the culture that ensues. What will she do to ensure that leaders in such trusts are held to account for that?
Georgia Gould
We think it is absolutely essential for all children to have access to an inclusive education. That is why Ofsted is now inspecting inclusion in all schools. As part of the schools White Paper and the special educational needs and disabilities consultation, we have set out new guidance on reasonable adjustments to support schools with that, and we will inspect multi-academy trusts on their decision-making.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Disgracefully, a pro-ayatollah students’ society plans to host a commemorative event on the campus of University College London in the name of “the fallen”—in other words, in support of those who backed the brutal regime of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is utterly wrong that taxpayer-funded university resources are being used to propagate the murderous ideology of the Tehran regime, which has attacked UK bases, and with which we are effectively at war?
Bridget Phillipson
We expect to see the strongest possible action where hate speech or illegal activity takes place, whether on a campus or anywhere else, and I would expect any suggestions of that kind of activity to be fully investigated by those responsible for enforcing the law.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As this is Colleges Week, will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the incredible college staff in Hartlepool and across the country for the work that they do? Does she agree that we must end the misguided prejudice that the academic route is always best, and champion vocational qualifications, which will give us the workforce we need to rebuild our country?
Bridget Phillipson
I do indeed pay tribute to the amazing people who work in our colleges and in further education, including in Hartlepool college of further education, and I look forward to being in Hartlepool very soon with my hon. Friend to observe that work at first hand.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier.
This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at?
Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support.
We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country.
The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.
Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies”
while forcing us
“to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”.
Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them.
What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.
Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.
I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.
I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.
Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.
We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?
Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.
On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.
I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member and assure her that we have learned the lessons of Iraq. That is why I have been so clear that there must be a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. In relation to our nationals, I think all our constituents would expect our Government to take action to protect British nationals. We have 300,000 British nationals in the region, and they are at risk. We have already seen strikes on hotels where our nationals have been staying, and on airports. We have seen strikes near military bases, within hundreds of yards of our personnel. It is our duty to take the action we can take, and will take, to protect them.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is co-ordination going on for that very reason. As I set out in my statement, there have been 20 Iranian-backed plots to take action on our streets, all of which have been thwarted—I pay my respects to our security and intelligence services and the work that they do. In relation to his first point, two separate decisions were made over the weekend. We are in the sky taking action defensively with our allies. Among the reasons we agreed to the request from the US yesterday was that it has the capability to take out the missile launchers in Iran. That is why we gave permission for the US to use our bases: in order to reduce the threat to our citizens.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has spoken about repatriating British citizens in the region. Will that be through the Ministry of Defence? If so, who will foot the bill: the MOD, the Treasury or those being repatriated?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments on repatriation. At the moment, we are simply focused on working with our allies to get a plan together to get people out in the first place, and to do it as quickly and safely as possible. There is no intention to charge people for that.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?
The Prime Minister
We obviously co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners. We were dealing with a specific request to take action, and it was important that we applied the principle, which actually has been applied by successive Governments, to ask and get legal advice on the question: is there a lawful basis for what is proposed, and does it have a viable, thought-through plan? [Interruption.] It is not a legal question; it is about making sure, before we ask our military personnel to engage in action that risks their lives, that that would be lawful. That is the duty of the Prime Minister. Previous Prime Ministers have taken exactly the same approach. I will, of course, read the shadow Attorney General’s advice, but I am very clear in the advice that I received. I will not commit our military personnel to unlaw action. That is not what they deserve or would expect; they are entitled to better than that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump.
When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action. Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to urge caution—history teaches us that. This is why it is important that there is not only a lawful basis but a viable and thought-through plan. Obviously, we have had discussions at all levels with the US in relation to that. In relation to the decision I took yesterday, I am very clear what the lawful basis is and what the plan in relation to protection of our nationals is. On the question he raises about a vote, that is of course a vote on offensive action, deploying our troops or military, and that is not this situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mr Speaker, you will recall that in 2003 this House voted to support George Bush’s war in Iraq, and that 10 years later we voted not to support Barack Obama’s intervention in Syria. I believed, and still believe, that on both occasions we made the wrong decision, but it was of critical importance for the political and even the social cohesion of this country that those decisions should be made in this Chamber. The people of the United Kingdom will not support an intervention that does not have a clear objective and a clear plan for the post-conflict period. Will the Prime Minister be guided by these principles, and will he ensure that this House is given its place in whatever is handed to us in the weeks and months to come?
The Prime Minister
Of course this House must hold accountability and debate this issue. In relation to the vote, there is no convention for a vote in relation to defensive action; only offensive action. And nor could there be: realistically, defensive action has to be taken at very swift notice. On Saturday morning, I had to take the decision to deploy our pilots to the sky in order to defend our UK nationals. There is no way we could have waited for a debate or vote in the House. Equally, last night I had to take a decision about the use of bases, and it was important that I did so as a matter of some urgency. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a full debate in the House, but the vote in the House is in relation to deployment of military personnel for offensive action, and that is something I have advocated.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
The Prime Minister
Can I be absolutely clear about the basis upon which the request was acceded to yesterday? It was the collective self-defence of our allies and the protection of British nationals. That remains the case. If it changes, I will of course make a different decision and inform the House. My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that that is, and will remain, the basis of the action we have taken.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are working at speed on that. It is an important point, and it is important that we do so. I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out our armed forces. It was this Government that increased defence spending over the course of this Parliament.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Over the weekend, I passed through Dubai airport, along with thousands of other people and many of my own constituents, as it turns out, and boarded a flight home. Shortly after leaving, we heard the news that this attack had happened, and my immediate thoughts went to the people who were still in the airport, who were then grounded and stuck there, not knowing where to turn or what was going to happen. Rather than the blatant aggression and angry sneers that we see from some of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister agree that what we need in this situation is calmness and a clear and strategic plan? That is what our constituents want.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that is what our constituents do want. Can I also say how concerned I think we all are across the House at the attacks on hotels and airports in particular? These are hotels that British nationals and others are using and airports, of course, that civilians are using. This is the extent of the strikes by Iran and the reckless disregard for civilian life that come with the targets it is working through.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The people of Iran have suffered decades of atrocities under the rule of an oppressive regime. However, as we have seen from Iraq and Libya, the removal of an evil head of state without a future plan for governance can lead to countries becoming failed states. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s reluctance to involve the UK in another protracted war in the middle east, I remain unclear on the Government’s vision for the region. Does the Prime Minister want regime change? Have his officials contacted the leading opposition figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, to arrange such contingency plans, or does he wish to negotiate a diplomatic solution with the current regime?
The Prime Minister
The immediate plan is obviously to take the necessary measures to protect our nationals. Look, I do not think anybody mourns the death of the supreme leader. I firmly believe that, ultimately, the only way forward is a negotiated outcome. Whatever the conflict going on, in the end it will have to end in a negotiated outcome, and that has been the consistent position of both parties for a considerable period of time.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
So far we have rightly focused on defending and protecting British citizens in the region. Can the Prime Minister confirm, though, that he believes that the future of the Iranian Government is a matter for the Iranian people and no one else? Can we focus our diplomatic efforts as soon as possible on de-escalation and peace, including identifying allies in a coalition of the willing to bring this to an end?
The Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, and we must absolutely establish that as a founding principle, and that it is our duty to de-escalate in the region and globally. Of course, it is important that we are acting with our allies, and that is why I talked to both the Germans and the French over the course of the weekend on a number of occasions.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon.
Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.
The Prime Minister
Nobody is making the comparison with Iraq; there is a question of drawing lessons from Iraq. The lesson I draw is that there must be a lawful basis for the action we take, and there must be a viable plan. On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about operational matters, I will not go into that from the Dispatch Box.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Foreign Secretary, we have at all levels—including the Foreign Secretary—been talking intensively to our allies over the past few days. They have been extremely grateful for what we have done and the way in which we have engaged. I have spoken personally to all the leaders in the region, so I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making about our not being involved—they are very grateful for the way we have been involved. The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have worked around the clock over the past few days to ensure that all the necessary conversations are had, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect and as he probably knows has been happening.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for setting out clearly the reasons Britain did not join the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. I also thank him for ensuring the defence of Britain’s Gulf partners and for protecting the 300,000 Britons in the region. I agree with him that diplomacy and a negotiated settlement are the best path to peace. Will he outline the role that Britain is playing to ensure that the Iranian people are listened to and have peace and security ahead, not more war and chaos, not another murderous Iranian regime, and not another US-imposed regime change?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear: the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, and in the end the question of nuclear weapons will have to be negotiated. We will always ultimately have to get to that point.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will understand why the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy over the Chamber at times like this. On that basis, does he agree that the best rebuke to the murderers in Tehran and the Iranian regime is the maintenance of the international rules-based system? More than that, we owe it to the people across the region to learn from the instability in the aftermath of Iraq, so what is the long-term viable plan?
The Prime Minister
We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his restraint so far in this operation, and for not heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition to get us embroiled in the reckless US and Israeli strikes on Iran. I still remember interventions in the region: colleagues not returning from Afghanistan, friends who were shot down over Iraq and tortured, and the massive destruction to civilians. Will the Prime Minister commit to limiting UK personnel to defensive operations to protect our citizens and allies, and not get us further embroiled in this unwise and dangerous war?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will always be a lawful basis for any action that we take, and there must be a viable plan for it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the hon. Lady’s constituents, may I ask her to urge them, if they have not already done so, to register their presence as quickly as possible so that we can give them the necessary advice, because this is about how we get people out in the coming days? There are obviously wider questions in the region, but it is very important that we take the necessary measures in the coming days.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?
The Prime Minister
I give my hon. Friend and the House my assurance that I will always act in the British national interest. That is the basis of the two decisions I took this weekend.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Will the Prime Minister confirm the exact limits of defensive operations and guarantee that those limits will not change, and will the UK withdraw consent to use our bases if there is proof that they are being used by the US to carry out offensive missions?
The Prime Minister
The basis is collective lawful defence in relation to our allies. The purpose is to take out the ability of Iran to carry out the strikes that are currently being carried out across the region and threatening British nationals, and the actions from our bases will of course be monitored, as the hon. Lady would expect.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in giving thanks to our brave armed forces who are serving right now? I have constituents in South Derbyshire, as I am sure we all do across the country, who look at their TV screens and their social media and see some world leaders who appear reckless, both internationally and domestically, overseeing what looks like state-sponsored murder of people in their own country. So may I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his cool head in this engagement, and may I implore him to continue exactly as he is: taking all the evidence into account, making decisions that are within the law, and putting the interests of British citizens, both in the countries that are under attack and in the region and at home, first and foremost?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the principles on which I have taken the decisions that I have taken this weekend. We keep uppermost in our minds the protection of our citizens and nationals who are in the region. There are 300,000 of them; they are at risk, and it is very important that we do everything we can to keep them safe and secure.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The truth is that this dreadful Iranian regime has been a permanent threat to British interests and British citizens both domestically and abroad, attacking us and spreading its extremist ideology. Surely the Prime Minister understands that actually the United States and Israel have done the west a huge, huge favour in degrading the military capability of this terrible regime. Does he not understand that, after 10 years of negotiations that have failed, the west was left with no alternative? Does he understand also that in refusing to support the US, he has humiliated us on the international stage?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the regime is abhorrent, for all the reasons that I have already set out, but I think he is saying that because of that, it is perfectly right for a British Prime Minister to deploy and take action that would not be lawful. I simply and fundamentally disagree: I think it is a very important principle, when talking about our personnel, that we ensure that what we are asking them to do—and they are being asked to put their lives at risk—is lawful. I believe in that fundamentally; I am surprised if he does not.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the UK’s support for the security of friends and partners in Cyprus. How is the UK co-ordinating efforts with the Cyprus Government to ensure the safety of the whole island, including the bases?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the President of Cyprus yesterday, and I am hoping to speak to him again later today. I repeat what I said earlier, because it is important for reasons that he and the House will understand. The bases in Cyprus are not being used and are not going to be used by the US. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “Why not?” The answer is that they are not suitable. It is very important that that is made clear, because the President and I have been discussing that, as my hon. Friend will understand.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said:
“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?
The Prime Minister
I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his careful response to this issue and his ongoing commitment to the international rule of law. My constituent’s parents, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, are currently serving an appalling and unjustified 10-year sentence in Evin prison in Tehran. Other Governments have given detailed instructions to their nationals as to what to do if Evin’s prison gates were to open and order break down. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a plan covering that situation will be communicated to them to ensure their safety? Have the Government impressed upon the US and Israel the importance of not targeting Evin prison, as Israel did last year, given that the lives of two British citizens are at stake?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. I assure him that we have been and will continue to take all necessary action to safeguard those interests in relation to this case.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I assure her and her constituents that all necessary measures are being taken to keep her constituents safe in relation to the use of the base in her constituency; that is a first-order priority for us, and that is what we are doing.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to be clear that UK military action has to be in line with international law, and that we were not involved in the offensive action of Israel and the US. He is also right to act to protect British lives and British interests in the face of Iranian attacks. In rightly drawing lessons from Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that a failed state in Iran is not in the interests of the UK, nor in the interests of the wider middle east?
The Prime Minister
We have to learn the lessons. Collapsing and failed states have historically proved to be worse, so we do have to be careful.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?
The Prime Minister
I think I have made clear the basis for the second decision: we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to take out the ability of Iran to make those strikes. That is legal because it is collective self-defence.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Iran’s reckless attacks have fuelled further regional instability, putting British people at risk along with our allies across the region. The attacks have naturally caused concern about what they mean for our own national security due to rising oil prices and the cost of living. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK needs to act decisively in our own national interest, including on how this conflict could impact every household in our country?
The Prime Minister
We are very concerned about the wider impact. That is why it is important that we continue to argue for de-escalation and a return ultimately to negotiation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?
The Prime Minister
We are not at war, and we are not getting involved in offensive action that the US and Israel are taking. We have published a summary of the legal advice in relation to the decision that we took last night. That is in accordance with practice. It is not practice to publish legal advice or summaries in relation to defensive action.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I think the diffidence that we have heard towards international law this afternoon is as unwise as, perhaps, it is unsurprising. For the sake of clarity, can the Prime Minister confirm what would have needed to have been true for it to be legal for him to have joined the offensive strikes last week? Surely that would have required an imminent threat to our national security, which was simply not present when the decision to strike was taken.
The Prime Minister
I will resist setting out the full international law test, but it is clear what the test is—I think that is not disputed. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the Attorney General’s advice, the summary of which has been published for all to see; I do not think anybody is saying that that is the wrong advice. [Interruption.] I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. I would be surprised if he advises that it would have been unequivocally lawful to have joined the initial action, but if the Leader of the Opposition will give me that advice, I will carefully consider it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.
The Prime Minister
There are two separate considerations, obviously; the first was the decision on whether to join the US and Israel in the first place, and the second was the decision that we took last night. We started taking defensive action on Saturday by deploying our pilots to the skies in the region, so we had already taken that action. We added to that defensive action last night by permitting the US to use our bases to strike at the capability of Iran to issue the strikes in the first place.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It has been heartening to see the scenes of jubilation from Iranians, from Syrians and from British Iranians in this country at the death of the evil ayatollah. They hope that it will enable them ultimately to finally gain their freedom from this horrific regime. As the situation evolves, may I ask the Prime Minister to keep them in his mind’s eye? Will he engage and meet with some of the Iranian activists who reside in the UK? In addition, if it does look as if the regime is going to fall, can officials think about the ways in which we can support the Iranian people to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure, and to provide aid, just as we are currently doing in Syria?
The Prime Minister
We must be absolutely clear that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time, including through the terrible actions that were taken in January this year.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In his statement, the Prime Minister explained his disagreement with the US President about UK participation in the initial strikes, and I commend that decision. When the UK refused to participate in US interventions in Vietnam and Grenada, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher kept their disagreements private, but that is difficult to do with Trump. Crucially, though, in the cases of Vietnam and Grenada, the UK stayed out. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the case of Iran, the UK is not going to get dragged into this war on the basis of collective self-defence in support of allies in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I hope I have set out my position clearly, and the reasons behind my decision. That is the basis upon which we made the decision last night; we will keep it under review, and if it changes, I will come back to the House.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I will apply the same principles of whether there is a lawful basis and a viable case to the decisions that we take.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace.
West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?
The Prime Minister
I think we were all shocked by the actions of the deputy leader of the Green party—although perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction. It is important that we all set our face against antisemitism. I have to say that the Green party’s argument that now is the time to get out of NATO and negotiate with Putin over our nuclear weapons is also contrary to the British national interest.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
There are direct flights from Newcastle to Dubai, and many Geordies in the region, including in the armed forces, so I thank the Prime Minister for the steps he is taking to support and protect them, and particularly for acting within international law. Iran is a murderous, despotic state that has frequently threatened, and does threaten, UK security, but the sight of bombs raining down across the Gulf will not make my constituents feel more secure, especially when the impact on democracy and human rights in the region—and, indeed, on the Iranian regime itself—is unclear, to put it mildly. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to help bring this conflict to an end and restore some semblance of security in the region?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents, and I understand just how worried they will be, as will all our constituents who are in the area. That is why it is important that we take measures in the region, as we are doing, to try to take the missiles out of the air. That is the reason we have given permission to the US to use the bases for the limited and specific purposes I have set out.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Last Friday, the talks in Geneva were apparently making good progress and there was hope that there would be some kind of agreement between the United States and Iran. Some 12 hours later, President Trump ordered attacks on Iran, the first victims of which were a group of schoolchildren attending school in the morning. They in no way can be held responsible for anything in Iran, whether human rights abuses or anything else.
In the Prime Minister’s statement, it is unclear to me under which circumstances US forces will be allowed to use RAF bases. Can they use bases in this country to attack Iran? Can they use RAF Akrotiri for that? Are we—this country—sharing information with the US to further its war aims against Iran? Could we not instead adopt a stance of trying to bring about an immediate ceasefire to prevent further dreadful loss of life across every country in the whole region and the danger of this escalating into a semi-global conflict?
The Prime Minister
The uses of the bases are for the collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British nationals—something I am sure the right hon. Member would agree with—and specifically to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes that are currently going into allied countries and putting our nationals at risk. Let me be clear that we are not using Cyprus for this purpose.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his leadership. My thoughts are with serving personnel in the region. May I also mention our armed forces families in Cyprus, some of whom are my constituents? Clear communications from the Ministry of Defence will be crucial in reassuring these families, who are feeling worried and uncertain at this time. In light of the growing threat, may I ask the Prime Minister about the UK’s preparedness commitment under NATO article 3? Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to preparedness, with every Minister in every Department clear on their role in meeting our obligations to ensure that the UK can face the pressures of this increasingly unstable world?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does. I know she has a lot of military families in her constituency, and she is right to be concerned for them. I am sure that they will be feeling concerned. We will ensure that we liaise closely with them, wherever they are in the region, and do all that we can to protect them. We of course thank them for what they are doing. On the wider point she makes, it is important that the whole of Government is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we all learn the lessons of Iraq, and they are that there needs to be a lawful basis for action if it is taken and that there needs to be a viable case.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar. I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on compliance with the law. What discussions have the Government held with the Government of Qatar and other regional allies about co-operation to ensure the safety, security and support of British nationals? What joint measures have been agreed to assist British nationals in the region?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to all the leaders across the region in person, on the telephone, over the weekend, and that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others have been liaising very closely to ensure that we can take the best, swiftest and most effective action to protect our nationals.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake.
One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why I have proceeded on the basis that there must be a lawful case for what is done and a viable plan. For us, the immediate vision that is important is ensuring that we do what we can to protect our citizens and de-escalate the situation so that we can get to a negotiated outcome.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his reassurance about the principles for involving the United Kingdom in any military action. For those on this side of the House, it is important that, as well as having a viable plan, we stand by the rule of law. Has my right hon. Friend been able to have any discussions with the Arab states, and with Turkey, about how we might build that plan for de-escalation as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we have been having discussions throughout the weekend with counterparts in the region to that end, about how we rise to the challenge that is currently before us, what action we can take to protect our nationals and our allies across the region, and how we can de-escalate.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?
The Prime Minister
I clearly set out the two decisions that I made over the weekend, including the decision on Saturday to start taking defensive action with our pilots in the region, and the decision last night to permit the US to use our bases for collective self-defence in order to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes in the first place.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
May I put on record my admiration for the skill and the bravery of our armed forces? We owe them a debt of gratitude now more than ever as they see action.
The Prime Minister was right to say that we must learn the lessons from Iraq, and all the other conflicts in which there has not been a viable end plan. Given that, can he reassure me that the decision to allow the United States to launch operations from our bases will be kept under constant review, so that the UK’s presence in this conflict remains a defensive one?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The decision will be kept under review, and I will update the House accordingly.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working at pace to deal with the drones and are working with our Ukrainian colleagues, who have been facing this for four years. We have been working with them on that, and we are working with them to help to protect allies who are under attack in the region.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Overnight, my constituents have lost the benefit—promised to them only last week—of savings on energy prices through the attacks on refineries across Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Oil prices have soared, and gas prices in Europe have surged by upwards of 52% in the last few hours. The longer this carries on, it risks escalation across the middle east. Closer to home, it impacts on the day-to-day lives of the British people through increased energy costs. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of energy prices to British households, and what efforts is the Prime Minister making to ensure that we can de-escalate sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents. We are carefully monitoring that, as she would expect, and we are doing all that we can with our allies to de-escalate the situation.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
As a veteran, I agree with the Prime Minister that the safety of our armed forces and of British citizens should come first in any decision made in the future. Given the rapidly evolving situation, will the Ministry of Defence now expedite the promised defence investment plan, so that our industry can get on and make the capabilities that this country needs?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are getting on with that as quickly as we can.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
We should all welcome the end of the Iranian regime—if it is the end of the regime. Those of us who were in this House for the decision on Iraq needed no convincing that Saddam’s was an evil regime. What we needed convincing on was that the attack was permissible in international law and that there was clarity about the exit strategy; it had neither of those, and nor does the US attack on Iran. The Prime Minister’s broadcast justification of the use of our bases spoke of enabling a defensive strike. Words have meaning: a “defensive strike” is a contradiction in terms. The usual phrase is “pre-emptive strike”, and in any language, a pre-emptive strike is an attack.
The Prime Minister
The use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out Iran’s ability to launch the attacks in the first place. I think that is relatively clear.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Houthis in Yemen have declared their support for Iran but have so far taken no pre-emptive action. Given that the UK has previously been willing to take action against the Houthis, would we be willing to do so again if they become involved?
The Prime Minister
I will not get into hypotheticals, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when the last Government were in office and we were in opposition, we supported that action, as was the case when we were in government and the Conservatives were in opposition. He can see what the consistent practice is there.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The brutality of the Iranian regime is unquestionable, but does the Prime Minister agree with many of our constituents still in the region, who will be deeply concerned at the indication from the United States today that it will increase its airstrikes on Iran? Can he assure us that he will redouble his efforts to take forward the strategy, which he has rightly set out today, of de-escalation and action that is in accordance with international law?
The Prime Minister
I acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as many of our constituents will be concerned. That is why it is our duty to take measures to protect them first and foremost, and to de-escalate the situation.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?
The Prime Minister
The deal secures the islands so that they can be used for the important purposes that they are used for. It was vital that we got the deal; otherwise, we would not be able to carry out the operations in the same way.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
This conflict has already cost lives. Civilians are caught in the crossfire, and hundreds of thousands of UK nationals are stranded in the region. If it continues for weeks, that will only make it more difficult to evacuate our nationals, and it will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and damage to the world economy. Can the Prime Minister say more about what he will do in the coming days to work with our allies in the EU and the middle east to try to bring an end to this conflict, and to return to diplomatic negotiations, so that we can secure peace and security and protect civilian lives?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are talking to our allies in the region and to allies in Europe—we talked to France and Germany, in particular, over the weekend—to be clear about the principles we are applying, and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to de-escalate the situation.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?
The Prime Minister
The question I was asked and I was answering was: what would be the lawful basis for anything the United Kingdom would do? That is the question that I considered over the weekend, and that is what guided me in the two decisions that I had to make about the United Kingdom.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I had 40 constituents with me this morning, and they were very concerned about the creation of a regional vacuum, specifically in places like Lebanon and Yemen. What steps is the UK taking to prepare for targeted stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in the countries that will be most exposed if the Iranian regime changes?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is very important that we take those measures in the countries that are most exposed, and we are talking to our allies about how we can do that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Israel, where these actions were being anticipated, largely with some dread. The great sense I got from talking to both groups of people was of deep national trauma, caused in no small part by the actions of Iranian-backed terrorists. What does the Prime Minister know about the ultimate intentions of either the Israeli or the American Government? What is their exit strategy? What are their objectives? There can be no probability of regime change coming from all this, so how does it make the lives of the Iranian people any better, and the lives of those in the wider middle east any more secure?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising the matter of the west bank; it is a cause of great concern, which is only intensified by actions in recent days, and I am not surprised that they have caused deep concern in the west bank. As far as the UK is concerned, I have clearly set out what our strategy is, and the basis for the actions that we are taking.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard multiple sets of evidence about the risk in our dependence on fossil fuels, given the volatility of prices. The way that oil and gas prices have gone up has been a salutary reminder of that evidence. Remember that gas sets the price for our electricity most of the time. Is not the energy transition not a matter of ideology, but a matter of national security importance, and economic importance?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Among the reasons for pushing ahead with renewables is that they give us energy security and independence, which is hugely important at a time like this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I please urge Members to make their questions significantly shorter? There is still a huge number of Members seeking to catch my eye. I know we are going to have an exemplary performance from Mark Pritchard, with a very short question, please.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.
The Prime Minister
I have been absolutely focused only on British nationals this weekend. That has been the total focus of my attention, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by suggesting otherwise.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A constituent who fled Iran fought back tears as she told me that she wanted an end to the regime in Iran that had targeted her and her loved ones. She also said that she wanted absolutely no illegal military intervention from external forces. Does the Prime Minister understand that enabling the use of military bases by the Government’s allies—in this case, the US—and Israel’s illegal actions are dragging our country into a wider conflict, but that the Government have no power to determine the conflict’s outcome, and that that risks making us all more, not less, safe?
The Prime Minister
No. Our decisions were made to protect British citizens and British nationals, and I stand by those decisions.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Iranian regime is a murderous regime. It is an exporter of terrorism, and a threat to regional and national security, and its removal is good for British security and good for the Iranian people. However, what comes next is even more important than what has happened. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he wants a “viable, thought-through plan”. Does he think that President Trump has a viable, thought-through plan for what comes next?
The Prime Minister
We are obviously discussing all matters with the US, all the time. I am absolutely clear what our plan is, and what the basis for our decisions is, and I have set them out to the House.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Our primary duty at this time must be to ensure the safety of British nationals in the region—people like my constituents the Foreman family, who are trapped abroad and do not know when they will be able to come home. Their father’s medication runs out today, and they have no idea whether they will be able to obtain more drugs. What assurance will the Prime Minister provide that consular support will be there for families like my constituents, so that they get the medication they need and, ideally, come home as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?
The Prime Minister
We are using British personnel to defend Cyprus at this very moment.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
No one should shed a tear for the Iranian leadership; this was a brutal and oppressive regime. However, there are other brutal and repressive regimes in the world. A brutal and oppressive regime is never, in and of itself, a reason to attack a country. Can the Prime Minister please assure me that any involvement of British troops or assets in this conflict will be purely defensive?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the principles on which I will act. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Any action will have to have a lawful basis, and a viable case for it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
As long as the Iranian regime exists, it will continue to pose a direct threat to our security, and to stability across the region, yet Cabinet Office figures show that non-official development assistance integrated security fund spending for the middle east is set to fall by a third in the coming years. Will the Prime Minister explain why funding to counter Iranian threats is being reduced, when those threats remain so acute?
The Prime Minister
We are taking a number of measures to deal with Iranian threats, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister claims that lessons have been learned from Iraq, and I really hope that is true. Netanyahu and Trump instigated an illegal act of aggression, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people, including UK nationals and our military. Does the Prime Minister agree that diplomacy and de-escalation are needed if we are not to bring Britain into a reckless and catastrophic war, and can he provide details about this “viable, thought-through plan” to repatriate our nationals?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to apply the principles that I have set out, and will work to de-escalate across the region.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?
The Prime Minister
My point is simply that in the end, there will ultimately have to be a negotiated outcome when it comes to nuclear weapons. At what point that happens is obviously unclear, particularly after the past few days. That is why it has for years been the consistent policy of both our parties that this should be a negotiated outcome. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy until Friday of last week.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Door-knocking in Ealing yesterday, I met a student whose parents fled Iran in 1979, and who told me how overjoyed they are to get rid of this despotic, tyrannical regime. Yet the methods used surely risk undermining the rules-based order. A girls’ school was hit, with 150 kids killed; we appear to have normalised the bombing of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and universities in Gaza by one of the two instigators of this action. What does the PM see as the end game of this war, and how will he stop Operation Fury turning into Operation Futility?
The Prime Minister
I have clearly set out the basis for the decisions I have taken, and my view that we should all do all we can to de-escalate the situation.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for his measured statement and restraint. The illegal action by Israel and the USA over the weekend, taking out admittedly a very repressive and brutal regime leader, has left the region and the world in turmoil, which is creating real fear, especially for our children. In fact, my 14-year-old asked me over the weekend, “Dad, are we all going to be okay?” I ask the Prime Minister this, as a father: what assurance he can give my son, and all the children in this country and the middle east, that he will do everything in his power to prevent the outbreak of world war three, which Donald Trump and Netanyahu are driving us towards?
The Prime Minister
The protection and security of British nationals is my foremost duty. I take it very seriously—that is why I took the decisions that I did over the weekend—and will continue to do so.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many people in my constituency, I said prayers over the weekend while watching the events unfold. It is clear that the region is in a perilous state, and we need to de-escalate, follow the rule of law and get peace back on the table.
I have a related question on the region for the Prime Minister. As he will know, many in the House were passionate about ensuring a ceasefire in Gaza and ensuring that aid and humanity got in. We know that there have been closures of ways into the west bank and Gaza over the weekend. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give us that while we look towards Iran, we will not lose sight of the humanitarian need in Gaza and on the west bank?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The ceasefire in Gaza is welcome but fragile, and not enough aid was getting in even under the circumstances before this weekend. We are working with others to ensure that we can alleviate the situation as quickly as possible.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?
The Prime Minister
This is the Government who have increased defence spending. I can assure the hon. Lady that our service personnel are working very hard as we speak to keep us safe and to protect the region, and we thank them for doing that.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
May I commend my right and learned hon. Friend for his resolute stand? It cannot have been easy to stand up to the President and not get dragged into this war, which has no apparent plan for its end. We made that mistake in 2003, and the result was disastrous. The President of the United States has made it clear that he wants to see regime change. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has seen evidence of any plan to achieve that in our negotiations with the United States?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are talking to the US at all levels, and there is real clarity about the action that we have taken and the basis and reason for that action.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
No one here is an apologist for the cruel Iranian regime, but the escalation initiated by the US Administration and the Israeli Government is illegal, and I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. Hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are directly affected and at risk, and they include people from Dwyfor Meirionnydd. While there must be questions anon about a vote in this House as we fear that these defensive actions will slide into offensive ones, but we do not know how we will track that process. None the less, the question for today that people want us to ask is this: when will people be coming home, especially from Doha and Dubai?
The Prime Minister
I know that the right hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, will be very concerned, particularly since there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. We want to make sure that the answer to her question is that we will get them home as quickly and as safely as we can, and we are working with our regional allies on this as we speak.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his measured response so far. I have spoken to former constituents and friends who are British expats in the UAE. While they feel confident that the local Government there are doing all that they can to protect them, for clarity, will they too be considered for evacuation by the FCDO should it become necessary?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies to ensure that all those who need our help get our help and are safely and swiftly removed from a region that is dangerous for them.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to disclose the full advice. International law does not just have an important role to play; it is vital if we are taking action that involves our personnel. That is why I took advice, and I have published the summary of that advice. I said that I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. if he is setting out a lawful basis, I would be very interested to read it.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his clarity on our adherence to international law. From Somalia to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, history shows us that military interventions do not always lead to peaceful political transitions and often have wider regional and global repercussions. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that his focus will be on encouraging a peaceful transition for the people of Iran and de-escalating the situation regionally and globally?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also underscore her point that the future of Iran must be for the people of Iran, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
We must not conflate the appalling actions of Iran with those of the Iranian people, who have spent years fighting at great risk for change—and intensively over the last couple of months. The severe repression under the ayatollah has led many of them to actually welcome the actions of Trump and Netanyahu, but how are this Government going to ensure that Iranian voices are heard when decisions are being made about their future once military action finally subsides?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we are clear on the principle that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed, particularly but not only in recent months. We must consistently make that case, and we are doing so.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
This is an extremely dangerous moment, and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show where it can end up: with death, destruction, terror and chaos impacting tens of millions of people. Given that, should the Government’s focus not be on pushing Trump, Israel and Iran towards diplomacy, de-escalation and a ceasefire? Instead, by siding with Trump, has the Prime Minister not risked dragging us into a wider conflict, which leaves us all less safe? Mission creep would erode the distinction that he is attempting to make between offensive and defensive actions and would lead us to become fully embroiled in an illegal US war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
My focus has been on the protection of the 300,000 British nationals in the region, who are at risk. It is our duty to take steps to reduce that risk and bring them to safety and security.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree with the way that he puts it. It is important that we acknowledge that the Iranian people have been brutally repressed for so many years.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
May I express my support for the Government’s handling of the events this weekend? I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s clarity today that international law is paramount and that priority is being given to the safety of UK citizens. Does he agree with me, however, that this will end only when Iran, the US and allies get around the table and talk about nuclear de-escalation, and when Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions? Will the Prime Minister tell us what conversations he has had with allies to ensure that happens?
The Prime Minister
We are having conversations with allies about de-escalating the situation and about how we get back to negotiation. In the end, at whatever stage it is, that will have to be part of the process.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We should welcome the actions of America and Israel in trying to destroy a regime that, as the Prime Minister described, has exported terror all over the world, but why the weak-kneed response from the Government that we are limiting our bases to defensive actions. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by “defensive actions”? For example, are attacks on factories making drones that are used to deliver bombs defensive? Are attacks on the leaders planning the war against our allies in the middle east defensive? Would attacks on nuclear facilities be regarded as defensive? Would attacks on the infrastructure that is used to mobilise these weapons be defensive? What are the limits of this defensive action?
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear that the action that we have authorised from our bases is to take out Iran’s capability to launch these attacks, which of course means taking out the launchers and the infrastructure that sits behind them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and measured approach and for his reassurance today. As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the mum of a serving personnel member currently deployed overseas, my first thought is always for the men and women we ask to stand in harm’s way. The Iranian regime’s reckless attacks are not abstract; they are direct threats to British service personnel and British citizens in the region. Will the Prime Minister, first, confirm that every measure is being taken to protect constituents on the ground? Secondly, will he assure the House that when we pursue de-escalation and democracy, operational decisions will be grounded firmly in one overriding principle: the safety of our British servicemen and women?
The Prime Minister
I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are deployed abroad. We are doing everything we can to protect them, and we thank them for the work that they are doing in the region.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?
The Prime Minister
To ask our servicepeople to act when we do not have a lawful basis would be a dereliction of moral purpose.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is abominable, but it is clear that the initial joint strikes on Iran were neither defensive nor lawful. As the situation dangerously escalates, hundreds of innocent civilians are now dead across the middle east and UK personnel and citizens are at risk. The Prime Minister has outlined that his aim is a negotiated settlement. Will he outline the tangible action that he and his international counterparts are taking now to secure a ceasefire so that negotiations can resume?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that the actions we are taking are to protect British nationals, and we are working with others to de-escalate the situation.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Since we came to the Chamber, a senior Iranian commander has said that they would seek to bomb Cyprus to force out US aircraft from our sovereign bases. As a guarantor of Cyprus’s security and as a sovereign presence on the island of Cyprus, what concrete military devices and measures do we have in place in Cyprus to ensure that no further successful drone attacks can happen on the airfield? What assurances can the Prime Minister offer to Cyprus that no attacks will take place in Cyprus as a whole as a result of our presence there?
The Prime Minister
I will be absolutely clear again, because it really matters, that the US is not using Cyprus; it is our base. I will not go into operational details, but as the hon. Member would expect we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that Cyprus and the base are safe. I spoke to the President yesterday, and I hope to speak to him again later this afternoon.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Given the comments yesterday from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the IRGC is adopting a decentralised mosaic defence to fragment command and control structures and create even more unpredictable flashpoints, will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on what steps he is taking with allies, including partners in the region, to mitigate such developments that threaten to escalate and prolong the conflict?
The Prime Minister
We have already put extensive sanctions in place, and we keep the situation under constant review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I would like to come back to the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the alarming ease with which the Iranian regime was able to penetrate our defences and strike the airfield. That very much suggests that it has little by way of counter-uncrewed aerial systems capability and nothing by way of No. 2 Counter UAS Wing squadrons to deter such attacks.
Will the Prime Minister confirm what type of drone struck the airfield? Will he also confirm the origin of that drone? Did it fly from Iran all the way across Israeli airspace to strike Cyprus, or did it come from Hezbollah in Lebanon? Given that we have been attacking Daesh targets this year via Operation Shader, will he strike back at Hezbollah if it proves that the drone came from Lebanon?
The Prime Minister
I reassure the hon. Member, and through him everybody in Cyprus, that protective measures are in place. His description was not right, and it is not helpful to those living in Cyprus to cast it in those terms. [Interruption.] It really is not. As he would expect, extensive measures are in place—both US measures and UK measures—for the defence of Cyprus and the airbase there. It is very important that I make that absolutely clear.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. I did mention it in my opening statement, but she is quite right that we must be clear that we will protect all those who need our protection. Obviously, where people need to get out, we are working with all of them to get them out as quickly and as safely as possible.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
After the fall of the regime in Iraq, there was no long-term plan and civil society collapsed. In 2004, I was in Op Telic 4 in Iraq, retraining the Iraqi police service. One day I asked my lance corporal, “How do we know if the recruits are former Ba’athist regime supporters or not?” He said, “We don’t. We’ve no idea who we’re training.” The US has attacked Iran with no clear strategy, and now this Government have agreed that UK bases can be used for defensive attacks. I am seriously concerned about the potential for mission creep when there is no clear understanding of Trump’s military objectives. In deciding to allow the US to use UK bases for defensive actions, UK military and civilian lives have been put at risk. Military operations with no clear objectives tend to fail, so can the Prime Minister explain how such a decision—which could lead to mission creep—was made when we have no understanding of Trump’s long-term military aim or post-conflict plan?
The Prime Minister
The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under review, and we have already put in place a considerable number of sanctions.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Prime Minister has set out the threats posed by Iran with some clarity. Taking that into account, does he not recognise that treating international law as a rigid instrument as opposed to a flexible one, as he appears to do, risks binding our hands when it comes to national security?
The Prime Minister
I have made the point a number of times that it is important that there is a clear legal basis. I am not actually sure what the Conservative party’s position is. Are they saying that they would have joined the original strikes, irrespective of whether that was lawful or not? I have not heard a clear answer to that question. It would be very helpful to have one.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Iranian action in the strait of Hormuz and the attacks on energy infrastructure risk driving up energy prices here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister, in the coming days and weeks, make it clear that the blame for any rising energy prices lies with Iran? Will he also hold all possible discussions to support people in this country, including in my constituency, with any ensuing rising bills?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a concern for his constituents, and for so many of our constituents, and we will take every measure to protect them.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
People in Northern Ireland are entitled to be British, Irish or both. As such, many have travelled to the middle east on an Irish passport. We know that the FCDO has asked people to register. However, those Northern Irish citizens who have an Irish passport and are also UK nationals cannot register. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will work to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern Ireland will not be left behind?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I will get to the bottom of it and make sure that the concern she has raised is properly, fully and swiftly addressed.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for raising the spectre of Iraq. We on the Labour Benches remember how a bloody invasion can lead to a brutal civil war. We know that the aftershocks of now will last years, not days. We are also seeing energy prices spiking, with oil up by 10% and gas up by 50%. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will act to restore peace in the region and to keep life affordable for our citizens?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that he has raised that point and I thank him for doing so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?
The Prime Minister
It doesn’t. It is the simple use of bases operationally that has been agreed, as of last night.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave service personnel, who every day work incredibly hard to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to him for his leadership on this matter. A number of people from my constituency of Harlow are trapped in Bahrain and Dubai, including one who is pregnant. What advice can the Prime Minister give to my constituents who are worried about their safety?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituents; I am sure they are very anxious about the situation. I assure them and him that we are working at pace with our allies to get a safe and swift route for them to come out of the region, which is what they all want.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I want to go back to the original attacks. Last year, Trump told us that he was attacking Iran to destroy any possibility of it getting a nuclear weapon, and told us afterwards that he had “obliterated” the threat for years to come. Given that was the justification for the attacks last week, and now that Israel has said that they had been planned for months, their urgency seems questionable. What can the Prime Minister tell us about determining the facts around the justification and around the presence of nuclear materials, so that the basis of any future action is clear?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I took two decisions over the weekend. The second was to allow the bases to be used because of the actions of Iran and the need to protect our citizens, our nationals.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Member that we are taking measures with our allies to safeguard the supply and to do all we can to ensure that we have the energy we need where we need it.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
While the ayatollah has been toppled, the IRGC remains intact, and it is indeed the head of the snake as the sponsor of global terrorism. Despite many urgings, the previous Conservative Government failed to proscribe the IRGC. The Prime Minister’s Government have made the promise to do so. Nothing has happened yet—if not now, when?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. and learned Member will know from her time in office that this is kept under review, but we have put extensive sanctions in place, as the previous Government did.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Putting aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday morning, the BBC is in a unique position: running BBC Persian language broadcasting into Iran. Given that and given President Trump’s wishes for the Iranian people themselves to take control, will the Prime Minister put on the record whether he will work with the BBC over the coming days to ensure that there is more Government funding, wherever necessary, to broadcast what is required to the Iranian people?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that the BBC reports and broadcasts in the way that it does, and we support it in doing so.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A 23-year-old Eastbourne lad, Cameron, is currently lying stranded in a Dubai hospital bed after falling very ill during a minutes-long stopover in Dubai over the weekend. During this window, the airspace closed. Cameron’s hospital bills are £1,000 a day, which he is being forced to pay up front despite having insurance. Cameron, who is watching, urgently needs to know the following. First, when will the Prime Minister outline his repatriation plan, if there will be one? Secondly, will he prioritise British nationals who are clinically vulnerable for repatriation, if it is medically safe? Thirdly, will the appropriate Minister meet me and Cameron’s family to ensure that he gets the treatment he needs before money runs out and to make sure that we get Cameron back to Eastbourne safe?
The Prime Minister
Cameron and his family and loved ones must be extremely worried. If the hon. Member would pass me the full details of that particular case, I will make sure that we do whatever we can to assist Cameron and his family.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks there was insufficient imminent threat to justify our going with our allies in the initial strike. But this is now after the act of war—after the attack on UK citizens across the middle east, many countries of which were not participating, and on British sovereign territory. That means we can join in and we could be involved in offensive actions if the Prime Minister so chose. Why is he choosing not to, and why is he pretending it is for a legal reason when that legal reason has disappeared?
The Prime Minister
We started taking action on Saturday morning, with our pilots in the sky across the region, and they have been working ever since. We added to that yesterday afternoon by acceding to the request of the Americans to use our bases for the attacks on Iran’s capability to launch strikes in the first place.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for accepting that the reason the British Army is not involved is that it would be unlawful and illegal. Thereby, what America has done is illegal—an illegal attack that has led to the death of 167 girls aged between seven and 11. There are people sitting in this Chamber who oppose refugees coming to this country; they are the very same people who are asking for war. Would he be surprised if we had a sudden influx of refugees as a result of what has happened?
The Prime Minister
The actions I have taken have focused on our need to protect British nationals. It is in all our interests, including British nationals, that we do all we can to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the removal of the abhorrent Iranian regime, having seen its beginnings 47 years ago, when my father was a serving officer in the British embassy. We knew the Americans who were taken hostage. I add my thanks to our serving personnel, who are putting their lives at risk. Since the pre-emptive strike, there has been a sad but inevitable escalation in hostilities, so what can the Prime Minister do to persuade Donald Trump to go to negotiations—that is where we have to be—given that he believes only in win-or-lose situations?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?
The Prime Minister
We are not equivocating. Pilots have been in the sky since Saturday morning, hours after the attack, risking their lives. I am grateful to them for doing so. They went straight up there, and they have been up there ever since. There was no equivocation; they went up straightaway, and it was the right thing to do.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
This conflict has grounded travellers at Doha, including a constituent who has three young children waiting at home. Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with Qatari leaders, can he explain how evacuations will be prioritised, and what support is being provided on the ground to those who were expecting simply to pass through?
The Prime Minister
May I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Qataris and others to ensure that we are able to get everybody to safety and security as quickly as possible? They are evolving plans, as she will appreciate. It is a difficult situation, but I can assure her that we are doing everything we can to get people out safely—they are our first priority.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
As the Prime Minister admits, following the illegal pre-emptive strikes and the killing of Iran’s leader, Iran has become more aggressive and more unpredictable in the region. How can we possibly be assured that further strikes, further attacks and further aggression will somehow calm the situation? Britain must not contribute to another conflict whose legality is in serious doubt. Will the Prime Minister now commit unequivocally to upholding international law, to publishing the Government’s legal advice, and to pressing for an immediate ceasefire and a return to diplomacy rather than allowing the United Kingdom to be drawn into another unlawful war?
The Prime Minister
It is my duty to protect British nationals—300,000 of them are in the region. The hon. Member will have heard the anxiety from various Members about their constituents being trapped in that situation, only too aware of the danger that they are facing. It is my duty to ensure that the risk to them is reduced. That is why we took the action that we did over the weekend.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by an Iranian ballistic missile in Iraq in 2020. When I arrived as a soldier three months later, our base came under attack from Iranian proxy militias eight times. The Iranian regime has gunned down tens of thousands of protesters in recent weeks. Morality is complex. I entirely support the Prime Minister’s view on the need for a negotiated settlement, given, sadly, the risks of regime change, but does he agree that any negotiated settlement needs to include protections against reprisals for protesters?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. It is really important that we approach this with clear principles about what we are trying to achieve and having learnt the lessons of history in terms of what happens after such conflicts.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that the Prime Minister has drawn, I am very grateful for the reverence and caution that he shows, and for the respect for human life that he has been trying to demonstrate. The limited time he had over the weekend to make decisions on how best to act reveals that he was not involved in all of the pre-planning, so may I ask why the UK is no longer at the decision-making table?
The Prime Minister
We talk to our allies all the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows and would expect, and we talked to them extensively over the weekend in response to the situation as it developed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I applaud the Prime Minister’s judgment in this matter. I am in contact with British nationals trapped in a hotel in Qatar who are seeing missiles passing overhead, with more than 30 explosions just today. They texted me a few minutes ago to say there has been a lack of messaging from their Government. They are desperate for news on evacuation plans, but the consulate auto-reply is currently advising them on how best to enjoy Ramadan. Can the Prime Minister please ensure that our consulates redouble their efforts to give information and reassurance to our nationals across the region?
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can as quickly as we can. I will pick up the issue the hon. Gentleman has raised specifically, and will he please reassure his constituents that, he having raised it with me, I will do whatever I can to respond very quickly?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
US congressional staff were told on Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike American forces or bases unless Israel attacked Iran first. In other words, there was no intelligence indicating an imminent threat. Yet we have already seen pre-emptive strikes attacking a girls’ school, killing over 100 children. This has been condemned by UNESCO as a grave violation of humanitarian law, yet the Prime Minister did not bother to mention it. Continuing such actions is unlawful, and allowing them to take place from UK bases is unlawful, so I ask the Prime Minister: is the genocide of the Palestinian people not enough for this Labour Government? Is he proud to be another Labour Prime Minister obediently following Washington into yet another illegal war in the middle east, making us all less safe? Finally, how much does he enjoy being Donald Trump’s poodle?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the decisions I made over the weekend and the reasons for them. My first duty is to protect British nationals; it is the most important duty that I have, and I will continue to discharge it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime have denied religious minorities their freedom of religious belief for years—Christians, Sunnis, Shia’s and Baha’is. They killed 30,000 protesters in January 2026. Girls are abused and victimised regularly. Today the ayatollah is deservedly dead and burns in hell, and I for one put a shovel of coals on his head and hope his damnation will be a long one. The IRGC and the Basij paramilitary groups have the guns while the protesters have none, so what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the USA and Israel to destroy the murderous IRGC? And what discussions has he had with Madam Rajavi and the national Iranian Government in exile on their 10-point plan for a solution and a transparent way forward?
The Prime Minister
There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?
The Prime Minister
We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) incorrectly attacked the reputation of Mothin Ali, deputy leader of the Green party, by saying that he had protested in support of the ayatollah. He certainly did not. Mothin Ali attended a CND and Stop the War anti-war protest, in support of his principles of being anti-war, pro-democracy and pro-diplomacy. What advice can you give me about correcting the record regarding this serious false accusation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I assume that she also informed the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) of her intention to refer to him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Member will know, Members themselves are responsible for the accuracy of their words in the Chamber. If a correction is needed, I am sure that one will be forthcoming. For now, she has placed her own view on the record.
Bill Presented
Representation of the People Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 410 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There is a lot of interest from Members across the House in this Bill, and that is no surprise, because we are all proud of our British democracy. Our democracy is a fundamental part of who we are as a country. The long history of this House has been punctuated by reforms that have strengthened it. It is precisely because of that evolution of our elections and Parliament that in a world where too many beacons of democracy have dimmed, ours still shines brightly.
As parliamentarians, we are more than caretakers of democracy; we are here to actively advance it and to protect it from threats. When hostile actors at home and abroad seek to sow division, using every means possible to undermine our elections, trying to destabilise the very foundations of our freedom and our democratic institutions, then we must act. That is why we are debating the Representation of the People Bill: to secure our elections against those who threaten them; to protect those who participate; to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters; and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.
At the 2024 general election, Labour’s election manifesto committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. We campaigned on encouraging participation in our democracy, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and improving voter registration, while fulfilling our pledge to strengthen protections against foreign interference, as well as to introduce rules around donations.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I have come straight to Parliament from Kingsbury school in my constituency, where the year 11 pupils were saying how much they are looking forward to being given the right to vote, so may I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that forward in the Bill?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for these measures? They were in the Labour election manifesto on which we both stood, and it is a great pleasure now to start to implement them.
We committed to these measures because we understand that in a democracy, people must be in control of their lives and their own country. However, because we live in a time of growing instability, conflict and change, we can best protect our democracy by making it more robust and more accountable.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
There are some very welcome measures in the Bill. I intend to table an amendment to stop oil and gas giants making donations, given the pernicious role that they play in undermining the action that we need to take on climate change. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the amendment and the need to clean up our politics from abuse by fossil fuel giants?
Steve Reed
We are tightening the rules on donations so that the system can be much more robust and has much greater integrity than is currently the case.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), published our strategy for modern and secure elections in July 2025. The strategy promised to restore faith in our democracy. It set out new tasks of future-proofing our democracy, keeping our elections safe, upholding our values and protecting against foreign interference. We promised to expand the democratic rights of young people and set a path towards automated voter registration.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Secretary of State recognise that when young carers and young adult carers get to the age of 16, they have potentially already been caring for a loved one for over a decade? They are emotionally intelligent and educated enough, and have enough life experience, to deserve the democratic right to vote.
Steve Reed
That is a very appropriate intervention. My hon. Friend makes his point very well and I agree with what he has to say.
We will establish new safeguards on digital campaigning and allow digital voter identification. We will strengthen our elections against foreign interference, and we will protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections from harassment and intimidation. Today, this Government are making good on that commitment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The UN’s definition of an adult is somebody who is 18 years of age. Restrictions on social media are being introduced to ensure that those aged 16 and above will be protected. I genuinely and sincerely ask the Minister, when it comes to reducing the voting age to 16, have the Government considered the UN’s definition and the way that people use social media, which might mean that they are taken advantage of or abused on social media?
Steve Reed
Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that people feel about the idea of cryptocurrency getting into our democracy? Is there a ban on it in the Bill? If not, why not?
Steve Reed
As always, my right hon. Friend raises an important point. There are huge concerns about cryptocurrency, not least because we cannot track where the funding has come from. We have charged Sir Philip Rycroft with conducting a review into these matters. His recommendations will be incorporated into the Bill as it progresses through the House, so that we can tackle the matter properly.
The reason the Bill extends the vote to younger people, aged 16 and 17 years old, is simple: it is because young people are our nation’s future. The voting age has stood at 18 since it was lowered from 21 by the Representation of the People Act 1969. More recently, the Welsh Government lowered the voting age to 16 for Senedd elections in 2020 and for local elections in Wales in 2021. The Scottish Government lowered the voting age to 16 for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and subsequently for all devolved elections in Scotland. The change in the Bill will bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the United Kingdom.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the same arguments that were made over 100 years ago about women not being fit enough to vote are now being repeated for 16-year-olds? The success that ultimately came from including women in the franchise should give us confidence that this is the right thing to do.
Steve Reed
I certainly share the hon. Lady’s confidence that this is the right thing to do, and I thank her for making that point.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.
Steve Reed
To correct the hon. Gentleman, it is not me, but the House, that would be allowing 16-year-olds to vote. If people can serve in the armed forces, they should have the right to help to choose their own country’s Government, who decide on matters of war and peace. We have just heard from the Prime Minister what an outstanding job our armed forces are doing.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will remember that when we both served on Lambeth council, I had the absolute honour of introducing the youth mayor elections. Up and down the country, there are 16-year-olds in public office, including many young people allocating funds in some cases in excess of £25,000 to other community groups. Young people have the capacity and knowledge, and they are willing to serve if we give them the opportunity. Does he agree?
Steve Reed
I always agree with my hon. Friend, and not just because we are friends. I remember her introducing the youth mayor scheme in Lambeth; it was a huge success and showed how keen young people were to be involved in decisions that affect them, as well as their ability to contribute to discussions and debates in a very meaningful way.
Daniel Zeichner
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extending the franchise. Has he thought about the 4 million people who live in this country and do not have access to voting? There are 22,000 of those people in Cambridge. This is a complicated issue, but has he given it any consideration? No taxation without representation is a powerful principle.
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend will hear about that further along in my speech.
I need to make progress, or you will be angry with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are looking at automated voter registration so that about 7 million or 8 million people in this country who are entitled to vote but do not have the vote can do so. We need to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to the vote can exercise it.
The Bill allows prospective voters to register in preparation before they turn 16. As we extend the franchise in this way, we will focus on data protection. Information can be shared only in very limited circumstances, and we are bringing forward a new offence of information being wrongly disclosed.
To ensure that all our eligible young people can participate, we are introducing a new duty on local authorities in Great Britain and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland to support looked-after children with their new right to vote. Local authorities and HSC trusts in Northern Ireland will have a duty to raise awareness of how to register and to provide assistance to help them do so. Extending the franchise is not simply “job done” with this legislation; we need to actively support young people to exercise their right to vote. We will offer young people the information and support that they need to do precisely that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was saying a moment ago, up to 8 million people in the UK are either registered incorrectly or not included on the electoral register at all. Many of them find out only when it is too late, so they are denied their opportunity to vote. Our current process is out of date and has not kept pace with the world that we live in. We will replace this complicated, bureaucratic system with a modern, automated alternative that is as simple as possible and easier for voters to use. To get there, the Bill will allow pilots that test new and innovative approaches to electoral registration. Automated registration is already working in many countries: the examples of Germany and the Netherlands show how easy it can be.
Steve Reed
Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.
Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.
There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Jeremy Corbyn
This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
I will give way to my hon. Friend later.
We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.
Steve Reed
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).
Jim Shannon
We in Northern Ireland have a particular, perhaps peculiar circumstance in that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland. We have political parties in Northern Ireland and political parties in southern Ireland that are the same parties, but in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State indicate what controls there will be to ensure that money does not traverse the border in such a way that disadvantages those of us in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who wish to have the democratic system and policies that we have here?
Steve Reed
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.
Joe Powell
Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?
Steve Reed
I am sure that Members across the House will have cases and instances that they are concerned about. This legislation intends to restore integrity to the system precisely because of those concerns. I will now make some progress so that others also have the chance to speak in this debate.
A key part of our changes is the “know your donor” principle, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for who is funding them. The existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is facilitating an illegal donation, but that will now change. As the independent Rycroft review concludes, we will consider its findings, and we expect to introduce amendments as the Bill progresses.
We will also improve the transparency of digital imprint rules, recognising that campaigns are increasingly digital and that regulation must keep up with that new reality. Transparency for electors over who is trying to influence their vote is a fundamental principle.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.
We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.
We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.
The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.
We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.
Steve Reed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.
Sorcha Eastwood
I support the Bill, but can we please ensure that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland are funded, as are other statutory agencies? Not all these potential offences will be civil; some will meet the criminal threshold. We need to ensure that the statutory agencies responsible for capturing criminal evidence are funded to do so.
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady is quite right—it is important that the agencies have the resources to carry out the functions that we require of them.
The final part of the Bill contains general provisions, including on powers and commencement. I can also confirm that we have written to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru to begin the legislative consent process.
I will finish by expanding on the point I began with, about Parliament’s role in the evolution of our democracy. Every Member of this House wants to strengthen trust and confidence in our democracy. This Bill is not the first to carry its name—it was a Representation of the People Act that extended the franchise to male landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers in 1832. It was a Representation of the People Act that granted voting rights to working-class men in 1867. It was a Representation of the People Act that finally granted voting rights to women in 1918, and another that delivered equality of voting rights between men and women in 1928. Today, we debate the latest Representation of the People Bill, responding to our circumstances today.
In an age of change, with new threats to our freedom arising, we must stand up and tackle foreign interference head-on. In a society transformed by new technologies, we must introduce automatic voter registration, and in this country, where politics feels distant for too many, we must bring democracy closer to people. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way and because the choices of the British people must always lead our nation. This is a Representation of the People Bill inspired by tradition and legislating for the future. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.”
When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation.
To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2017, I was fortunate enough to be selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and Oldham Youth Council asked that it be about votes at 16. They have seen votes at 16 go from being a campaign to being in a manifesto and, today, to being in a Bill on the Floor of the House. If they saw this coming in a manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman not?
Sir James Cleverly
I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers.
Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech.
I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right?
I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought.
It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill.
Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that 8 million people being either registered in the wrong place, or not on the register at all, is also an example of an inaccurate register? Would it not be better to have people over-registered—presumably they would then not turn out, because they had moved away or whatever—than under-registered and disenfranchised? Of the two inaccuracies, being unable to vote is the one we should be more worried about, if we believe in democracy.
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.
Lewis Cocking
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.
Sir James Cleverly
I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.
Emily Thornberry
I take objection to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely if someone is a citizen, they should be able to vote. It should be as easy as possible—as easy as breathing—to vote, because a citizen has a right to vote. Every attempt should be made to make voting easier, not more difficult. If automatic enrolment helps people to vote, that is what we should do. Of course we need to be careful about it, though, and one of the reasons why this is a rolling programme, rather than putting it in place everywhere on the same day, is presumably to ensure that it is done properly. In the end, we should all want the same thing; British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, and nothing should get in their way.
Sir James Cleverly
It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake.
As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir James Cleverly
I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker.
Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country.
The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.
The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Sir James Cleverly
Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm.
Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.
Kevin Bonavia
We have just heard the Conservative definitions of a child and an adult, but according to the law in this country, there is no single definition. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, the driving age in this country is 17, and the voting age has gone down over the decades. Surely we should be thinking about what it means to be able to vote. By bringing the voting age down to 16, we are bringing that to people who have the capacity to vote and who actually will vote. There is also evidence out there that 16-year-olds voting in Scotland are more likely to carry on voting. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that will be of benefit to our country—to the United Kingdom as a whole?
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Not long ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, some of us went down to the commando training centre at Lympstone to see the Royal Marines’ passing-out parade. One of the brave young people there was just 17, and at the end of the parade he was told, “Marine, go off and do your duty.” At 17, he should be allowed to vote. Does the shadow Secretary of State not agree with me?
Sir James Cleverly
Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?
Sam Rushworth
On the basis of the argument that he is advancing, the right hon. Gentleman believes in children having sex, because the age of consent is 16—but I think that the mask slipped earlier when he said that this was gerrymandering and giving an electoral advantage. I wonder whether he will comment on why his party is so afraid that young people will not vote Conservative.
Sir James Cleverly
It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the valuable contribution that young people in Scotland have made to the democratic process, first in 2014, when they were able to vote in the independence referendum, and subsequently in Scottish local and parliamentary elections? Does he value their contribution?
Sir James Cleverly
I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.
Sir James Cleverly
I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State is not giving way.
Sir James Cleverly
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.
Kevin Bonavia
The shadow Secretary of State has asked, on a number of occasions, whether we agree with his so-called legal definition. The legal definition is always for the purposes of the law for which it is intended, so the Children Act definition is for the purposes of that Act, and what we are debating today is for the purposes of voting.
Sir James Cleverly
I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point?
I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds?
As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so.
If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.
Sir James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making.
This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for introducing this Bill. I am proud to have worked on these important proposals in government and remain determined to ensure that we protect, renew and enhance our democracy.
Our democracy has inspired people and movements around the world. We are rightly proud of it, but as we have heard, democracy is hard won and fragile. Today there are forces that wish to damage our democracy and shake its foundations, with intimidation on the streets and disinformation online. Our democracy must be resilient and robust in the face of these threats, which is why this landmark Bill is so important. It represents the most ambitious change to our democracy for a generation by allowing 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in UK-wide elections for the very first time; by introducing tougher rules on political donations; by tackling the scourge of harassment, intimidation and abuse of those participating in public life, which is having a chilling effect on our democracy; and by improving our system of voter ID to encourage more people to engage with and participate in our democracy.
As we have already heard, votes at 16 is a historic opportunity to breathe new life into our democracy. If someone is old enough to work, pay tax and serve their country, they are old enough to have a say in how it is run, but that right to vote should be matched by the right to be informed and educated about our institutions, our politics and our policies. That is why it is crucial that we have high-quality citizenship education in our schools, and we must do more to connect with the millions of people who, as we have heard, are eligible to vote but choose not to take part in our democratic process.
I welcome the measures to strengthen the rules around political donations to address the risks posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democracy. I especially welcome the moves to introduce new “know your donor” and “follow the money” checks, and fines of up to half a million pounds for those who do not follow those rules, as well as the introduction of a UK connections test and increased transparency for corporate donations to prevent shell companies from funnelling dodgy donations to political parties.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about shell companies. Does she agree that it was really concerning that so many loopholes were left open by the previous Government, who allowed foreign money to reach the highest levels of our politics, often hidden by those very same shell companies? Indeed, this loophole was used by the Conservatives to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from foreign-based donors, including £550,000 from Britannia Financial Group between 2019 and 2022. Company accounts show that in 2020—the year the firm donated more than £350,000 to the Conservatives—its ultimate controlling party moved from the UK to Switzerland. Does she agree that is a serious concern?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend makes the case for why it is crucial to legislate to close those loopholes, so that we can clean up our politics and ensure that the public have confidence in our political system.
Turning to the subject of cryptocurrency, we know that it offers a number of ways of circumventing donation laws, including by using multiple crypto wallets with different addresses or fragmenting large donations into smaller amounts through crowdfunding in order to bypass the reporting threshold, and by offering anonymity through the use of privacy coins. Ireland, Brazil and several states in the US already have bans on crypto donations.
The enemies of democracy are constantly looking at new ways to undermine our system. Unless action is taken now, the threat of foreign interference in our democracy will continue to grow. The Government have previously committed to taking action, and I am reassured to hear from the Secretary of State that action will be taken to ensure that cryptocurrency does not find its way into political donations. This Bill provides a very important opportunity to legislate, so I implore the Secretary of State and the Minister to make sure that, once the Rycroft review has concluded, we include in this Bill the changes necessary to ensure that we ban cryptocurrency donations, in order to reduce the threat of foreign interference in our democracy.
I turn to the subject of harassment and intimidation in our politics. Our democracy depends on the willingness of ordinary people to step forward, to knock on doors and to serve our communities, so the new powers in this Bill to allow courts to impose tougher sentences for offences involving electoral intimidation, and to remove the requirements for candidates to publish their home addresses, are necessary protections. Although parliamentary candidates have had the option of taking their home addresses off the ballot paper, local candidates have not, and this is an important change to protect them.
Most Members of this House and many candidates, regardless of whether they were elected or not, carry their own experiences of threats and intimidation. The July2024 general election saw a disturbing spike in intimidation and harassment, with Electoral Commission research revealing that more than half of candidates experienced harassment and intimidation. The Speaker’s Conference found even more evidence of harassment and intimidation of candidates. Tyres were slashed, families were targeted and campaigners were driven off the streets, while women and minority ethnic candidates were disproportionately affected. However, all candidates in different ways found themselves facing harassment and intimidation. We cannot go on like this. This was not heated political debate; these were organised attempts to intimidate people into silence. Many elected representatives do not discuss the harassment they have faced as it can trigger further abuse and compromise our safety.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful speech. On that point, I know what she personally went through during the last general election, and many Members from right across the House have also had to face it. Does she agree with me that, if we do not address this, we will see good, locally rooted candidates feeling afraid to put themselves forward to enrich our democracy because of that fear and intimidation?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have heard many say exactly that. In fact, a number of us have ourselves wondered whether, if we had known what we know now about the state of harassment and intimidation in our politics, we would have stood for Parliament. Of course, we have to fight against these threats, because if we do not, the next generation will be put off politics. It is on us all to take action to make sure politics is a safe space in which people can operate and candidates can stand forward, whichever party they belong to.
The intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is not, of course, unique to one party or one group of candidates; it is widespread in a way that I had never imagined. The industrial scale of intimidation and threats we experienced in the run-up to the 2024 general election was unlike anything I had previously experienced, and I suspect the same applies to many other Members. There was organised disinformation and death threats in a campaign conducted with constant concerns for physical security and the security of campaigners and decent, law-abiding people who want to participate in our democracy. In my constituency and across the country, many brave campaigners stood up for our democracy and bravely fought against that hatred, but they should not have had to work in such a hostile environment.
This happens not just during the election cycle or election campaigns. We have seen Members threatened with murder and receiving death threats on a regular basis. We have seen local councillor candidates being threatened. When I was working on this strategy last summer, I received a threat to my life. Two weeks ago, I received another threat. Sadly, this is now commonplace, with too many MPs, candidates and local representatives experiencing this hostility. So we have to redouble our efforts to stop this hostility and the chilling effect it is having on our democracy. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to those who wish to undermine our elections in this way, and we have to work together on that across the parties.
It is not just the thugs on our streets; it is the hostile actors, which we heard about in the Front Benchers’ speeches. Hostile actors are exploiting online platforms to flood the debate with disinformation and deepfakes. Disinformation online fuels intimidation, hostility and violence offline. That has been the experience of many of us during the last election and subsequently. The toxic ecosystem is connected, and this Bill begins to address that reality, but we have to do more. Alongside this Bill, we need the Government to do much more to tackle the very serious threat of foreign interference through the use of online platforms, not to mention the proliferation of online threats and the failure of platforms to take action. That means more action to stop platforms allowing threats and online hostility against those in public life and our citizens.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I would like to add to that list of issues that need to be tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the role that the media play in our politics, the Government have a responsibility to think long and hard about what we do in that space?
Rushanara Ali
Absolutely. We all have such a responsibility, and I know of plenty of journalists in the media, particularly female journalists, who are being threatened and intimidated as well. This is a wider societal issue about making sure we can express ourselves freely and protect freedom of speech, but also protect those operating in our media, those in our politics and public life and, more widely, those participating in our democracy.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that what also fuels the division and the attacks on politicians is when some individuals, including Members of this House, express that they are driven mad by the sight of black and Asian people in different spaces in our society? Does she agree that that should stop, and that all Members have a responsibility to call it out?
Rushanara Ali
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. We have to take action against racism, anti-Muslim hatred, antisemitism and other forms of hostility and hatred towards particular groups in our society, especially those with protected characteristics. There are laws in place that need to be enforced, and those laws are often breached online. We must ensure that we take responsibility and show leadership in the way we conduct ourselves. Otherwise, we are going to see those with protected characteristics being driven out of public life. I am seeing that already in local communities and of course in our Parliament, because of what we are experiencing.
In conclusion, our democracy is fragile, and it must be supported and strengthened in the face of rapid change and the threats from foreign interference. It is our duty to be stewards of our democracy, leaving it in a better place than we found it. It is at the heart of our liberty and our citizenship, and we must defend it, nurture it and future-proof it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Our liberal democracy has become acutely vulnerable. Trust in our politics is being pulled apart at the seams. We face a flood of foreign money, and powerful men who hate our democracy, whether in silicon valley or the Kremlin, are working hard to undermine our social fabric and to interfere in our public life. Sadly, this Bill does not meet that moment and falls woefully short of the fundamental changes that our democracy urgently needs, even if we Lib Dems welcome some of the measures in it. We will be voting against the reasoned amendment and in favour of Second Reading, in the hope that the Bill can be substantially strengthened as it makes its way through Parliament.
I fear that the Government have not faced up to the crisis before us. Public trust in our political institutions is in freefall: 67% of the public think that politicians are just in it for themselves. It is no wonder that so many people who would make fantastic elected representatives are put off standing for election and take their talents elsewhere. The Electoral Commission has recorded growing dissatisfaction with our democracy and, frankly, I understand why. Westminster has been rocked by scandal after scandal, with partygate, the news that former Reform UK Wales leader Nathan Gill had been taking bribes to advance a pro-Russian agenda in the European Parliament, and the revelations about Peter Mandelson’s shocking conduct. We need root-and-branch reforms to our political system.
The Government claim to be modernising our democracy, but this Bill does not fix our outdated system, which continues to reward the most cynical members of the political establishment at the expense of everyone else. Where is the new accountability for politicians; where are the robust measures to really stamp out corruption and interference; and why is there nothing to address a voting system that was out of date a century ago, undermines accountability and is profoundly unfair?
Of course, there are worthwhile measures in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for votes at 16 for decades. We have seen that succeed in Scotland, and we are proud to have helped secure that provision in this Bill. Young people pay taxes, face the consequences of political decisions and care deeply about the future of their country. Denying them a vote was always difficult to justify.
But this is far from enough to revive our democracy. As young people approach the ballot box for the first time in the next election, we must ensure that they, and everyone who can vote in our country, feel confident. I recently met students from Marple college in my constituency. They will be voting for the first time at the next general election. We talked about what they needed to be ready to cast their votes. They are already articulate, well-informed on politics and enthusiastic. It is our responsibility to ensure that they feel confident to participate, confident that they will not be bombarded by disinformation, confident that their vote will count and confident that the system they are being asked to be a part of is fit for purpose. They should be confident, too, that their civil liberties will be protected. We welcome the move towards automatic voter registration. We think it is a step in the right direction and we will support it, but it must fully respect people’s privacy as well as their right to vote.
To take a glaring example, new voters will still have identity papers demanded of them whenever they vote. That was implemented without decent evidence by a Tory party long out of ideas and full of cynicism. The Bill could have and should have been used to scrap the Conservatives’ voter ID scheme altogether. According to the Electoral Reform Society, 16,000 people were turned away from voting in 2024—against just 10 convictions for impersonation between 2019 and 2023. Which of those is really the greater threat to our democratic life? That is symptomatic of a Bill that is remarkably thin and all too timid, even in enforcing its own provisions.
I am baffled as to why the Government will not further strengthen the Electoral Commission in the face of historic threats to our democracy. We very much welcome the removal of the commission’s strategy and policy statement, but the commission itself says that while it
“welcomes many of the changes set out in the Bill, some provisions need to be strengthened to...better protect the system from foreign interference.”
We should remember that this regulator is not currently truly independent. Under the Elections Act 2022, the Conservative Government gave powers to Ministers to dictate the “roles and responsibilities” of the Electoral Commission in achieving the Government’s policy priorities. That made a mockery of the idea that politicians should not be able to interfere in elections, and it paved the way for any future Government, of whichever political hue, to rig our system. It is truly welcome that the Secretary of State announced plans to reinstate the independence of the commission by scrapping the strategy and policy statement. That should ensure non-partisan fair play in our elections.
It is on donations and foreign interference where the Liberal Democrats find the Bill to be most wanting. The case of Nathan Gill should stand as a stark warning about the levels of attempted interference we now face. The gaping holes in the Bill will allow foreign money to continue to flood in and infiltrate our democracy. For instance, using company revenue rather than profit as the test for determining whether a business has sufficient connection to the UK to make political donations, is too weak a safeguard. It can be too easily gamed. Spotlight on Corruption points out that the cap on corporations currently does not have teeth and should be focused on profit. A company turning over significant revenue in the UK, while being effectively controlled from abroad by interests hostile to our democracy, could still make donations under these provisions. That is not good enough. Foreign regimes and their political elites should have no business in our democracy whatsoever.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
There has, rightly, been a lot of talk on both sides of the House about restricting and capping foreign donations, and how they are regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at how foreign individuals and foreign states use social media to influence and change election results?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is entirely right that one of the big ways foreign individuals can influence our democracy is through money. The other way is through influence, using money from companies, often not owned in the UK, that control a lot of the information that British citizens see. He is entirely right to make that point.
The lack of a cap on political donations is a fundamental gap. Although the Bill introduces transparency and due diligence requirements, more transparency alone is not enough when individuals and corporations can still donate unlimited sums to political parties.
Sam Rushworth
A moment ago the hon. Lady referenced Nathan Gill. I share her abhorrence at what Reform’s leader in Wales did in taking bribes from Russia, but it was already illegal—it was a case of being caught. What does she suggest that the Bill should do to prevent those sorts of illegal activities from happening?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for allowing me a bit of space to expand on this point further. Companies should have to prove profit in the UK, not just revenue in the UK, to be able to donate. There is a real danger that money from abroad, from state actors and non-state actors, can be funnelled through third-party campaign groups—think-tanks and others—as a way of trying to influence our democracy. It is entirely possible that very wealthy individuals or state actors abroad put money into think-tanks, which then put money into political parties. That is the sort of thing I would look to amend as the Bill makes its way through the House. Unlimited donations mean unlimited influence. They corrode public trust and distort political priorities. Until we cap donations, we will continue to have a democracy that is for sale.
Finally, there is an extraordinary irony that, despite its grand title, the Bill does not even touch the root of unfairness and distrust in our democracy. It does nothing about a first-past-the-post voting system that was outdated decades ago and is a millstone around the neck of our democratic life. This electoral system consistently delivers results that bear little resemblance to the actual preferences of the electorate. Millions of votes count for nothing.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not agree that, since the House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill which I presented in December 2024, and since the Labour party voted overwhelmingly for a motion to bring in proportional representation at one of its conferences, there is a wide acceptance that it is time to scrap first past the post, which does not deliver the results that people vote for? Is the Bill not an enormous missed opportunity?
Lisa Smart
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I applaud the work she has done during her time here to move the case forward for a fairer, more representative voting system. The Bill is a huge opportunity and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on how we can strengthen it and make it even better.
Martin Wrigley
Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the single transferable vote system is good enough for selecting Select Committee Chairs and the alternative vote system is good enough for mayors, they should be good enough in other elections, too?
Lisa Smart
I do. I fear it would try the patience of the House if I were to get into that level of detail about my favourite voting systems with my hon. Friend—we only have a further three hours of this debate, so I will press on—but I do agree with him that there are more representative ways to elect our representatives that we should look at.
We Liberal Democrats will continue to press for proportional representation so that we can finally make every vote count. It is a matter of basic fairness. No Bill claiming to modernise our democracy can be taken seriously while it ignores this question. Worse, it does not even introduce elections for our second Chamber, leaving the House of Lords unreformed, unelected and, in the current climate, frankly indefensible. Peers face no meaningful accountability to the public whose lives they affect.
The Bill takes some limited, but sadly too timid, steps in the right direction. It fails to seize the opportunity to rebuild trust and make our vulnerable, brittle democracy more resilient. We look forward to working constructively to strengthen it during the parliamentary process, because we must be more courageous and ambitious than the Bill currently is. We must stop taking our democracy for granted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will have noticed that we have many, many more Members on their feet than we have time allocated, so we will start with a five-minute limit.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
May I start by saying how happy I am to be contributing to today’s debate? Members who have been in the House for a while will know that I am a long-term advocate for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Over the years, we have had many robust debates on the issue. Some may even remember when I was successful in my very first private Member’s Bill ballot, way back in 2015. As a brand new MP, that was very daunting and I can chat privately to any Members who might want to hear about all the gaffs I made at the time. Once I got over my initial nerves, it did not take long to decide to put forward votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, alongside decent political education.
During the 2014 Scottish referendum campaign, which many people have mentioned, when 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote for the first time in Scotland, I was hugely impressed—not surprised, just impressed—by how well informed they were and by how seriously they took their voting responsibilities. I knew I had to play my part in pushing the issue up the agenda.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the 2014 referendum experience. After that, I brought a section 30 order before the House to give the Scottish Parliament the power to lower the voting age to 16 for local council and Scottish Parliament elections. I can tell the hon. Lady that there is nobody in Scotland now suggesting that we would go back to a voting age of 18. Is that not the acid test for the strength of our case?
Vicky Foxcroft
I completely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has articulated so well.
At the time, some saw this as a controversial topic for a private Member’s Bill—I am sure there have been more controversial topics since. [Laughter.] It was not the first time that this issue had been pursued; I believe there had been 18 or 19 other attempts to take such legislation forward. I am proud that the Labour party committed to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our manifesto, and that now the Labour Government are delivering on our promise.
Young people’s voices matter. If they can pay taxes, why should they not have a say over how they are spent? If they can have a child, why should they not have a say over their future? If they can join the army, why should they not have a say over the defence of our country?
When I visit schools and colleges, I am always struck by how incredibly thoughtful and articulate the students are. When I visited Christ the King sixth-form college in Brockley a few weeks ago, we discussed everything from social media and the cost of living to housing and international issues, and one student told me she was running to be young mayor of Lewisham—which, by the way, is the longest-running young mayor programme in the country, having started in 2004. This year we had 42 candidates and voter turnout was 59%—higher than we get in some by-elections. Despite that, when election day comes, those same young people are told that they are not old enough and therefore do not get a say. They can pay taxes, have a child, leave home, and join the army, but they have no say over their future.
Maturity is not something we magically achieve on our 18th birthday. We do not test the political knowledge of 40-year-olds before they enter the polling station, although some might say we probably should—just joking. We do not deny the vote to those who choose not to follow politics closely. Democracy is not about passing an exam; it is about inclusion, equality and trust.
Countries all across the world are lowering the voting age, including Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ethiopia. However, many of the countries letting young people vote at 16 also have strong civic education, so I urge the Minister to ensure that political education forms a strong part of the changes that take place. My private Member’s Bill made provision for improved citizenship education.
Research shows that when people are given the vote earlier, they are more likely to develop a lifelong voting habit. If we want to reverse the trend of declining turnout, especially among younger people, the answer is not to keep them out, but to bring them in. This is not just about improving turnout, though: when we deny young people the vote, we send a message that the opinions of the next generation matter less.
Yet young people are deeply affected by the decisions we make in this House. When we talk about getting more young people into work, we need their voices. They should be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. When we have local students in my office to do work experience—from Addey and Stanhope and Deptford Green schools—they are interested in how politics works, how it affects their lives and how they can champion the changes they desperately want to see. They are the ones who will inherit the world we shape today. Ten years on from my first private Member’s Bill, today is the day we ensure that they have their rightful place in shaping their future.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
There was much in what the Secretary of State said at the start of his opening remarks—about the threats to our democracy, and the challenges that we face—that I very much agree with. However, I worry that the Bill does not go in quite the right direction to deal with those threats, and with the challenges presented by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They are all nations that wish to undermine our democracy, and there is tentative evidence to show that all of them are already trying to do so by influencing our democratic structures. However, it feels as though the Bill is more about gestures than substantial change.
Changing the architecture of democracy should be done incredibly thoughtfully and carefully, with proper consideration and consultation. There are areas on which there will probably be a great deal of agreement; on others, there may be some disagreement. What is required is a thoughtful conversation that involves all.
I will pick up on a number of areas where there are deep vulnerabilities in the Bill. Automatic enrolment superficially sounds like a great idea—something that I think many in this House would happily support. However, there is no clarity about how it will be rolled out across the country. At the next general election, it will be available in some parts of the country, but not others. We will effectively have two distinct electoral rolls. I am not sure how that will go. I am not sure if it will even survive judicial review, but then I am not a lawyer, and the Secretary of State probably has considerably more recent experience of judicial review than I have. To me, it looks very vulnerable to challenge. It is important that the Secretary of State sets out clearly how the issue of boundaries will be dealt with, which will, of course, be addressed straight after the next general election.
Of course, if we are to have auto-enrolment in certain parts of the country—which will be chosen, I presume, by the Secretary of State, as opposed to this House—then, hypothetically, he could select areas where auto-enrolment would be beneficial to the Labour party. I am sure the Secretary of State would never be so partisan as to do that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
We have heard this argument a couple of times, and the right hon. Gentleman is making it well. He is making a grave accusation. Surely the easiest way to put this argument to bed would be for the Secretary of State to simply intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and state that auto-enrolment will be rolled out in all areas of the country before the next UK general election.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; this concern could easily be addressed.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I was hoping for the Secretary of State or his No. 2 on the Front Bench, but I will happily give way.
Emily Thornberry
Let me do the best I can. Is it seriously the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that a Labour Secretary of State might introduce auto-enrolment in areas where that will help Labour? Is he therefore saying that the more people who vote, the more Labour is helped? Is that his central argument?
Sir Gavin Williamson
No. It is important that the Bill does not define which areas will have auto-enrolment. In theory, constituencies or areas that have a greater propensity to vote Labour—or used to—could be prioritised. We would like clarity from the Secretary of State on this point, and I am happy to give way to him, so that he can provide it. In fairness, if every area of the country were to have auto-enrolment, that would reduce or eliminate the risk, but this is a concern. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will address that with absolute clarity.
The issue is not just the legislation; it is the perception of where the Government are going. The Secretary of State got himself into some difficulty when the Government were seen to be trying to take away the right of people to vote in local council elections. I am sure that he has a good heart and was acting with the best of intentions, but the perception was different.
Sam Rushworth
Under first past the post, every seat is a different contest, so I am still confused about why the right hon. Gentleman feels that enabling more people to vote will be beneficial to the Labour party.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is both confused and hard of hearing. I also pointed out that straight after the next general election, the Electoral Commission will redo the boundaries for the whole country, and that will be based on the electoral roll for every single constituency and area across the country. Certain areas will have auto-enrolment and other areas will not. That will have a significant impact on the redistribution. I hope that has helped the hon. Member’s confusion. [Interruption.] I will move on.
There is a fantastic opportunity here, which the Secretary of State could seize, to end the automatic right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in this country. That right is not available to UK citizens in Commonwealth countries. The only country where there is an automatic right for UK citizens to vote is the Republic of Ireland, and that arrangement is reciprocated in the UK. There are up to 2.7 billion people on this globe who, on moving to the United Kingdom, could have the automatic right to vote here. That should be looked at very seriously. As the Bill moves through the House, I ask the Secretary of State to look at the option of addressing this open access to our democracy for anyone in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will reduce the time limit after the next speech to four minutes. I call Navendu Mishra on a five-minute time limit.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Democracy is valuable. It is hard won and always worth protecting and defending. Stockport played a major role in the 1819 Peterloo massacre, when a large contingent of local protestors marched to Manchester to demand voting reform.
I believe that we must always look for ways to make our democratic system more accessible, more inclusive and more representative. Giving young people the chance to have a say in the future of our country is important. Decisions that the Government make now will not only affect young people today but have an enduring impact on their entire life. As such, it is only right and fair that young people are able to play a role in our democratic system by voting.
I want to thank Michelle McLaughlin MBE and her team at Stockport college for their outstanding work in enrolling students on to the electoral register. The college automatically registers students to vote as part of the enrolment process. That simple administrative step removes barriers for young people and makes participation the norm, rather than the exception. Trafford and Stockport College Group was the first further education institution in England to launch this type of voter registration service for 16-year-olds, ensuring that more young people across Stockport engage with the democratic process at an early age. This is exactly the kind of proactive approach that we should be encouraging nationwide. The team would be grateful for a ministerial visit, given the work that they have done in this area.
Sadly, women and minority ethnic representatives have faced a shocking increase in threatening behaviour directed at them in recent years. My understanding is that women of colour have the worst abuse and threats directed at them. Abuse, threats and intimidation of any kind are simply unacceptable. They risk deterring people from taking part in public life or putting themselves forward for elected office. I welcome the important measures to protect candidates, electoral staff and campaigners from intimidation and abuse.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made an important point about people experiencing homelessness. They should have the right to vote too, and I thank him for making an intervention about that. I support his suggestion that we help more people who are experiencing homelessness into our democratic system.
I would like to say a few words about standards in public life, in the light of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election. In February 2026—just last month—a Tameside council report found that a member of the infamous “Trigger Me Timbers” WhatsApp group had made racist comments towards me. They questioned my accent and my looks and ridiculed me. More importantly, they did the same to many members of the public and Labour’s membership. As reported by The Guardian and the BBC, this person was a major participant in the group. The report found that a “reasonable person” would find their remarks about me racist. This person was a Labour councillor at the time, and a former Member of this House and a current Member of this House were active members of that hateful WhatsApp group. Sadly, I had to find out from the press that Tameside council had commissioned that report, and that a ruling was made about the participant’s behaviour against me and others. As is to be expected, this has had an enormous negative impact on my family and me.
Can the Minister tell us what more the Government intend to do to strengthen standards for elected representatives, both at local government and parliamentary level? That could include tougher sanctions for serious misconduct, a mandatory code of conduct, and accessible routes of redress for victims of such appalling behaviour. I am in a very privileged position—I am a Member of the House of Commons, and I am able to deliver this speech and make my points clear—but many members of the public, and many lay members of the Labour party, do not have that same opportunity. I hope that the Minister will listen to my comments.
Overall, I welcome the Bill. It makes important progress in strengthening participation and protecting candidates, but it could go further in lifting standards among elected representatives. Everyone, especially elected representatives, has a responsibility to treat all people with respect, regardless of their views, background, appearance or culture. We should expect that from our colleagues, but sadly that has not been my experience. I am saddened to say that in my view, the Labour party has not dealt with this in a very good way. I would like to end by thanking everyone at Stockport council’s democratic and electoral services team. They do a really important job for our town, and I am grateful to them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate on such an important Bill that represents a long-overdue modernisation of our democratic framework, but the Government should be in no doubt that we Liberal Democrats will push them to go further, faster. For decades, my party has campaigned for young people’s voices to be properly recognised, so I am delighted to see the voting age finally lowered to 16. This change will enfranchise around 1.7 million 16 and 17-year-olds, giving them a say in decisions that shape their future.
Since becoming MP for Guildford, I have visited many schools across my constituency and spoken with young people whose thoughtful, informed questions make it abundantly clear that they are more than ready to participate in our democracy. While some may argue that 16 and 17-year-olds lack world awareness, I fundamentally disagree. With pre-registration from age 14, and with the right safeguards, we can build lifelong democratic habits and help close the participation gap.
We Liberal Democrats also welcome measures in the Bill that protect our democracy from the corrupting influence of dark money. The new “know your donor” requirements and tighter rules on corporate and unincorporated association donations are essential to prevent foreign interference and restore trust in how politics is funded. We will call for further important changes to strengthen the Bill in this area.
However, the Bill misses a vital opportunity to fix our broken electoral system. First past the post is unfair, outdated and increasingly indefensible.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we need a radical reset of democracy in our country to reinvigorate trust, which has recently been lost? We need to cap big donations, bring in fair votes, and abolish the ludicrous voter ID scheme from the last Government.
Zöe Franklin
I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Government to listen to the 60% of the public who want a fairer voting system, including members of their own party, and take very seriously the case for proportional representation.
I declare my interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and I welcome the inclusion of our recommendations in the Bill. We live in a time when abuse and threats deter talented people, particularly those from under-represented backgrounds, from standing for public office. I am pleased that the Bill will better protect candidates and their families, but we must go further. We need to update section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes to smear candidates. Technology is moving rapidly, and those intent on undermining our democracy are moving with it, so we must future-proof this legislation.
Looking across this House, I can see that we have made real progress in reflecting the diversity of the communities that we serve, but there is still far to go. The Bill is an opportunity to enact section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires political parties to publish diversity data. It has long been a Liberal Democrat commitment, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Centenary Action that have campaigned tirelessly for such transparency.
I urge the Government to reinstate the access to elected office fund in England, which was scrapped in 2020. The Bill claims to support disabled candidates, yet it offers no financial mechanism to make that a reality. Wales and Scotland already provide such support, so why not England?
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an important point about the accessibility of elections for disabled candidates and voters. Disability charities have made the point that there is some way to go in ensuring that our elections are truly accessible for disabled people. Does she agree that it is important that the Bill does that?
Zöe Franklin
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to ensure that everyone is able to take part in voting, particularly those with visual impairments.
It is an anomaly that Wales and Scotland offer support for accessing elected office, but England does not. Why does England not have that fund? We must ensure that people with disabilities are not prevented from standing to represent their communities.
I am pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee, and I look forward to working constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill so that our democracy is truly safe, fair and representative of all.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Bill introduces timely reforms, such as extending the right to vote to young people, and it addresses the rising and ever more concerning issues of harassment and intimidation. With foreign interference expected to intensify the deterioration of the international security environment, and given the threats posed by wealthy donors, crypto and AI, I encourage the Government to go further. That is where I will focus my remarks.
Last September, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy heard from Spotlight on Corruption that there has been foreign interference in 21 elections across Europe in recent years. Research from a 2022 US intelligence assessment estimated that Russia has spent $300 million on political influence in 24 countries. Beyond direct state influence, there is the issue of obscenely wealthy donors and corporations. Corporate donations have tripled over the last three elections in the UK, rising from £14 million in 2017 to £42 million in 2024.
Beyond those challenges, the Bill introduces valuable provisions. The political finance reforms are good, and it creates a new “know your donor” requirement to ensure that political parties conduct the necessary due diligence. It requires parties to verify that companies that wish to donate can demonstrate sufficient revenue and a qualifying connection to the UK or Ireland, and it will enable the Electoral Commission to issue significantly increased penalties—up to £500,000. I would like the Bill to go further on business and corporate donations. I want there be a longer qualifying period and a profit measure to protect the system more against phantom businesses and shell companies.
Elsewhere, our Committee is calling for a temporary moratorium on accepting crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance and stronger systems. We want the Electoral Commission to have stronger powers, including the ability to compel financial institutions to provide information relating to funds connected to donations so that they can be investigated more fully. We want a single police lead for political finance and foreign interference, and a review into the sentencing of political finance offences.
Personally, I think we need to look more at the role of think-tanks and how they are funded. I would like the Bill to go further, with a longer qualifying period and profit measures to protect the system. I want a donation cap on corporate and personal donations. I want consideration to be given to amending the schedule of penalties to make it more proportionate to the donor’s wealth. We must ensure that the fees and salaries that companies pay MPs in whatever field, but particularly in media, fall under political finance regulations.
I absolutely welcome the Bill. We need much tighter regulation across our political finance, including to address the interference with which states and individuals wish to influence our democracy. I very much look forward to working with the Ministers in the coming weeks.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
This is an important Bill, and I support some of the aims and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out at the beginning. I also share many of the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).
All Members take representing children seriously. In the five times that I have been lucky enough to be elected, my first pledge has been that I will serve everybody in the Mid Norfolk constituency, including and particularly those who do not have a voice and need to be spoken for, and I always reference children. With the gentlest and greatest respect, I say to colleagues who are in danger of suggesting that if we do not pass this Bill, we are signalling that we do not care about young people that that is not the case. I was elected to this House quite a long time ago, and I know that there is the danger that well-intended legislation can have unintended consequences that we later regret.
Given that time is short, I will focus my comments on my own experience of having been, I think, the first parliamentary victim of an AI deepfake video attack. I will point out some of the obvious gaps in the law that that has made clear to me, and the danger of political disinformation and serious disruption to our politics. Having consulted widely in the past four or five months, I want to make a particular point about the importance of protecting all people—not just politicians—against having their identity stolen. That is a fundamental issue in a digital age.
For colleagues who were doing other things on that day in November, let me say that when I found myself the victim of an AI deepfake attack, my phone went hot and I suddenly found myself being called all manner of names that I could not possibly repeat to this House. It was quite clear that I was suddenly at the heart of a media storm, and I had no idea what had caused it.
I then saw the video. It was indeed a video of me in my Westminster office, wearing my customary tank top, waving my hands around and speaking—not dubbed—about my decision that, because the political party that I am proud to represent and serve had let this country down, I was joining Reform. Leave aside for a minute the ridiculousness of that proposal and the insulting suggestion that somebody who prides himself on taking his politics seriously and thinking about the philosophical basis of it would join a rabble based only on pub populism, the more serious issue is that my constituents were deeply confused and democracy in my constituency was disrupted.
When I contacted Meta, the platform on which that scurrilous, mischievous and disinforming information had been published, it said to me, “Well, it doesn’t breach any of our guidelines.” I understand the importance of protecting our vulnerable young children from grooming and protecting people from economic fraud, but I put it to the House that seriously misrepresenting an elected Member for the purposes of political misinformation and disruption is an important issue and should not be allowed. It should be a breach of Meta’s guidelines.
When I spoke to the police, they admirably did take it seriously. In fact, they encouraged me, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to bring a test case, but I would have had to have made the case compellingly that I was suffering psychological damage. Now, I may well be suffering psychological damage, but I am not going to tell the people of Mid Norfolk that I cannot take a joke. It is really important that we in this House defend humour and satire—they play a really important role in our democracy—but this is different.
I support the amendments that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), a fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, is tabling to stop political disinformation, but is it not time that we passed a law to protect all citizens against having their identity stolen? Everybody in this country should go to bed at night not worrying that they may wake up in the morning and find that somebody has stolen their identity, whatever the purpose.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). I thank the Minister for engaging with Members. We now have a Bill of seven parts, 81 clauses and 11 schedules. On young voters, I hope that the team will work with the Department for Education so that young people understand the democratic process. Some schools do it, but it is a matter for everyone.
Richard Baker
That is an important point. In Scotland, education did not happen to the extent that it should have, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has made some recommendations. I therefore very much welcome what the Secretary of State said, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that colleagues in the Education Department recognise its importance?
Valerie Vaz
That is true. Our Education Department does a fantastic job, but this work needs to be extended to every single school, and perhaps made compulsory, so that when young people get to vote, they know the difference between misinformation, disinformation and the truth.
On voter registration, valid points have been made about what forms of ID can be used. Those need to be extended, especially as 16-year-olds may have different forms of ID when they get the vote. Auto-registration is welcome, and so important—it was the poll tax that stopped people going on the register—so it is good that Government gateways will be used to ensure people are on the register.
I think that the Secretary of State has missed a trick: I would have liked compulsory voting, but maybe that is a step too far. In Australia, where they have had it since 1929, the turnout is 90%.
On campaign and political expenditure in relation to donor money. I like the Electoral Commission’s idea of a donor declaration, with the total donation listed for the entire year and based, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, on the company’s profits, not just on revenue. Some organisations can operate as a company but not generate enough money to make donations and therefore be open to outside influence. That measure would defeat the mischief that the Bill is trying to deal with. We need to lift that corporate veil.
I am delighted that the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement has now been revoked—that was to be the main part of my speech. A Government of any kind should not be interfering with the Electoral Commission. It should get no direction from a Government. I remember saying that it was unnecessary and not proportionate during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. At the time, every Committee of the House that looked at it said that there was no evidence for it. I am really pleased by this revocation.
The commission is accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. At present, it has 10 members, five of whom are picked by the Speaker, with the other five ex officio. Unlock Democracy is arguing for more lay members on the commission. I do not know whether those should be lay members as we have in other Committees, or if it should be extended to other political parties so that it should be politically neutral.
I am really pleased that the Electoral Commission has got its independence back. I hope that the Bill will get us the public information and publicity needed to encourage people to exercise their civic duty to register and to vote.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Let me start by expressing my commiseration with my former hon. Friend—he is still my friend—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was inadvertently confused with somebody who might want to join the Reform party. It is difficult to imagine a Member less likely to want to do that, or indeed to be received by the Reform party, than him—I am sure he is happy to hear that. That is perhaps except for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—but he once had his own problems with counting votes in a Conservative party election.
I am not going to address the absurd suggestion of votes at 16 as that has been well dealt with by other hon. Members. In particular, there is the obvious point suggested by hon. Members that because young people can sign up to join the Army when they are 16, they should be able to vote. The fact is, they can join the Army not to go and fight, but only as a cadet, and only with parental consent. To anybody suggesting that that somehow means that they should be able to vote, I invite them to suggest whether they think their parents should also be giving consent on how they vote in the voting booth. I think not. I will however come to family voting in a moment.
Luke Akehurst
I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the absurdity that he sees in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote. What is it about them that he feels disqualifies them or makes them less able to make a democratic decision than an 18-year-old?
Danny Kruger
We already prevent young people at that age from driving, from buying cigarettes and alcohol, and from standing for Parliament. We already conclude that they are not responsible enough in general. Obviously, many are far more responsible than adults, but the conclusion is that they are still children and that they should not be exercising this vital responsibility in respect of our whole democracy until they are 18.
I will quickly mention the Rycroft review. May I stress on behalf of the Reform party how much I welcome the review? Many hon. Members rightly mentioned the disgraceful episode of a former Reform MEP taking bribes from a foreign state. It is absolutely right that we look closely into the circumstances that allowed that to arise. We will wait and see what the review comes up with, but it is quite right that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we do not have foreign financial interference in our democracy.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Why don’t you tell your party leader?
Danny Kruger
That is our party position.
The importance of ruling out foreign interference in our democracy has been made repeatedly in the debate. Let me actually address the glaring foreign interference that we have, and which we saw in Gorton and Denton last week. I am sorry to say that it has not been mentioned in the debate so far. We have been talking about one disgraceful incident while mass abuse of our democracy has been going on.
It appears from the evidence of independent observers that as many as two thirds of polling stations had compromised voting in that election last week. As many as one in eight votes may have been cast under coercion—under pressure of family voting. That is a deplorable state of affairs, and it should be the focus of the whole House to understand what happened.
It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Danny Kruger
I will finish the point and then certainly give way to both gentlemen.
We are seeing the criminal abuse of British democracy by Labour, and now by the Green party. This malignant new force has now occupied—
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman has just made the most extraordinary allegation about an electoral process last week: he suggested that 12% of all votes were somehow or other invalid because of pressure that he claims was put on them. Has he got any real evidence, or is that just an easy assertion to make to grab some headlines on social media and elsewhere?
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have this debate. I am citing evidence provided by Democracy Volunteers, the independent observers who were present in the polling stations last week. It is important that we look into it. It is obviously impossible to tell definitively at this stage exactly what went on, but it is clear from these independent observers that serious abuse seems to have been practised.
Stephen Gethins
May I first congratulate the Green party on its significant majority and its win? It is not my party, but I will congratulate it for that significant win over Reform and the Labour party. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that every single UK citizen, regardless of their faith or ethnic background, has as much right to cast their vote as any other, without fear or favour?
Danny Kruger
I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the principle that should be applied.
Danny Kruger
That is exactly what I think, and every British citizen should be able—
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman accuse a political party in the Chamber of a “criminal abuse of democracy”. Did I hear that correctly? Is that remark in order, or does the hon. Gentleman—I use that word loosely—now need to back up his allegation with some hard evidence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am hoping that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) will reconsider his words and withdraw them.
Danny Kruger
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I inadvertently suggested that it was a party that was abusing our electoral system. What I am actually suggesting is that there is abuse of our electoral system through an influential network that applies in these constituencies. That appears to be the case.
Danny Kruger
I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the work of Democracy Volunteers, which is a long established and well—
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The most personal form of power each of us has is the power to choose. When we mark our ballot, we exercise something profound and meaningful: our power to decide freely what kind of future we want, and that choice belongs to each of us. But today it is clear that our power to freely decide our future is under attack, not because our vote has been taken away or because of voter fraud, but because the environment in which we make up our minds is being deliberately distorted. Hostile states—especially Russia—are investing in digital tools designed to confuse, divide and destabilise us. At the same time, big tech has built systems that reward the strongest reaction: rage over fact, speed over accuracy and repetition over reflection. One seeks to weaken us, the other profits from whatever captures our attention, and together they distort the spaces in which many of us now make up our minds.
We have come together to put forward amendments that would help the Representation of the People Bill to continue to maintain democracy as we expect it to. We already accept the election rules that require us to regulate spending, prohibit impersonation and enforce transparency. We choose to do that because our democracy is too important to leave unguarded, and the digital space where so many of our choices are now formed should be no different. If our duty is to protect people’s power to choose, these five things must follow.
First, we must identify the crime. At the moment, lots of laws apply, but if it is not specific, it is hard for law enforcement to act. We must codify that the existing laws will apply to these digital behaviours, with a recognition that these are serious offences with serious consequences.
Secondly, we must shine a light. If a video is artificially generated to impersonate a candidate, voters have the right to know. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has described his own experience in this regard. We need much higher levels of disclosure and labelling of where information comes from, so that people can better understand what they are seeing. That is why we need more regulation and transparency around political advertising, with all paid digital advertising being kept publicly available in a library so that it is open for all to see.
Thirdly, we must demand that major platforms play their proper role in society. These platforms shape what millions of people see during an election and they must be accountable. These amendments would enable Ofcom to demand action from these platforms, unless they want to face major consequences, by making electoral offences a priority offence under the law. With our success in forcing Grok to take action on notification, we know that we can act to protect people. No platform is too big or too powerful.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Member agree that our joint hon. Friend from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), was woefully let down by Meta when he attempted to get his own video taken down?
Emily Darlington
I completely agree. I think we all agree, no matter what side of the House we are on, that a misrepresentation of that kind distorts the electorate’s views. The reality is that it should be taken down. I think we can all agree on that fact.
Fourthly, law enforcement and regulatory bodies must have the power to act. The Electoral Commission must have more power to investigate, with real-time access to the platform data that is vital to understanding the impact of algorithmic systems and the role of inauthentic behaviour through bots. Regulators must have the power to compel major platforms to take action, including in the case of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. We need to have a standard way to let the public know about incidents when they happen. They need to be informed.
Fifthly, these rules must apply year-round. One of the reasons that Meta will not take that content down is that we are not in an electoral period. These online methodologies are so powerful because they recognise the truth that we make our choices not just in the election period; we are making up our minds all the time. Let us get our election law in line with that reality.
Finally, we are proposing an amendment that goes to the core of how we treat each other. We must take action to reduce the abuse of candidates. I commend Mr Speaker and his Conference for their important work on this issue, because we all know too personally where this leads. Not only have we already lost beloved colleagues and friends to violence, but we also lose the talented people who will be put off from running in the first place. This is a robust set of choices that we in the Chamber can make to protect the future that we live in together. They are not about shutting down arguments or preventing someone from speaking their mind; they are about protecting the space for each of us to make the choice freely, and for those spaces to be filled with genuine discourse and arguments.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has spoken passionately about the risks of democratic interference. I know this is something that she has thought about in great detail. She may be aware that during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018 we had an amendment to help to facilitate digital watermarking, which in this space would help not only with the copyright AI issue but particularly with the risk of democratic interference. Authenticity in communications is so important.
In my contribution to this debate, I want to talk about votes at 16. It is an incredible privilege to live in the United Kingdom and to be a citizen of the UK. One of our privileges is that we have a long-established history of free and fair elections, and many of our ancestors fought pretty hard and made great sacrifices to get the voter franchise that we have at the moment. Voting is really important. It is important as an adult act for a citizen of our country. Voting matters. That impact matters. Voting is part of the contractual relationship that we have with the state. As citizens of our country, we have a right to vote and to influence the decisions made on our behalf by our representatives, whether that is at local or parliamentary level.
I am concerned that taking away the adultness of voting, by saying that children—people below the age of 18—now have that expanded voter franchise, will diminish the status of voting in our country. It will take voting away from being an act where someone has to pass an age barrier to be recognised as an adult in our society.
Florence Eshalomi
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, and I know that he speaks with a lot of clarity and authority. He visits schools and colleges in his constituency, as many of us do. Does he agree that, as Members, we have meaningful, impactful discussions with those young people, and that those young people should be enfranchised to vote?
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think there is a difference between representing people and people having the ability to vote for us. If we were to take that argument to its ultimate conclusion, it would expand the voter franchise not only to every single age but to non-citizens. I do not know if people agree with that—[Interruption.] It will be interesting to hear if that debate expands. I am sure that many people under the age of 18 have the decision-making capacity, maturity and ability to vote, but this debate is not about that. It is not about someone’s ability to vote; it is about whether they should vote and the status we afford to voting enfranchisement.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend is making an interesting argument that voting should be defined not by age, but by a contract of citizenship. Could he share what he thinks those criteria might be—living in the country, paying tax or working here?
Dr Spencer
One of those criteria should be that one is an adult, because voting is an adult act, and the other criterion should be citizenship. We do not have time for a debate today on how we approach citizenship in the UK and what that actually means, but if we start trying to unravel—
Luke Akehurst
Does the hon. Gentleman’s reference to citizenship imply that Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, who have been enfranchised for about 100 years, should be disenfranchised in this country?
Dr Spencer
I am not making any sort of comment on that. My point is very simple: it is citizenship and age. If we are to apportion the respect to voting that we absolutely should—I think all of us in this House think voting is a critical thing to do—giving it the status of being an adult decision, as opposed to one made by children, is also important. To not do so is fundamentally anti-democratic. It diminishes what people have to go through in terms of the status of voting compared with other decisions. Voting is more important than being able to buy a beer, have a driving licence or join the cadets. Voting is absolutely critical, and that is why it is so important that it should be seen as an adult act, not an act that is within the scope of being a child.
Emily Darlington
If we were to link voting with brain development and maturity, that would mean that men get the right to vote about five years after women. Should we base it on that science?
Dr Spencer
The point the hon. Member makes illustrates exactly why we have to use an adult citizenship criteria, not one based on capability or ability, because the moment we start to do that, all sorts of awful things risk happening. People should get the right to vote in the UK if they are a citizen and if they are an adult, and that is it. We should never put at risk someone’s right to vote because of considerations about their cognitive ability, and that goes in both directions.
People should be careful what they wish for in making arguments to remove adult status and citizenship from voter enfranchisement. They may not like where they end up.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
There is much in the Bill to welcome. Extending participation, improving voter registration and strengthening the integrity of our elections are all steps in the right direction, but in the time available, I want to concentrate on one thing that this Bill could do but does not. While it improves aspects of participation, it does not address the way that votes are translated into representation in this House.
The electoral system we have was not designed for the political landscape we see today. When the modern party system was taking shape a hundred or so years ago, the assumption was that British politics would continue, as it had previously, in a two-party framework. As we all know, that is not what we have today. The country has changed; our politics has changed. Our politics has become more fragmented, and our democracy —our democratic system—must be able to change with it to accommodate that changed reality. It is increasingly common for Members of this House to be elected without majority support in our own constituencies. It is increasingly common for voters to feel compelled to vote tactically, rather than with their hearts, and to vote against the outcome they do not, rather than the one they do, want. As a result, it is increasingly common for people to question whether their vote is meaningful in any sense at all.
Mike Martin
This is the key point: in an election, if someone has to vote against what they do not want, it poisons our whole democratic well, because voters feel that they end up with something they have not chosen. They have made a negative choice, rather than a positive choice.
Patrick Hurley
The hon. Member makes a valid point, and I hope the House listens.
It is not healthy for our democracy to be like this. I am not suggesting that individual Members lack legitimacy, but that the system itself is losing the confidence of the people we represent. It is for those reasons that there is a strong case for seriously considering alternatives to the first-past-the-post system. The alternative vote, for instance, would retain the constituency link, local accountability and the principle that each area elects its own representative, but it would also ensure that those elected to this place do so with a majority of support from our voters in our constituencies and not merely a plurality.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Member talks about the legitimacy of the voting system and the votes nationally not being proportionately represented here. Is the example that he is using the current Government, which got 34% of the vote but has 63% of the seats in this House?
Patrick Hurley
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) talked about poisoning the well of politics, and that was a great example of making a partisan point when it was unnecessary to do so.
The alternative vote would also allow voters to express their genuine preferences. It would strengthen the mandate on which we are all elected to this place. It would have completely transformed in a positive way the two by-elections and the by-election campaigns that we have seen in this Parliament. Instead of appealing to voters to keep the worst candidate out of office, which happened in one of those by-elections, we would have an appeal to voters on a more progressive and positive basis.
As a way of getting to that position, I want to express my support for the proposal to establish a national commission on electoral reform. A commission would allow the evidence to be examined properly. It would allow the public to engage seriously with the options available to them and would allow any future decisions to be made on the basis of broad consensus.
The Labour movement was founded on the principle that the working class should have a meaningful voice in the decisions that impact on our lives. That principle remains just as important today as it was when my party was founded. Ensuring that our electoral system reflects the realities of modern Britain and commands the confidence of those who we represent is part of honouring the tradition of my party and movement.
As I say, this Bill contains many welcome measures, but we should also be willing to recognise that strengthening democracy is an ongoing task. Supporting a national commission on electoral reform and giving serious consideration to reforms such as the alternative vote would be a measured, responsible and sensible step in that direction. I hope that this House will approach that question in the same spirit of democratic renewal that has served our country so well in the past.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Although it would be churlish to deny that this Bill is a step forward, it is important to look at what it is a step forward from. I am one of the few Members of the House who sat through the Elections Act 2022 and went through it line by line in Committee. Along with colleagues who now sit on the Government Benches, we were united in saying that that Tory election Bill was an affront to democracy. But now in power, Labour has taken that affront to democracy and, rather than ripping it into a million pieces, is doing what Labour seems to do best: take the very worst of Tory legislation and make it slightly less offensive. Although elements of the Bill will improve existing legislation, and we will therefore support it, this is not what we were promised, and I fear that it will be seen as a huge missed opportunity.
We very much welcome the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK general elections, which would bring this place in line with Scotland, which has enjoyed that for more than a decade and where it has proven to be an unqualified success. We also welcome efforts to clamp down on dark money infiltrating UK politics. Shining a light on the murky world of Westminster political donations is long overdue. The Labour party has been promising that since 1997, so I think we had best put it in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” pile, particularly given that the scandal of dodgy donations that has now disgraced the Labour party, through Labour Together, continues to swirl around Labour MPs.
As an Opposition party, one of our biggest arguments with the Tories was about the introduction of voter ID. We argued that it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The now Prime Minister was right when he said that it would lock people out of democracy. Yet now that Labour is in power, rather than scrapping the entire scheme, it has chosen to keep it and merely increase the number of acceptable forms of ID, knowing full well that the scheme disadvantages ethnic minority communities, the young, the homeless and the elderly.
My problem with the Bill goes beyond what is in it; it is what is not in it. The rejection—once again—of any form of proportional representation is a scandal. The fragmentation of UK politics is happening at pace. The Government’s refusal to consider proportional representation is dangerously short sighted. Parliamentary elections have become a race to achieve 34%, because, as we know, that is where landslides happen. There could be a reality check coming after the next election, when a party whose Members sit not a million miles away from me, and which refuses to play by the rules, achieves a huge majority on barely a third of the vote. I urge the Government to reconsider their opposition to proportional representation. If they do not, we could all live to regret it.
The Bill is deficient in several other areas: there are still weaknesses and loopholes in political finance, registration must be rolled out much quicker, there must be much tighter cryptocurrency regulations, and yet again, for whatever reason, the Labour party has decided to ignore the abomination of democracy at the other end of the corridor. The Bill is a million miles from being perfect, but on the basis that it is a very small step in the right direction, we will support it.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, particularly the parts that will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, introduce automatic voter registration, and widen the list of accepted forms of voter ID. By taking those steps, the Government are improving the way in which our democracy runs and our citizens engage with it.
There are ways in which the Bill can be improved, however. I will talk about unincorporated associations. Although such associations are used legitimately by some, they can also be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, and there is potential for them to be used for foreign interference in our political system. Transparency International UK found that, of the £40 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million came from unknown sources under the existing rules, so it is certainly time for change. That is especially true since the previous Government took the opportunity in their last few years to increase the thresholds for the reporting of political donations from unincorporated associations, which was a thoroughly retrograde step—one that I am very pleased we are addressing today.
The Bill takes welcome steps to prevent unincorporated associations from being used to conceal donations from impermissible sources, and to reduce the level at which they must register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. However, the reporting threshold for all those measures remains unnecessarily high. The criticism of our current system is not only that it allows dark money into our political system, but that it is unnecessarily complex and confusing. The Government should take the opportunity that the Bill presents to tackle both issues by reducing the reporting threshold for unincorporated associations to £500—equal with the permissibility threshold. To deliver maximum transparency, I urge Ministers to consider whether the Bill should require information to be published on the purpose and activities of unincorporated associations, as well as who controls them.
Let me touch briefly on my work as vice-chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Last year, we published a report into the 2024 general election, and made recommendations to the Government, some of which are reflected in the Bill, which I welcome. During the Committee’s inquiry, I asked the chair of the Electoral Commission why our elections are held on Thursdays. I was told that it is simply tradition. That might seem a minor point, but the 2024 general election saw the second lowest turnout since the introduction of universal suffrage. In that context, we need to pull every lever available to us to make it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. I am sure that we have all stood on a doorstep at night, unsuccessfully asking someone who is tired after a long day at work and a really long commute, and who needs to put the kids to bed, to go to the end of their street and vote.
The Government should consider international evidence from places such as Australia, where elections are held on weekends, to determine whether a change in the day of the week would increase turnout—in much the same way as they have looked at international examples to conduct a pilot on flexible voting. I welcome that modernisation of the way in which we run our elections. Moving the election day to the weekend would likely have a really positive operational benefit, as it would free up more schools to act as polling stations.
I close by stating my support for the consideration of compulsory participation in elections. When we consider the balance of rights and responsibilities, I do not think it too much to ask people to go along and participate in democracy every few years.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Bill makes important improvements to how our elections are run, but updating the machinery of elections is not the same as renewing our democracy, and we desperately need democratic renewal if we are to restore faith in the system.
The greatest weakness in our system is not administrative; it is structural. It is the first-past-the-post problem. We are running a modern, multi-party Britain on a 19th-century electoral system. First past the post routinely produces majority Governments on minority votes, millions of wasted votes, and safe seats—if they are even a thing any more—in which outcomes are effectively decided before polling day. For the average voter, it means that, because of where they live, their vote may not matter. The result may not reflect how the country voted, and people may feel pushed into voting tactically, rather than honestly.
About 70% of votes make no difference to the result. If someone’s chosen candidate has already won, their vote does not count. If they vote for a losing candidate, their vote just disappears into a void. In Gorton and Denton, tactical voting sites were openly directing voters on how to stop one particular party. Understandable though that desire may be, when people feel that they have to consult a website to figure out how to block someone, rather than simply voting for who they believe in, that is not democracy.
The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) pointed out some of these ideas. If we stick with first past the post in an increasingly fractured multi-party political landscape, we run the very real risk of the next general election results looking much like a random number generator. We know that manufactured majorities weaken legitimacy, disproportionate outcomes fuel cynicism, and large groups of permanently unrepresented voters create fertile ground for anger and extremism. At a time when democratic norms are under pressure globally, that is not a technical flaw; it is a structural vulnerability. We know that there is a better way.
After moving to proportional representation, countries like New Zealand, and indeed Scotland, saw more representative Parliaments, higher engagement among previously marginalised voters, and stronger public confidence that votes actually translate into seats. Comparative research consistently shows higher turnout and stronger feelings of political efficacy under proportional systems. PR is the missing piece of this democratic puzzle. It would reduce tactical voting, strengthen legitimacy, and align Parliament with the country as it actually is. It is not about party advantage; it is about democratic integrity.
So, yes, let us modernise registration, protect candidates and tighten transparency, but we must not pretend that updating the management of elections is the same as strengthening democracy. When millions feel that their vote does not count, when Governments are handed sweeping power on minority support, and when voters feel forced into tactical calculations instead of honest choices, that cannot be said to be a free and fair democracy.
If we really believe in representation of the people, then every vote must carry equal weight. Anything less leaves us with a democracy that functions procedurally but fails morally. Let the Representation of the People Bill ensure that the will of the people is truly represented.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Those of us who are in this Chamber on a Thursday morning know that we sometimes have questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission then, and I say that because in the last Parliament, as an Opposition MP, I was a spokesperson for that Committee. It is the only time in the parliamentary week when Members pose questions to an opposition Member to answer. That is an important point, because it highlights the fact that the Electoral Commission is not answerable to Government, of any colour; rather, it is answerable to Parliament, because it is a regulator like no other. It regulates politics, and it therefore holds a very special status.
I also served in the last Parliament on the Elections Bill Committee, and I saw there what happens when political parties use legislation for political advantage. I am really pleased to be able to say that the Bill before us contains many of the important democratic principles that I have been speaking about for the last 11 years in this House, and I am excited to vote for it on Second Reading this evening.
Among the Bill’s measures is the expansion of voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have heard some quite bizarre things said about that so far this evening, some of which were really quite remarkable. The Bill also includes bank cards among the forms of ID that can be used to access voting. For those who were not in the last Parliament to see the Elections Bill go through and become the Elections Act 2022, let me say that time and again, Conservative Ministers told us at the Dispatch Box that if people need ID to collect a parcel at the post office, they should need ID to vote at a polling station; but if we want to collect a parcel at a post office, we can use a bank card for that, so this is completely in line with the arguments made for the introduction of ID, and I would expect the official Opposition to support expanding the relevant ID to include bank cards.
It is important that we come together on upholding confidence in democracy, because confidence in democracy is not very high in this country right now. That is why it is so important that expanding the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds goes hand in hand with working with our colleagues in education to ensure that those young citizens are equipped to vote, and have the necessary support. Already, young citizens in Wales and Scotland have the right to vote, and bringing English and Northern Irish citizens into line makes logical sense.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we are conducting an inquiry on votes at 16 to see what support young people will need to make the most of the vote, when they get it. The most important thing that young people are telling us is that they are concerned that their teachers do not feel confident enough to lead discussions in the classroom around politics. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support not just our young people, but our teachers, and enable conversations about democracy, the voting process and citizenship?
Cat Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. His APPG sounds very interesting. I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard those points, and I agree with them.
In my remaining time, I want to address the need to protect our democracy from foreign interference. In cleaning up politics, we need to address specific weaknesses identified. There is a very good blog by Professor Alan Renwick at the University College London constitution unit, which I would love to quote from, but my time is quite limited. He highlights that while the Bill introduces stricter eligibility criteria for company donors, there are still huge gaps regarding cryptocurrency and the potential for illicit funds to bypass traditional checks. We should be bold enough to start talking about a donation cap, too. There is no plausible argument against introducing caps on political donations to prevent a small number of wealthy people from exerting disproportionate influence.
The changes made in the last piece of legislation that went through this House on electoral law have left a huge vulnerability. That legislation abolished the 15-year rule we used to have, whereby citizens who had lived outside the UK for 15 years or longer lost the right to vote and to donate to UK politics. When that rule was abolished, there was no way for elections officers in councils up and down the country to verify that people claiming to have lived at an address in another constituency in 1976 actually did so, because those records were not kept past 15 years, as of course there was no point. Now, there are permissible donors to the UK electoral system who claim to have lived in the UK, and we have no way of proving whether they did. That is a huge vulnerability, and I urge those on the Front Bench to look again at that, and at closing that potential back door that we have left open to foreign money interfering in UK politics. We are an outlier in having this rule; in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, those who leave the country lose the right to vote after one year.
I would like to finish by saying that many colleagues have made the case for proportional representation, and this Bill would have been a great opportunity to set up a commission to look at all the different options that would be available to make sure that people feel that their vote counts, and that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is great to speak in a debate that has been so well-tempered, and mostly very thoughtful.
I start by welcoming the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Lib Dems have campaigned on that for many decades, so we are delighted that the Government have reached into our policy locker. I also welcome a lot of the work that will be done under this Bill around donor transparency—the idea of knowing our donor. If we are all being honest, many of us, looking at the rules around the donations that we all seek and accept, think that someone could, if they chose, drive a coach and horses through them. When we buy a house or a car, or some other expensive goods, we often have to prove where the money has come from, so it is about time that we had the same rules when it comes to political donations.
In the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight a couple of areas where we need to go further. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, the Chair of which, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), spoke earlier. The Committee has recently covered a couple of points that I implore the Minister to look into in greater depth. Our long-running inquiry on defending democracy looks at exactly the issues addressed in the Bill, and I would like to talk about two of them.
First, representatives from the National Crime Agency came before the Committee and told us that the law as set out—both the current law and that mooted by the Government in their strategy—does not give the agency sufficient legal grounds to investigate suspicious donations. The Minister can look at the evidence given to the Committee, but there are lots of behaviours that appear to be undemocratic, but after discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency, they are judged not to meet the threshold for breaking the law, either currently or if the Bill as drafted is enacted, so no further investigations are undertaken. There have been many instances when the National Crime Agency has been looking at something that is illegal and, in the scope of its activities, it has uncovered other activities that look “dodgy”, but it is unable to investigate further. That evidence was set out to the Committee, so the Minister can look at that.
Secondly, there are the issues around cryptocurrency, as other hon. Members have already raised. This is a frontier that is moving incredibly fast. On one hand, cryptocurrency has blockchain, so it is possible to look at the ledger to see where donations have come from. On the other hand, with multiple different cryptocurrencies, the ability to move funds in and out of cryptocurrencies in different jurisdictions on crypto exchanges that are held in jurisdictions with which we do not have good relationships, and the ability to use AI to split large donations into tiny donations, spread them out across hundreds of different crypto exchanges and cryptocurrencies, and then reform them into microdonations, this frontier is moving incredibly fast and we do not understand it. For that reason, the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Secretary of State last week asking for a moratorium on cryptocurrencies, and I urge the Government to look into the issue—
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
While new technologies can often be a force for good and, when used correctly, can enhance political debate, accountability and trust, in practice they are too often having the opposite effect. Social media, in particular, has helped to fuel further division and facilitated levels of distrust, threats and intimidation towards elected representatives that have never been seen before. It has also opened our political system and discourse to the wider world, with other countries able to use platforms to influence and interfere in our domestic political debate in ways that were previously not possible.
Political discourse has become murky, and legitimate political debate has become distorted by misinformation, with people no longer even able to agree on basic facts. This represents an existential threat to liberal democracy. When misinformation spreads unchecked, abuse is normalised and accountability is lacking, confidence in our democratic institutions is significantly weakened. That is what our foes want.
Peter Swallow
I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and a representative from Meta spoke to the Committee just last week. I was very concerned about their answers when probed on the work that needs to be done to protect social media sites from foreign interference. Does he share my concerns that social media companies are not doing enough to tackle this issue on their platforms?
Justin Madders
In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling.
There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that although the Representation of People Act 1983 makes it illegal to misrepresent a candidate in an election, that offence is yet to be tested in relation to online misrepresentation? In fact, Ofcom and many platforms do not see themselves as being bound by that legislation.
Justin Madders
The truth is that we have analogue laws for a digital age, and they are simply not fit for purpose. That is exacerbated by the fact that social media companies and their entire business models rely on outrageous comments to incentivise clicks. That amplifies the distortion of our political process and encourages the controversial, so we absolutely need to go further to tackle this issue.
The Bill already has provisions to tighten up rules on digital imprints on campaign material, but we need greater transparency for online political adverts. Some straightforward changes, some of which have already been supported by the Government, could improve transparency and fairness, and increase trust in our political system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has already said, the first of these is an advert library. We need an accessible database to act as a repository for all election advertising across all advertising platforms on the internet. This should include the content of the advert, the money put behind it to promote the content, the paying entity and who the content is targeted at. At present, those are all opaque, with the only libraries available being controlled by the media companies, which can choose to stop sharing access. As we have already heard, they are not really interested in ensuring that things are accurate or truthful when they are published. Similar models have been implemented in Canada and New Zealand already, and the EU will introduce its own later this month.
Secondly, the Government should introduce an amendment requiring candidates to follow a statutory code of conduct at elections, as well as including provisions to stop the intimidation and harassment of candidates, as was suggested in the Government’s White Paper last year. That should extend to commitments to telling the truth and not knowingly including misinformation in campaign material. Putting all that on a statutory footing and including steps on tackling misinformation will give it the teeth that it needs, because we cannot defend democracy if our financial frameworks remain as they are and our online spaces are unregulated. I welcome the proposals for “know your donor” checks. I recognise and encourage the enforcement mechanisms that will be introduced by the Electoral Commission, but we absolutely need to go further.
This Bill is a positive step. Votes at 16, greater enfranchisement and registration, checking cracks in our democracy and better protecting candidates are all really welcome things, but I fear that the experiences of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk are where we will be in 2029 if we do not crack down on this now. I look forward to working with the Minister to explore ways in which we can make this Bill even better to protect our democracy and allow it to flourish not just now, but in the future.
Our democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted, and it has to retain the public’s trust if it is to endure. Many around the world are working very hard to try to erode that trust, so we must be equal to the challenge and ensure that we have the best legislation possible to meet that challenge.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot.
It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system.
Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled.
While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics.
I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example.
What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for introducing this Bill. It contains many important areas that I hope the House will agree to on a cross-party basis, whether that is looking at automated forms of registration, lowering the voting age, expanding the list of voter ID, or—most importantly—making sure that we strengthen political finance and how we are all funded. I am proud to declare an interest, in that I was funded by trade unions and my local Labour party—long may that continue.
Many years ago, growing up not too far from here in Brixton, when I saw this place and heard people talk about decisions that impacted us and our communities, it felt like it was a million miles away. If we are honest, we have a system that sometimes feels rigged against us, where decisions are made to us instead of with us.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we make participating in democracy as easy as possible? There is an inextricable link between high levels of deprivation and low levels of registration, and it is really important that we do all we can to make it as easy as possible and remove the barriers.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Many people think that there are too many barriers for them to join the electoral register, when we all know that it takes a matter of minutes. I always say that if the council can send you your council tax bill before you have even finished unpacking, why can they not register you to vote in time?
A healthy and accessible democracy is not just about representation; it is about holding decision makers accountable when they do not deliver on their promises. That is why it is really important that we get this Bill right. We all know that trust in politics is at an all-time low, so at the heart of this must be an acknowledgment that voting is a right, not a privilege. When barriers exist that make it harder for people to vote, we must remove them, and the last Government’s introduction of the voter ID system did just that—it disenfranchised legitimate voters from making their voices heard. We have all knocked on the doors of many people on polling day who did not have the opportunity to register for voter ID before polling day. I have spoken to young people who did not understand why their elderly relative could use their bus pass to vote, but they could not use their Zip card—make it make sense! It is right that we take steps to end personation, but they must be proportionate to the tragedy of legitimate voters being denied their votes, so I wholly support the Government’s measures to widen the scope of voter ID to include digital ID and more forms of ID. I would welcome the Minister outlining some of those changes, and would be grateful to know whether they will include young persons’ ID.
Most importantly, I am happy to see votes for 16-year-olds—I am a long-time, passionate advocate for votes at 16. Conservative Members may be aware that the former chair of the votes at 16 APPG was a former Father of the House. One of the longest-serving and oldest Members of this House was a keen and passionate advocate for votes at 16, so there are some Conservatives who support this measure. It is really important that we consider how to enfranchise young people. Think about all the 16-year-olds in 2010 who saw the coalition Government triple the cost of their tuition fees overnight, who could not vote when they turned 18 in 2012. We must think about how to make sure people who are planning for their future have a keen interest in, and are able to exercise, their right to vote.
Emily Thornberry
One thing about giving votes to youngsters at 16 is that there will be an election in their last two years at school, and politicians will be beating their way to the doors of these schools to go in and speak. Those young people will have an opportunity to learn about what they are voting for and how the structures work in a way that, frankly, their elders often do not know.
Florence Eshalomi
My right hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. We know that people who start voting at a young age will continue voting through the rest of their life. It is soul-destroying when we knock on the door of someone in their late 50s or 60s, and they say that they have never voted and do not think about voting. If we enfranchise these young people, the figures show that they will continue to vote throughout their adult life. It is important that we enfranchise more people and make sure that there are no barriers.
This legislation is not just about enfranchising people, but about ensuring fair representation. The Electoral Commission shows that as many as 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote, and that has a big impact on young people, people living in private rented accommodation, disabled people and recent home movers. It is important that we look at this issue. I welcome the Government’s proposals on automatic voter and direct voter registration. That is the right way to do it, and it will be important for the Government to outline how they will pilot the scheme. Can the Minister give assurances about when the pilots will happen and if preparation is happening? It is important that any successful pilot is implemented before the general election.
Can the Minister clarify how voter registration will impact different franchises for local and parliamentary elections? For example, will the system deal with qualifying EU nationals? We know that the scheme depends on when someone arrived and settled in the UK, or if someone is from one of the five countries with reciprocal voting rights agreements with the UK. Can the Minister outline how automatic voter registration will capture that?
Time is limited, but I welcome the fact that the Government have finally listened to my calls and those of many other Members in repealing the provision on the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement. In 2000 the previous Labour Government set up the Electoral Commission as a guardian of our democracy, independent not just of that Government but of all future Governments. That independence is fundamental to restoring and keeping trust in our democracy, and it is right that we have no political interference in—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I agree with many of the comments that Members have made, and it is nice to see such communality on idea that we need proportional representation, that we need to get rid of dirty money, and that we need to abolish the possibility of foreign people buying our elections. We see in too many countries across the world that if people have the money, they can buy the votes, and we must not fall into that trap.
I welcome the introduction of votes for 16-year-olds. The children I meet at schools talking politics are engaged and understand what they are doing. I question whether we have sufficient digital voter IDs in the scheme for them to use. Personally, I would like to see voter ID abolished entirely, much as I would like to see the open register abolished entirely. However, the biggest thing I had complaints about after the last election was postal votes, whether it was postal votes too late in getting to people or postal votes being sent back and too late getting to the elections office. There is some movement in the Bill, but it is not enough.
However, we are completely ignoring a whole section of voters: our overseas voters. We heard earlier how the overseas mandate had changed. Now, instead of some 1.4 million overseas voters, we have an estimated 3.4 million overseas voters, and we need to change how they can vote. They are asking for the ability to self-print ballots from the system—that is possible; they do it in the Netherlands—and return them through embassies and consulates. That would enable us to reach these overseas contingents, and we should be encouraging them to take part in our elections, as they are entitled to do. Something like 200,000 registered for the last election, but there are 3.4 million people whom we have disenfranchised. The other big question that we have agreed on and talked through is how we deal with misinformation and disinformation and modern technology, which are distorting our electoral position. We have to make more of that.
On the whole, I would say that this is a reasonable start for a Bill. There is a lot more work to be done, but having heard Members on both sides of the House agreeing on the Bill, I think that together we can make it better, and fit for the 21st century.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this legislation. The proposals for votes at 16, streamlined voter registration and tightened political funding regulations are very welcome, and I applaud the Government for grabbing the bull by the horns. Others will want to address various aspects of the Bill, but for me the most pressing issue relates to political funding.
Hon. Members may be aware that, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I recently led a Westminster Hall debate on foreign political interference in UK politics. In preparing for that debate, I met various experts on political interference. What they told me has stayed with me and impressed upon me the immense scale and severity of the threat that we are facing, and I want to reflect on that aspect of the Bill.
We know that Russian money has already been used to influence and manipulate British politics. We know for a fact that Reform’s former leader in Wales took at least £40,000 in Russian bribes, a crime for which he is now serving a 10-and-a-half-year sentence—I hope he feels that his treachery was worth it. He is not the only Reform politician who has been singing from the Kremlin hymn sheet, but we can only work on the assumption that the others do so as a political choice, rather than as a result of financial inducement.
So we know that Russian money has already infiltrated our politics; what can we do now to prevent future betrayals like that of Mr Gill, and to defend our democracy? The Bill makes great strides in the right direction—restricting political donations from foreign companies is a hugely positive step, for example—but when malign actors want to subvert our democracy covertly, they will continue to do so, or will attempt to do so, and we must therefore be forceful in defending ourselves against all covert illegal donations.
One way for malign actors to dodge our defences is to donate to political parties using cryptocurrencies. The experts I have spoken with tell me that cryptocurrencies pose a new threat to our democracy, an opportunity for hostile states to bypass the laws that protect us and our political system from meddling. Only one of the parties represented in this place today accepts crypto donations. No prizes for guessing which one: yes, it is the same party once represented by Nathan Gill; the same party whose leader thinks that the west provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and regards Putin as the world leader he most admires. However, it is not just political parties that influence and shape our politics; so do think-tanks, and experts also suspect that Russian money is being used to fund think-tank activity in the United Kingdom.
The Government are taking a huge step in the right direction, and I will be proud to walk through the Aye Lobby tonight in support of the Bill. The threat facing us from hostile states is extremely serious, and it is critical that the Government act with strength to ensure that that influence is no longer there.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The central point of the Bill is, of course, the franchising of 16 and 17-year-olds. I will not deal with that issue extensively, although I must say that I thought the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) essentially demolished the argument for votes for children. However, I want to look at it in a slightly different context.
Whether someone is 16 or 86, the whole idea of universal suffrage is that people have the opportunity, as equals, to elect those who make their laws, whether in a council, in this Parliament, or in some other institution. That is the fundamental point. Indeed, the secret is in the title: Representation of the People—representation in the election of those who then make our laws. But here is the problem. If the Bill is passed and you are a 16-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. If you are an 86-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. That is because we are in the absurd position that in part of this United Kingdom—which boasts of universal suffrage, which boasts of equal rights across this United Kingdom—in not one area but in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are not made by those whom we elect; they are made by those in a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament, elected by the electorates of 27 other countries.
Liam Conlon
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentions Europe. Another key component of this Bill is transparency in funding, and he will know that the Constitutional Research Council donated nearly half a million pounds to the Vote Leave campaign in Northern Ireland—a company that does not disclose its accounts or who funds it. This Bill will correct that. Does he agree that is a fantastic move forward?
Jim Allister
Yes, transparency in funding is important, and I will say something about that if I have time, but there is a more fundamental issue. Whatever their age, the hon. Member’s constituents, once they are given the vote, have a right to elect those who make their laws. My constituents and I do not have the right to elect those who make our laws in my part of the United Kingdom, and I challenge anyone in this House to tell me why it is either democratic or right that we should have universal suffrage on the basis of representation of the people, but that we should extract and remove from the people of Northern Ireland that fundamental right in 300 areas of law. That is perverse. It is wrong. The Secretary of State, in introducing this debate, said that this Government “will tackle foreign interference head-on”. Well, let them start by removing the foreign interference in making the laws in my part of the United Kingdom. That would be a very good starting point.
Finally, I want to make a point about foreign donations. This House may know that in Northern Ireland we have a party by the name of Sinn Féin, which has run a coach and horses through every regulation that has ever been made about foreign donations. Because the party operates in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it plays the rules of one against another. In a recent year it received £2 million from the United States, so what does it do? It filters the money through whichever country’s laws allow it to be most easily filtered, and then moves it north-south or south-north, as suits the party’s purposes. This Bill does not yet go far enough. I want to see it tighten those loopholes and make sure that travesty cannot continue.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
As a solicitor who previously advised in this area, I am grateful to be able to contribute to tonight’s Second Reading debate. I welcome much in this Bill, including automatic voter registration; honouring our manifesto commitment to extend the vote in UK-wide elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, following in the footsteps of Wales; and rectifying some of the discriminatory impacts of the Conservatives’ Elections Act 2022, a piece of legislation that in many respects was a solution in search of a problem.
In the short time I have tonight, I want to focus on a theme that I have regularly spoken about: the threat to our democracy from foreign interference by both state and non-state actors, and the steps that we must take to cement our democracy from those malign forces. As has been said, these are not theoretical risks. We need only look at the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, who was previously in the UK Independence party and the Brexit party: Nathan Gill, who is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for eight counts of bribery. It is shameful that he took a minimum of £40,000 in bribes to make speeches in the European Parliament. He was meant to be representing Wales but instead did the Kremlin’s bidding.
I welcome the Government’s setting up of the Philip Rycroft review, and I trust that the resulting recommendations will be included in the Bill as it progresses through this place. In particular, I am clear that we should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. To my mind, there is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means, unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity.
I welcome the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was elaborated on by the Secretary of State, and the enhancing of its powers to provide clear deterrents against lawbreaking. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that the Government will ensure that the Electoral Commission has all the necessary resources it needs to do its job effectively and efficiently.
Improved co-operation between the Electoral Commission, the intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I have previously suggested to the Security Minister and I suggest again to the Minister that the Government should consider whether the recently announced policing reforms, most notably in setting up a national police service, may be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime.
Finally, we must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, as has been mentioned, and treat them as the core national security threat that they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police need the resources to deal with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections. I would be grateful if the Government synchronised that with other ongoing Government reviews to ensure that this Bill is as robust as it needs to be to cement our democracy.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it.
Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Is not the real fear that young people are now able, through social media and other forums, to identify which political personality is telling the truth and which one is saying what is false, and the Conservatives are quite concerned that they will lose even more power?
Mr Bedford
If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up.
Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country.
Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further.
To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have learned a great deal this evening, not least that, when we are debating legislation, Members should put in their name earlier than I clearly did.
I have the great honour of representing the people of Finsbury, and there is a great line of fantastic Members of Parliament before me, such as Chris Smith. Before that, there was Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, who in 1842 delivered to Parliament the Chartist petition with 3.3 million signatories, or one third of the adult population. We had huge demonstrations in Spa fields and Copenhagen fields to try to get the vote—unfortunately, just for men—but, nevertheless, that is how seriously we take democracy in Islington South and Finsbury.
However, 184 years later, I worry that I may be the MP who oversees the death of our democracy, and the reason I am so concerned—profoundly so—is foreign interference in our democracies. The Foreign Affairs Committee started looking at other countries—we thought this was just about other countries—and we visited many other places. I must tell hon. Members that the things we saw in Romania and Moldova would make their hair stand on end. However, this is not just in countries a long way away on the border with Russia, but in many others. I have spoken to people in Germany and France, and it is quite clear that there is an attempt to influence our democracies, and we are complacent—far too complacent.
We are very worried about that in the Foreign Affairs Committee, so we have taken the unusual step of asking domestic Ministers what they are doing about it. We are seeing patterns of behaviour and we are concerned that it is now happening in this country. It could blow up very quickly, not least in the next elections in May. The last thing we want is for those influencers to be there and then for us to somehow or other try to persuade the public, “Actually, you were unduly influenced.” Nobody will want to admit it once it has happened. We need to ensure we protect ourselves.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have been in touch with me in recent months concerned about the impact of foreign money and foreign influence on our elections, particularly after the recent conviction of the former leader of Reform UK Wales for taking Russian bribes. I am sure those concerns will be shared by my right hon. Friend’s constituents. Will she join me in welcoming the measures in the Bill that will strengthen the rules on political donations, in particular the requirement that donations from companies must come from money made in the UK, rather than abroad?
Emily Thornberry
Well, the penny does seem have dropped—or the crypto-coin has dropped—but the Bill is not sufficient. That is why the Rycroft review is really important. It will come out at the end of the month and I ask the Minister to undertake to publish it when it is produced, because we are on a very tight timetable. The programme motion suggests that the Bill will leave the elected House on 23 April, so if there are changes to be made, they will be made by the unelected House of Lords, which is unfortunate. I ask business managers to consider that.
Currently, there are seven Departments dealing with disinformation. The test I have is the 1,300 bots from a Scottish background—they seem very interested in Scottish nationalism in Iran. I have been asking various Ministers to deal with them. Who is taking them down? Who is responsible for taking them down? Of the seven different Departments, who is doing that? Those bots are still there—although they may now have gone because of the recent bombing. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that that is an attempt at foreign influence in our democracy and I am very concerned about it. I asked the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about it. He said he would look into it. As a result, I got three different letters from three different Departments all telling me three different things. We must consider this matter and ensure we tackle it properly. The Foreign Affairs Committee is producing an excellent report this month. I urge Ministers to read it, because it will contain recommendations which, unfortunately, I cannot go into today.
Finally, why are we allowing cryptocurrency into our democracy? Who wants to use cryptocurrency? Why can we not just use good old-fashioned cash, cheques and bank transfers like anybody else? Why do they need cryptocurrency? Because they want to cover up. It is the Russian currency of choice when it wants to bribe people. We know that from other countries and we know the way in which it is used. Just say no.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She rightly reminded the House about the role of the Chartists in Islington South. I remind her and the rest of the House about the role of Mary Wollstonecraft in the north of the borough, and of course the fact that “The Rights of Man” was written in her constituency at the Angel. Our borough has made a massive contribution to radical thought and radical development.
This debate should be much longer and wider, because we need to look at wider issues of democracy in our society. We have an elected House of Commons. We have an unelected House of Lords. We obviously have an unelected Head of State. We have a massive disparity in regional influences on political decision making. We do not really have regional government. We have mayors and a local government system that is essentially dependent on central government. We are not a fully democratic society by any manner of means. Indeed, this House of Commons is really meeting on sufferance of the Government. Its agenda is basically set by the Government. It is not an independent chamber of power over the Government; it is one that tries to hold the Government to account—there is a big difference. So we need to think a bit more about how our democracy could develop. Perhaps a good idea would be a commission on democracy, where there could be wide-ranging thoughts on democracy in our society.
The Bill contains a number of issues that I want to refer to quickly. I say that as a former agent in many elections, and as a parliamentary candidate in many more after that. The question of the funding of elections comes up all the time. Massive amounts of business money flows into politics both at election time and between elections, funding parties, so-called political interest groups and so on. We need to get a grip on this. Our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, and it is getting worse and worse with the levels of political influence and money that goes with it.
There is also the question of the power of the media between and within elections. We need to extend broadcasting rules into print media during elections. As others have said, we need to look very seriously at the damaging interests of social media and the algorithms that go with it, which direct political views. It is almost impossible to find out how much money has been spent on social media campaigning.
Lastly, I will turn to the right to vote. I have raised the question of homeless people having the right to vote; if we had a universal registration system, it would be much easier to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is able to do so. While I absolutely support votes at 16, I also think we should extend votes beyond just Irish nationals to those who are legally resident in this country and have a stake in the future of this country, and should be able to vote accordingly.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I, too, want to welcome the Bill; I think it has a lot of good measures. However, whether it becomes the watershed Bill that I think it could be depends on whether much of the debate we have heard tonight gets translated into successful amendments over the next couple of weeks.
We all have an ideal of democracy in this House, but we all know that democracy, too, is a system, and systems can be gamed, corrupted and undermined, not merely by force of arms, but by force of money: foreign money; dark money; money that is faceless, but has an agenda. That is the situation we have in this country today because we have allowed the activities of shell companies, alka-seltzer companies and unincorporated associations, with about £1 in every £10 coming into political parties now from some kind of dark source. All of this is overseen by a National Crime Agency without the resources to do the job and an Electoral Commission without the powers to do the job.
There are five changes that need to be made to the text of the Bill before us tonight. The first, as many have said, is on media systems. It is ridiculous that I can set up a trust in Dubai that is owned by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands and chuck tens of millions of pounds into a British TV station, which can then go on to pay politicians in this House. There are no rules and balances on that, which is ridiculous and needs to end.
Secondly, as many people have said, we need to ban cryptocurrency. We know that cryptocurrency is the vehicle of choice for the Russian intelligence services moving money into the bank accounts of western proxies. For a long time, the Russian intelligence services have had a strategy of what we might call “poodles on rubles”. Right now, we know they are moving about $30 million a year. We have to ensure that what has happened in Moldova does not happen in countries like ours. Banning cryptocurrency altogether—until, perhaps, one day in the future, the Electoral Commission has the power to police it—might be a good idea.
Thirdly, we have to ensure that only profits earned from British companies can be used for electoral donations. It is ridiculous that an individual like Christopher Harborne can take $70 million in Tether tokens before then making about £23 million-worth of donations into British political parties, with none of us in this House having any idea where that money has come from.
Fourthly, we need to ensure that the powers of the Electoral Commission have been transformed so that it has the power to initiate investigations before it has all the evidence it needs. At the moment, it needs to initiate an investigation before it can get the evidence, which is very difficult to do.
Finally, we need to ensure that there is a proper gateway to allow the Electoral Commission to share information with the National Crime Agency.
Our enemies are undermining us now not just by dropping bombs through the ceiling, but by trying to destroy our foundations. Regulating political finance is one of the ways we can stop that now.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Bill presents a vital opportunity to pave a new way for politics —a politics that is good, honest and free from foreign interference.
I welcome many of the Government’s proposed changes, but the Bill does not go far enough. Loopholes can still be exploited, with foreign billionaires simply needing someone in the middle willing to co-operate and act as the middle man before a donation reaches the party’s pockets. Using company revenue rather than profit to determine eligibility for political donations is also too weak a safeguard against foreign money. Furthermore, the issue of cryptocurrencies has also not been addressed in this legislation, as many Members have said this evening.
International IDEA reports that 49% of countries worldwide place some kind of cap on donations to political parties. Labour must do what is right and use this Bill to finally cap donations to political parties. Free and fair elections are central to our democracy, so I am pleased that the Minister listened to my concerns when I met her last week, and the strategy and policy statement will now be withdrawn. This will ensure the independence of the Electoral Commission.
There is also the growing issue of disinformation, which this legislation fails to address. With the welcome change in voting age, even more of our electorate must now wade through online content and determine what is real and what is false. It is therefore imperative that we do not go into another election without robust, updated measures to tackle disinformation. As we consider voters, I am pleased to see changes to move the postal vote application deadline to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, and I hope that this helps our overseas electorate.
Finally, this Bill makes progress, but it cannot be the end of the road for electoral reform.
Caroline Voaden
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our electoral system fractures into a multi-party system—we have traditionally had a system involving two parties in this country—there is a massive missed opportunity to use the Bill to introduce a commission that could bring forward a proportional voting system? That would ensure that we never again had a Government who won 62% of seats with only 34% of the vote.
Helen Maguire
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that at recent Labour conferences, many Labour members brought up the same point.
This House must strive for a system that is bold and ambitious, and that puts everyday people at the heart of British politics. The legislation needs to go further to deliver for our constituents.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Last summer, along with the other North Lanarkshire MPs, I participated in North Lanarkshire council’s school placement scheme. Two young people, Scott and Shanna, joined my office. At the time, they were 17 and 16 respectively. They began by doing a six-week summer placement, but they now regularly contribute to our team. Even in a relatively young constituency office, they bring a fresh perspective. They ask different questions and challenge assumptions, and they do so thoughtfully and responsibly. I find it particularly abhorrent that they contribute so much to the work of my office and yet are not deemed important or skilled enough to vote.
We talked at length about this Bill and why it was so important. When I set about the task of writing this speech, we were thinking about why the voting age should be 16, rather than 17, 15 or 18. As I listened to the speeches of Conservative Members, I was reminded that at 16, someone can leave school if they want. They can work and can get a national insurance number. They pay tax if they earn enough, and they pay national insurance if they earn above the threshold. They pay into a state pension and the pot builds, but they might never see any of it if they do not live to reach the retirement age. They are expected to contribute to society, but are told that they cannot have a say in how that society is governed. This has been an important issue for me from the beginning.
It is clear that these young people are mature enough to vote—certainly no less mature than many who are 18, and we have never queried votes at that age. We all have talked about how important it is to engage with schools. We have also talked about the fact that the change has already happened in both Scotland and Wales, and the world has not fallen in. The other point that I want to raise is how we will make sure that we get young people who are leaving care on to the electoral register. That is important.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I welcome the Bill, but it needs to be improved to effectively strengthen and defend our democracy. First, it is essential that we replace our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system with one that is fair and proportional. Independent analysis found that the 2024 general election was the most disproportional in modern times. The fact that millions of votes did not translate into representation fuels dangerous disillusion.
Secondly, on money, last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that would have put a cap on political donations and addressed donations made by foreign nationals through companies. It should be the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires, oligarchs or corporate interests, who decide our future in elections and referenda. Legislating for caps and stronger checks would align us with comparable democracies and would close the door on undue influence. We should also ban cryptocurrency donations; I look forward to the findings of the Rycroft review.
If this Bill is about representation, it must also be about the conditions in which voters form their views. Elections cannot be fair if voters cannot find and trust accurate information. Organisations such as Full Fact have proposed targeted measures to tackle the spread of misinformation, including stronger rules on political deepfakes, the establishment of a comprehensive public library of digital political adverts, statutory regulation of non-broadcast political advertising for honesty and accuracy, and a protocol for electoral information incidents, so that voters are alerted to serious interference or disinformation.
I am delighted to see the proposal for votes at 16. I would just add that enfranchisement must be accompanied by political and digital education programmes.
On overseas voters, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard evidence that postal ballots sometimes arrive too late to be returned. The Bill is an opportunity to pilot secure solutions, such as secure downloadable ballots, and embassy or consulate returns via diplomatic bags, and I urge the Government to look into the benefits of overseas constituencies.
People must be able to trust that their vote and voice matter. Let us use this Bill to ensure that it is the people of this country, not foreign malign actors, billionaires or algorithms, who decide our future at the ballot box.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I do not think I will get the time to say this at the end, so I want to put on the record that the Government should set up a national commission to look at our voting system. Whatever our views on it, we no longer live in a two-party electoral system, and if our electoral system does not acknowledge that fact, we will have even more chaotic and unpredictable election results, as Professor Rob Ford says.
I welcome many of the changes introduced by the Bill. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the principles behind democracy. My view is pretty simple: we should make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible in our democracy to vote. Unfortunately, some political actors have moved us away from that basic principle in recent years with some of the measures that they have introduced. There are always trade-offs in supporting the security and integrity of our electoral system, but the introduction of photo ID in our elections was done in a way that placed an unfair burden on people going to vote, while not doing anything to support the integrity of our electoral system.
In the 2023 election—the first time voter ID was introduced—a nurse in my constituency was not able to vote because she did not have a valid form of ID. I am sure it is possible for people in this Chamber to argue that at some point between her 12-hour shifts, saving the lives of my constituents, she should have found the time to fill in the proper paperwork. That right to vote was taken away from her to stop a problem that the Electoral Commission consistently said basically did not really exist. There is almost no evidence to show that it ever existed, if only because it would be incredibly inefficient to provide that on a large scale. I acknowledge that there are problems with electoral fraud in our democracy, but there is almost no in-person fraud at the ballot box. The introduction of that law therefore had almost no benefit, and it is right that the Government are increasing the range of supported IDs.
In the same vein of making it as easy as possible for people to vote, I would like to support the changes to automatic voter registration, but I acknowledge some of the problems raised by Opposition Members. While I accept that it will not be possible to say that there will be full-coverage automatic voter registration by the time of the next election—that does not, in and of itself, create a problem—it would be good to have reassurance from the Government on two points. First, where there are constituencies that cross multiple local authorities, we must not have a problem whereby half the constituency has automatic voter registration and the other half does not. Secondly, by the time we come to the next boundary review, when it comes to automatic voter registration, there must not be incomplete coverage. Can we please have a commitment to a way of addressing that problem—
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
There is much that is positive in the Bill. I want to touch briefly on one point that we have not discussed much so far, which is strengthening protections for staff who work on elections. They are critical to the safe and transparent delivery of our democracy. As hon. Members have said, what is missing is something that would enable a fundamental change that restored faith and fresh thinking to our politics: a change to the voting system, to make it more proportional. One party, regardless of how good or bad it is, cannot hope to represent the huge range of ideas and opinions in our society effectively. This is not Lib Dem self-interest speaking, because in 2024 we finally achieved an outcome in seats under first past the post that was comparable to our vote share.
I would like proportional representation for many reasons. I would like it for the tactical voters whom I told in 2024 that I would campaign for a system in which they did not have to feel forced to vote for me. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be persuaded by my opinion, but perhaps he will be by an open letter about the Bill, written by over 50 leading academics, including Professors Tim Bale, Rob Ford and Vernon Bogdanor, which said:
“The collision of a multi-party electorate with a voting system designed for just two parties is creating new risks for Britain. If the government wishes…to protect and enhance the integrity of British democracy…it would be wise to engage with these risks.”
Many Labour Members agree with that. A majority of the 158 members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are Labour Members. A record 60% of the public support proportional representation, up from 52% in 2023, which was itself a record at the time.
While votes at 16 is to be welcomed, I note that widespread research, including from the respected More in Common firm, shows that 78% of the voting public are disillusioned with politics. Labour’s 2023 national policy paper acknowledged that widespread alienation and distrust among voters. Alas, the Bill will not address that very worrying situation.
The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, cited the German and Dutch good practice mirrored in aspects of the Bill. It is good that he did so. I hope that he will study further German and Dutch good practice; their electoral systems tend to deliver higher turnouts than ours, in a much more proportional manner. I appreciate that that is a big ask. If he wishes to prevent those 16 and 17-year-olds who will soon be able to vote from falling into the same democratic despair felt by many of us, I hope that he will start by supporting the call from the APPG for fair elections for a national commission on electoral reform.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to speak, even if it is briefly, in the debate. Young people have often felt left out of discussions and decisions about their future, and have felt that their voices do not matter, so I welcome the steps that the Bill will take to standardise the vote age across all elections. In Scotland, the age for voting in a general election has been out of step with the age for voting in Holyrood and council elections since 2016.
While I welcome the steps towards increasing participation and accessibility, we must do more to expand representation. The last general election marked the first point in our history at which enough female MPs had ever been elected to fill the Chamber. There have been 695 female MPs since 1918; I am the 673rd. However, we have missed an opportunity. As we heard, section 106 of the Equality Act is still to be commenced. I know that the Government are committed to commencing it. When commenced, section 106 will improve transparency, accountability and consistency in how parties collect and publish candidate diversity data. By bringing greater transparency, that section will allow nominations across parties to be analysed consistently and transparently, putting a spotlight on the selection of women candidates and highlighting any disparities. Commencement is supported by Centenary Action, 50:50 Parliament, the Electoral Reform Society and Elect Her to ensure that Chambers across the country better reflect the communities that we all serve. Ahead of the centenary of women’s suffrage in 2028, I ask the Minister to reiterate that commitment today and to consider whether section 106 should be reflected in this Bill in the light of the commendable aim of strengthening our democracy.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Although I fear that this Bill may be remembered as a Bill of missed opportunities, I want to start with the substantial positives that I see in it. For decades, the Liberal Democrats have fought—sometimes alone, sometimes against the odds—for votes at 16. It is a progressive, pragmatic move whose time has come, and I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I hope it will also be accompanied by stronger elements of the curriculum in democratic and civic education to support these measures, and I look forward to the Government’s proposals.
Automatic voter registration is also really important. Nearly 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote in this country. No matter how we look at it, that is just wrong and needs to be addressed, so I strongly welcome that measure too. I would also like to talk about protections not just for candidates, but for hard-working council staff. I have previously led a district council, and I have seen up close not only the dedication and hard work of the staff in our council, but the risks they are exposed to in an increasingly polarised environment. It is fantastic that they have been included in this Bill as well.
These provisions are genuinely welcome, but let me be blunt: this Bill does not go far enough. The truth, as every person in this country knows, is that our democracy is experiencing a crisis of public confidence, and we need real transformation. The measures on “know your donor” are steps in the right direction. Closing the loopholes for overseas donors and preventing the influence of people such as Musk and the Russian oligarchs matter. We cannot allow foreign money to buy British democracy, but the Bill does not go far enough in this regard. We need a donations cap—a hard limit on what any individual or company can give to political parties. Right now, billionaires can write cheques that dwarf the modest contributions from ordinary working people.
Cryptocurrency has been mentioned a number of times this evening, but the Bill is silent on it. While other countries wake up to the risks of crypto and its opacity, we are leaving the door wide open for cryptocurrency to become the new dark money. We need an explicit ban on cryptocurrency donations. Donations are only part of the picture, however. We still have first past the post—a voting system so distorted that it allows Governments with 36% of the vote to govern alone for up to five years. We see millions of votes cast that elect no one, yet the Government have proposed no reforms to introduce proportional representation, a system where every vote counts equally and every community gets a representative that reflects them.
Democracy may seem more fragile than it has felt in a generation, but it is by no means dead. It is a rare thing and it must be fought for, renewed and expanded with every generation. As a Liberal Democrat, I will not stop fighting for it until we have a system that gives every elector a real voice and kicks dirty money out of our politics.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
There is a lot to welcome in this legislation that we are debating this evening. In my view, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds is a statement of confidence in the next generation and a practical step towards a more inclusive democracy. As I have told my constituents, my support for 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote stems less from their being determined in adult, which has been contested this evening, and more from the need to balance our political debate. With a shrinking birth rate and an ageing population, the electorate are set to become more imbalanced over the coming years, so there is a practical reason for making this change.
I also welcome the Bill’s provisions to improve voter registration and to protect candidates and electoral staff from intimidation and abuse. On voter registration, I particularly encourage Ministers to take seriously the work of the Migrant Democracy Project. I believe we should use this opportunity to extend the franchise to more adult residents, not just younger ones, given that there are 4 million people in this country who cannot vote in a general election at the moment. I also note the Bill’s intention to strengthen transparency and security around political donations. As has been discussed extensively, those are vital changes.
As many colleagues have said, there is something important missing if we genuinely want this Bill to create a fair, secure and inclusive democracy. That is, of course, the decision to not look again at the central mechanism that decides who sits in this House. Under first past the post, millions of people can do everything that is asked of them—they register, turn out and vote in good faith—but still end up without meaningful representation and a sense that their voice truly matters. It is arguably getting worse. In only the past week, many of us have been out on the doorstep at the by-election, and I spoke to many people who were actively debating how to stop a particular party and were using their vote to achieve that particular end, rather than voting for something positive and something that reflected their views and their policy aspirations. Surely we can do better than fighting elections on the basis of the best worst option, which is how so many people see it.
I want to put on the record my support for the work of the APPG for fair elections and to urge Ministers to genuinely look at the call for some form of a national commission on electoral reform, so that modern Britain genuinely considers how we can ensure that every vote counts.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
We know that to sustain a healthy democracy, we have to always look at ways to strengthen it. This Bill seeks to do just that, so I am pleased that the Government have brought it forward. By lowering the voting age to 16, we are expanding democratic participation and taking a vital step to strengthen and renew our democracy.
I have often been sceptical of those who say that young people are not interested in politics or do not understand it enough to vote. To Members of this House who suggest that, I simply ask them how often they visit schools in their constituencies. I have encountered students far younger than 16 who have shown more than a basic understanding of our political system. I regularly visit schools in my constituency and experience at first hand the political intelligence and impressive cross-examination of young people there. Last summer, I was pleased to host my first activism academy, inviting 16 to 18-year-olds to a three-day learning programme to understand what MPs do, how Parliament works, and the ways in which they can get involved. Our young people are politically engaged and understand the weight of the right they are being granted.
While I welcome the change, I am disappointed that it has not been coupled with a robust programme of civic education. While many 16 to 18-year-olds have a firm understanding of politics, without comprehensive political education, those who want more information are forced to seek it elsewhere and will likely resort to social media, which is riddled with fake news. I ask the Minister when they respond to outline what the Government have planned.
I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill that will introduce automatic voter registration, which is an important step to improve voter turnout. I would also like to see the Bill go the way of Australia, where everybody who is eligible to vote has a legal obligation to do so.
Finally, I would like to see the Bill offer more power to the electorate to recall their Members of Parliament—yes, you heard that right. I suspect this is not a suggestion that will make me popular with my colleagues, but I think we should all be more concerned about what our constituents think. At the moment, for an MP to be recalled, they must be convicted of a criminal offence that makes them eligible and they must have exhausted the appeals process. That can take years, and during that time their constituents are not getting the representation they deserve. Unlike recall procedures in other countries, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings, instead relying on criminal criteria being met. Even then, a high threshold of petitioners is needed for a by-election to be triggered.
Over a number of years, MPs have been investigated for criminal offences or gross misconduct, and Members have failed to behave in a standard that is befitting of an MP. They have disgraced themselves, our profession and this House and, most importantly, they have failed their constituents. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, we need to show that we are willing to put it right. This is the Representation of the People Bill; it should seek to strengthen and improve the representation of British people by giving the electorate greater power to hold their MPs to account. The Bill is a great starting point for strengthening our democracy, and I hope the Government will not shy away from going further.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system.
Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system.
Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections.
The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country.
A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it.
Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern.
We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward.
On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks.
Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.
Kevin Bonavia
Does the shadow Minister not accept that the crime of impersonation is vanishingly small in this country, so what problem is he actually trying to fix? [Interruption.]
David Simmonds
I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way.
In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity, and one that we need to protect and uphold. The Bill marks a landmark moment in that process. I welcome the strength of feeling expressed by all Members today about the importance of upholding democratic practice, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the debate as the Minister with responsibility for democracy.
I will come to the points made in the debate shortly, but first I want to address the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in his reasoned amendment. There is one specific point that I want to address. Opposition Members have tried to suggest that there was no proper engagement with political parties, but I do not accept that. Government officials have engaged in discussions with the political parties represented on the Electoral Commission’s parliamentary parties panel on the technical aspects of the reforms, and I am grateful for the time that party administrators have invested in these discussions. My predecessor wrote to shadow spokespeople across the House upon publication of the Government’s strategy for elections. They were invited to meet then, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and I have tried again on introduction of the Bill. The Conservatives have not taken up our offer to meet on either occasion. However, I look forward to their engagement through the Bill’s progress.
Before I address the points raised during the debate, I want to remind hon. Members what the Bill seeks to do. This is a bold move to improve democracy in the UK through extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds at all UK elections, and through expanding the list of ID acceptable at polling stations to allow as many of those who are eligible to vote to do so easily.
The Bill seeks to improve and protect our electoral systems in this modern era through improving voter registration, moving towards a more automated system that makes it easier and simpler for people who are eligible to register to vote, building a fuller and fairer democracy in the UK.
The Bill will increase participation in democracy for all, engaging young people from an earlier age. It will also protect against those who seek to cause harm and weaken our democratic system. It also delivers on other manifesto commitments to improve and protect our electoral systems by strengthening rules on political donations, and by ensuring that political imprint rules are as comprehensive as possible.
As the regulator, the Electoral Commission plays an incredibly important role in upholding public confidence in free and fair elections, which is why we are expanding its role and powers. That will ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.
The proposed changes to our political finance framework will safeguard against foreign interference, while ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns. The current system provides numerous opportunities for corrupt donations and manipulation to influence our elections, whether through foreign donations through shell companies or large sum donations with origins left unchecked. That status quo cannot continue. These measures have been developed to block malicious interference and to ensure the safety of democracy.
The Bill also updates electoral conduct and registration rules, making processes smoother for those running elections, with measures being informed by the strategic review of electoral registration and conduct developed in partnership with the electoral sector. Over recent years, we have also seen growth in harassment and in the intimidation of candidates, campaigners and, as Members have said, electoral staff. That is a direct threat to our democracy. Measures in the Bill move to protect all those who participate in upholding and delivering our democracy by treating such harassment and intimidation as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of offenders, while also building on existing legislation to disqualify such offenders from standing at future elections.
Let me turn to the points raised during the debate. I thank Members from across the House who have supported the measure on votes at 16, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this legislation. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue of teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.
I am not quite sure where the fears of the shadow Secretary of State come from on auto-enrolment, but I reassure Members that it is our intention to pilot these measures very carefully indeed to ensure that the robustness and integrity of our elections and our electoral register are maintained. The piloting measures that we take will be used carefully and proportionately.
Harassment and intimidation are a really serious issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), my friend and predecessor, who has endured significant harassment and intimidation. That is completely unwarranted.
It will be disappointing to some Members across the House that the voting system will not be changing as a result of this legislation. However, we take extremely seriously the issue of foreign interference, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). I refer Members to the independent review being conducted by Philip Rycroft, which will report this month. It is the Government’s intention to leave space for us to respond to recommendations that come out of that review as effectively as possible. That is a really serious issue that we need to address.
Similarly, misinformation and disinformation were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). There are already measures in the Online Safety Act that require the removal of illegal content, but this issue needs to be addressed more forcefully.
Flexible voting pilots were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I draw her attention, and that of all Members, to the written ministerial statement issued today, which sets out the pilots that we look forward to seeing innovate in ways in which electors can address the vote.
I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is a crossover Bill. The Committee stage will finish towards the end of April, but further stages will cross over into the next Session of Parliament.
On the measure surrounding bank cards, which was raised by the shadow Minister, I reassure him that only UK-registered bank cards will be used. We want to do this because we accept that the vast majority of electors have them, including those of the ages of 16 and 17. Our financial system and the issuing of bank cards is one of the most robust in the country, and we will measure that.
Democracies across the world are at an inflection point. We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I urge all Members to step forward and embrace this opportunity. We must all choose openness and empowerment and to work hard to bring trust back into the system. By doing so, we close our system to those who would undermine that trust, stifle debate and twist our democracy for their own ends. This Bill is the next step in the evolution of our democracy, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 12 and 13 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Consumer Protection
That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.
That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Over this Labour Government’s term in office so far, we have spent a lot of time discussing and highlighting the evils of child abuse and the exploitation of women and girls, and there has been a lot of progress. The audit from Baroness Casey on grooming gangs made several recommendations that we have already put into motion; the reforms that we are making to taxi licensing and safety through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill are a key example.
However, I want to open today’s debate by talking about an issue that I have previously discussed with the Minister: the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is one of the key recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I approach this issue as someone who grew up in a small religious organisation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which IICSA recognised as having a serious problem with child sexual abuse. Last June, I stood here and highlighted my concerns that the Government’s proposals to introduce mandatory reporting in the Crime and Policing Bill have been significantly watered down from IICSA’s recommendations. I raised three issues: first, a lack of proper sanctions for non-compliance; secondly, the fact that the duty proposed applies only when someone receives a direct disclosure or witnesses abuse happening, and not when they have strong reasons to suspect it; and thirdly, loopholes in who is included; under the drafting, it is religious leaders who have “unsupervised” contact with children who come under the duty to report. I set out why that would allow most lay religious leaders to escape the duty, despite their holding enormous power and influence over their followers, using the particular example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
To begin with, I do have some good news. Just a few hours ago, the House of Lords approved a Government amendment to remove the word “unsupervised” from that definition of religious leaders. I want to thank the Minister, as well as her Lords counterpart, Lord Hanson, for listening to my lobbying on that front. That small change could make a real difference in protecting children from abuse in small religious organisations, but it will make the most difference only if we fix the other two issues, on which there has not been as much progress. I will not rehash my arguments in detail about why they are so critical.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He spoke on this issue some time ago, and made a very good case. I support him in the case that he is putting forward, and I want to give him an illustration. A 2013 report by the Northern Ireland Assembly revealed that small, unaffiliated groups, including those that use church or faith premises, had gaps in child protection and safeguarding, and might not be subject to credential checks. Does he agree with me—I believe he does—that legislation and guidance must be brought up to date and strengthened to ensure that smaller organisations do not fall through the gaps when it comes to ensuring proper safeguarding, so that we can increase protections for all children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? He deserves to be congratulated on what he is doing tonight.
Sam Carling
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It sounds like really helpful evidence and a really good example, and I will certainly go away and have a look at it.
I will not rehash the arguments I made in June, but I will say that IICSA was clear, having examined the issue in huge depth over many years, that both strong sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion were essential to create a duty that works, and its views have not changed. On Friday, two of the four IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary, pressing for the duty in the Crime and Policing Bill to be strengthened, so that it complies with their original recommendations.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I believe that Alexis Jay told the Home Affairs Committee that this mandatory reporting was one of the most important recommendations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we deliver on the recommendation in full, and do not allow any leeway when there is reasonable evidence that abuse may be occurring, which would allow people to get away with not reporting that suspicion?
Sam Carling
I am really grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with her. It is really important that we listen to IICSA, which spent many years on this, and deliver what it recommended. When it comes to religious organisations in which there is a strong culture of distrusting secular authorities, there is no other way to make them do the right thing. I again highlight the work of the Australian royal commission, which found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that country had documented 1,006 cases of child sexual abuse and reported not even one to the police—not one. That is not an accident; it is a systemic cover-up on a catastrophic level.
The Government’s case for not fully complying with IICSA seems to rest on two arguments: first, that strong sanctions for a failure to report child sexual abuse would create a chilling effect, which would stop people wanting to go into professions that work with children; and, secondly, that widening the duty to include reasonable suspicion would produce a flood of reports that would overwhelm our system. The Government have written to me to say that their position on these issues is supported by expert stakeholders, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I think it takes an average of 26 years for children to disclose that they were victims of sexual abuse, so it is absolutely critical that the provision on the reasonable suspicion of abuse is included in the Bill, as well as the trigger for the duty to report. In small, high-demand religious organisations, cultural norms prevent open discussion of sexual harm and discourage mandatory reporting. That needs to be overturned.
Sam Carling
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has done a lot of work on this matter, in particular on making sure that the seal of confession is not exempted from mandatory reporting. I very much appreciate her work on that, which is really important. She says—I am sure that she has the correct figure—that it takes on average 26 years for someone, having been a victim, to report child sexual abuse. That goes to show that we cannot have a duty that relies on that reporting. We must ensure that people are empowered and will report their reasonable suspicion.
I met all the stakeholders I have just cited and many more, and not all back the Government position. The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence for non-compliance are not enough. It does not want sanctions that could lead to a criminal record, but very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines, so I would argue that there is ample space for a well-thought-through compromise here. I have drafted an exemplar amendment, showing how civil sanctions could work. It is based on the Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled the amendment in the Lords, for debate earlier today.
Similarly, the NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger. That raises concerns about why the Home Office said to me that the NSPCC did not hold that position, and used that point to bolster the Government position. Some other stakeholders cited as agreeing with the Government have also expressed a much more nuanced position to me, accepting that the position is finely balanced, and that their concerns could be ameliorated through effective training—there have been amendments on that previously.
On these issues, the international evidence is so clear. Many countries with mandatory reporting have criminal sanctions, including a significant majority of US states, France, Australia, Croatia and Canada.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On reasonable suspicion, does he agree with me that in any closed community, including religious organisations, it is a characteristic of abuse that people have suspicions, but often nobody feels able to speak up? Bringing reasonable suspicion into the definition for mandatory reporting, and putting that on the statute book, is a really important safeguard in that context. It creates an additional duty that could allow us to deal with circumstances that are pretty common.
Sam Carling
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In the debate in the House of Lords earlier today, Baroness Grey-Thompson gave a good example from when she was a younger athlete of sports coaches’ behaviour that she had observed. She believes that if there had been a duty relating to reasonable suspicion, it could have helped in dealing with some of that.
In none of the countries I named earlier has the feared chilling effect arisen, despite strong sanctions for failure to report. Nevertheless, as I have set out, firm civil sanctions would be a fair compromise, supported by virtually all stakeholders. On the concerns about floods of reports, we just have to look at the international evidence. Those floods just do not happen. Extensive research by Professor Ben Mathews in Western Australia, which has both criminal sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion, found that while there was an increase, the number of substantiated investigations—those with a finding of abuse—doubled, from an annual mean of 160 in the pre-law period to 327 in the post-law period. That indicates that twice as many sexually abused children were being identified. Compare that to Wales, where IICSA was told that the introduction of a weaker duty in 2016 had
“not led to a substantive change in practice”.
At this point, I want to highlight that the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation all clearly want the Government to criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. Clause 79 of the Bill criminalises stopping a mandated reporter from carrying out their duty to report. That is welcome, but it needs to be broader. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other small religious groups, there is ample evidence that religious leaders regularly stop victims or their parents reporting abuse to police because it will “bring reproach on God’s name”. As parents and victims will not be mandated reporters, that will remain completely legal. Once again, I urge the Government to close these loopholes.
The Government’s own impact assessment indicates that the duty will increase the number of child sexual offences recorded by police by just 0.3%. Vulnerable children need us to create a much stronger duty to report this abuse, as IICSA recommended. By doing so, we can shine much-needed light on safeguarding failings in small religious groups and others, and protect so many children.
I will now move on to discuss other safeguarding issues in small religious groups, beginning with shunning. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this has long been called “disfellowshipping”. When someone commits a serious sin in the eyes of the religion, their believing family and friends are ordered to shut them off entirely and treat them as though they are dead.
The same applies when someone voluntarily leaves. The Australian royal commission looked at this too, through the lens of the position in which it places victims of abuse, saying:
“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”
It happens all the time. The culture of non-reporting and forgiveness for child abusers leads to them remaining at large. Victims are silenced, told that their abusers have been forgiven by God; many leave, and then it is they who lose their entire families. It is victim blaming taken to extremes.
Let us consider those removed involuntarily for apparent “grave sins”. What might constitute a grave sin? Well, how about being gay? Religious teachings regularly equate homosexuality with paedophilia—they are lumped together. Let me read a brief quote from the Jehovah’s Witness “Awake!” magazine, a key publication intended to teach believers:
“True, some individuals may very well be prone to homosexuality… but…a Christian cannot excuse immoral behaviour by saying he was ‘born that way.’ Child molesters invoke the same pathetic excuse when they say their craving for children is ‘innate’. But can anyone deny that their sexual appetite is perverted? So is the desire for someone of the same sex.”
Children growing up in that religion are subjected to this bile constantly. I would know—I was one of them. But at least I survived. Lots do not; people like Stephen, the nephew of one of the religion’s governing body members, who died by suicide in January 2020, having been disfellowshipped and ostracised for being gay. Yet the organisation is considered a charity in the UK. It holds tax exemptions and is eligible for direct UK Government funding through Gift Aid. How can that be right? How can an organisation that causes so much harm be charitable?
It is not the only example. There are many small religious organisations active in the UK that expose children to horrific teachings, particularly about women and girls. At Prime Minister’s questions recently, I highlighted the National Secular Society’s “Mission and Misogyny” report, which is full of such examples. There was a recent example near the Minister’s constituency; in January, the NSS reported that the Green Lane masjid and community centre in Birmingham streamed a sermon in which listeners were told that
“discipline in the case of rebellion”
is one of the
“rights of the husband over the wife”,
that husbands have a right to “obedience” as well as a right to “intimacy”.
I must be clear at this point, as I hope I have been throughout, that these extremist examples happen across faith traditions. This example is Islamic; I have equally spent a lot of time up to now talking about a Christian example. These organisations must not cloud our view of the many religious charities that do brilliant work to support people, but they point to a broken charity system in need of repair.
That is why I have been calling for a review into charity law and regulation. We must have ways to ensure that organisations that promote harm towards vulnerable people, particularly through mandated shunning, cannot gain the tax, reputational and funding benefits of a charity. The Charity Commission must also seriously step up its game as a regulator, as there is a serious pattern of failing to take action despite repeated requests, which the “Mission and Misogyny” report lays bare.
I want to also put on the record my shock at the recent case in which the Charity Commission took legal action against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to stop the ombudsman laying before this House reports detailing complaints upheld against the commission. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, had to bring a privilege motion to force the ombudsman to release the files—which it wanted to do—because of the commission’s legal threats blocking it. I understand that the commission has still pursued that legal action. It is not on.
I ask the Minister whether she will make herself popular with the Treasury by agreeing that organisations promoting hate and abusive practices such as shunning should not be eligible for public money, and therefore support my calls for a thorough review of charity status. Will she also agree that either the Government or the relevant Select Committee should consider a thorough deep dive into the Charity Commission’s approach to safeguarding issues?
Finally, I want to briefly touch on a third issue: safeguarding and coercion in medical settings. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the clearest example. As many people will know, their religion teaches not to accept blood transfusions, which is described as a “personal choice” that they make. But when the consequence for not taking that choice is shunning and the permanent cutting off of family and friends, is it a choice? Maybe—and religious freedoms of adults to make medical decisions must always be allowed. Similarly, people must always be free to request visits from religious ministers during medical treatment or a hospital stay.
In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, though, requests for religious ministers will be met with the arrival of a hospital liaison committee. This is a group of elders whose role is simple: to enforce the rules on blood transfusions. They will “help” patients by advocating for their personal choice not to accept blood and will always claim that decisions are for the patient to make. However, the elders’ handbook, which I have here, clearly states that Witnesses should be strongly encouraged to fill out durable powers of attorney for someone else to refuse blood on their behalf. Either way, the hospital liaison committee will be there, watching. If the patient does not comply with the no-blood rule, they can expect to be disfellowshipped and shunned promptly. With the HLC there, there is little hope of being able to make a real personal choice in private if it differs from religious teaching. That really is coercion.
Ministers of religion can no doubt provide huge support and relief to patients of all faiths, and they do so, but I would argue that they should not be allowed to advocate for patients’ medical wishes where there is a clear conflict of interest, as in these cases. Furthermore, these bodies must only be allowed in when the patient requests them. A former HLC elder has approached me with allegations that some NHS trusts have established policies to call the HLC by default when a Jehovah’s Witness is admitted. No doubt it is done with the best of intentions, as they do not want to do anything wrong, but given that those HLCs exist to push an agenda that may not be the patient’s, that is a serious problem.
I will close by asking the Minister if she will liaise with Department of Health and Social Care colleagues and push for a review of NHS trust policies towards these bodies to ensure that they are called only when a patient requests it, and that patients have clear opportunities to articulate their final decision in respect of any treatment and receive treatment away from the HLC if they so wish.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for his speech, and I am grateful to other Members for their important contributions today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government’s commitment to safeguarding and protecting children and adults from harm across all settings, including within religious and faith communities. I want to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing this debate and for the compassion, thoroughness and persistence that he has shown this House on this issue.
Let me first be clear that this Government recognise the central role of faith in our national life, and we are committed to building a Britain where all communities feel safe and where the contributions of people of faith and belief are warmly welcomed and richly valued, as are the contributions of those who, like myself, have no faith—well, I have a lot of faith, but none that would be recognised or organised.
The insights of faith and belief groups should and do play an important role in the national conversation around safeguarding children and preventing violence against women and girls. The other central point to make at the outset is that the Government utterly condemn all acts of psychological, emotional, physical and sexual abuse against children and adults in all settings, including religious settings of any size or denomination. All such acts should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. As with every case of abuse, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims and survivors.
As this House knows, we are taking forward an ambitious range of measures to improve safeguarding and child protection. Through the violence against women and girls strategy published last year, which deploys the full power of the state to achieve this aim, and through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are strengthening multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and improving information sharing. We are also taking forward work to safeguard and protect children from harm in out-of-school settings, including religious organisations offering education in their own faith.
All out-of-school settings have a legal duty to safeguard and protect children from harm in their care. To support them in meeting this duty, the Department for Education has published guidance setting out the safeguarding standard that they should meet and last year launched a call for evidence to gather views on potential approaches to strengthening safeguarding further, including regulation. The Department for Education is currently analysing the responses and continuing engagement with key stakeholders, and will respond in due course.
We are also taking action on the recommendations of IICSA, which have been mentioned, including establishing a child protection authority to improve the national oversight and leadership of child protection and introducing through the Crime and Policing Bill a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. The duty will create a culture of knowledge, confidence and openness among those most likely to be alerted to child sexual abuse. It will help children and young people to trust that their voices will be heard when they speak out. The duty will apply to those working or volunteering with children in faith settings. There will be no exceptions based on religious practices. We will continue to engage with groups that may be impacted to help them manage the implementation of this new duty.
My hon. Friend raised some specific points about the Government’s mandatory reporting duty, which I would like to address. We are grateful for the expertise of the child protection sector in shaping the new duty. Our shared aim is to have a regime that is effective for children and workable for professionals.
For the avoidance of doubt, the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned have always fully supported the Government policy of not applying criminal sanctions to the failure to report. It is true that they also advocate for robust action against the deliberate concealment of abuse, but there is a qualitative difference between a lapse in reporting and taking active steps to deter it, or destroying or concealing evidence. The Crime and Policing Bill reflects that distinction by creating a criminal offence of obstructing a reporter from carrying out their duty, punishable by up to seven years in prison. The question of whether failures to report should be subject to sanctions was fully considered during the Bill’s parliamentary passage. Earlier today, on Report in the other place, the House rejected a proposition to amend the Bill to that effect.
The question of what triggers the duty—for example, whether to include the observation of signs and indicators —is a separate matter, although I recognise that, because these issues are often debated in tandem, some conflation may have crept in. The Government have not claimed the same stakeholder endorsement for our chosen threshold for the duty. Although some stakeholders favour adding recognised indicators or reasonable suspicion that abuse has occurred, as I have set out previously the Government’s view is that we need to deliver a model that is clear, proportionate and operable, anchored in direct disclosure, witnessing or recorded material. As with all aspects of the duty, we will keep that under review, but we are confident that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance.
Let me respond to some of the points that have been raised. I often feel anxious that people think that any organisation that they raise will not be considered as part of the duty, but most people in positions of trust—we do not need to name them—are covered by the duty because they work in regulated activity with children. That is the core definition in the Bill for a mandated reporter. In other words, if a person’s role as a sports coach already brings them into regular close contact with children, they are in scope.
Helen Hayes
My constituent is a survivor of abuse within a religious organisation, and she represents a larger group of survivors at the same organisation. She has found the Charity Commission to be utterly ineffectual and far too slow in dealing with her complaint. When I wrote to the Minister about this issue, she referred me to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. When I wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I was referred back to the Home Office. The religious organisation continues to operate with the suspicion that the practices that led to the abuse claimed by my constituent are continuing. We are a couple of years down the line in raising these concerns, so will the Minister advise me how I can get some traction on behalf of my constituent to ensure that her allegations and those of other survivors of the organisation are properly dealt with, and that the organisation cannot continue to operate with the same practices?
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to look directly into that case. My hon. Friend highlights an important problem: we need clarity about who is responsible in the system. First and foremost, if child abuse in an institution is raised with anyone, it should be reported to the police, with the support of the victim. I do not know the details of that case, but I will come on to the issues that my hon. Friend raised about the Charity Commission. As a constituency MP, I have had to raise such issues with the Charity Commission. We need to ensure that the regime of regulation in our charitable sector is as robust as it can be on safeguarding, as well as on financial irregularity and other things. I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said.
Tessa Munt
If I may, I would like to explore what happens with the Minister. There is mistrust of external agencies, and in a lot of these small, high-demand religious organisations—those that look like cults—people may not realise that they have any capacity or agency to report.
Jess Phillips
With the mandatory reporting duty, a huge body of work will go into guidance about how to report. However small—however nervous—they are covered by the duty.
I have only three minutes still to speak. To the issue of faith-based charities promoting misogyny, I hear the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire. The Charity Commission has apparently reviewed the National Secular Society report on religious charities promoting misogyny and confirmed that it has already assessed and responded to a number of incidents. I will follow up on that action, and I will gladly meet him once I have a fully robust answer. He invites me to annoy, I suppose, the Treasury—I do not think he used those words—but I agree with him that, as in the examples he gave, the idea that an organisation can promote the hatred of women or the supplication of people’s wives and also be considered a charity is an alien one. I will follow up on that.
Furthermore, as the Prime Minister announced recently, the Government are already working with the commission on plans to give it additional powers to help tackle extremist abuse, which will bar anyone convicted of hate crimes from serving as a trustee and make it easier for the commission to act against anyone undertaking that. The changes will be made after a public consultation that is coming this month, which I invite everybody to take part in.
I will speak to the Department of Health and Social Care on medical coercion. I do not lead on that as a Minister, but I do not disagree with my hon. Friend that people must be able to make those decisions in full view.
I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. I promise that we will continue to try to work together, because we all want the same thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage and national minimum wage rates on 1 April. The Government laid the regulations before the House on 2 February.
We are committed to making work pay. The passage into law of the Employment Rights Act 2025 in December was a proud day for this Government and, indeed, this Parliament. We are raising the minimum floor of employment rights, raising living standards throughout the country, and levelling the playing field for those businesses that are already engaged in good practice. Our landmark employment rights are set to benefit over 18 million workers in every corner of the UK, and we are pleased and proud to work alongside businesses, trade unions and groups across civil society. We are currently carrying out, and will continue to do so over the coming months, comprehensive consultation with those groups as we deliver the changes together.
The creation of the minimum wage remains one of our proudest achievements. We introduced it and are continuing to back it with real-terms above-inflation increases. Before I provide the precise details of this year’s increases, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Low Pay Commission. Its diligence, expertise and social partnership model ensure that the Government can continue to deliver on their ambitious agenda for working people without causing adverse impacts for businesses, the labour market or the wider economy.
This year’s national minimum wage regulations will take effect on 1 April, as I said—subject, of course, to the approval of the Committee. Let me provide the detail of the changes we are enacting. The national living wage will rise from £12.21 to £12.71, an increase of 50p an hour, adding over £900 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker. This 4.1% rise is above measures and projections of inflation, ensuring another real-terms pay increase for working people as we continue to build towards a genuine living wage.
The regulations will also implement increases to the other national minimum wage rates. The rate for those aged between 18 and 20 will increase from £10 an hour to £10.85, which is an 8.5% increase worth over £1,500 per year. Meanwhile, the rates for those above school-leaving age but under 18 will rise by 45p, or 6%, to £8 an hour.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I represent a seaside town, Bridlington, to which five million visitors come every year. It has a fantastic, successful seasonal economy that creates a large number of jobs for young people in the town every summer. Is there not a danger that the significant increases in the minimum wage for 16 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 20-year-olds will disincentivise local employers from giving young people opportunities to get on that first rung on the jobs ladder?
Kate Dearden
I pay tribute to the businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that provide those opportunities for young people. Of course, the Government sets the remit and the Low Pay Commission, as an independent body, provides guidance on the rates to ensure that we can provide a real-terms increase for people no matter what their age. We recognise that people of different ages should not be paid a different rate for the same time, while ensuring that the rates take into account the implications for young people getting the opportunity to get on the job ladder. We made that clear in the remit.
I mentioned that the rate for those above school-leaving age will increase to £8 an hour, and the same applies to the apprentice national minimum wage, which applies to apprentices who are under the age of 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship. Finally, the accommodation offset rate, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase from £10.66 to £11.10.
The Department for Business and Trade published an impact assessment alongside the regulations. It includes a full equality assessment and received a green “fit for purpose” rating from the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. The Government estimate that this year’s national living wage and national minimum wage increases will provide a direct pay increase for approximately 2.7 million workers, with a further 5.1 million workers potentially benefiting from positive spillover effects as employers maintain pay differentials. We are really proud to protect working people in every corner of the United Kingdom. We estimate that 180,000 workers in Scotland, 140,000 workers in Wales and 140,000 workers in Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the changes.
It was a Labour Government that fought against opposition to bringing in the minimum wage when it was introduced in 1999. The headline rate—at the time, for workers aged 22 and over—was £3.60 an hour. As well as more than trebling in cash terms, based on current forecasts this year’s national living wage is expected to be 80% higher in real terms than the top rate in 1999. In hourly terms, the share of low-paid jobs has dropped from 21.9% in 1999 to just 2.5% last year. It is a testament to the success and effectiveness of the policy, over more than a quarter of a century, that all this has been achieved without the damage to the economy and the labour market that some people predicted at the time. The work continues, of course, and we will keep making progress on our manifesto commitments in this space to deliver a genuine living wage that works for employers and workers alike.
The Government will publish a new remit for the Low Pay Commission in due course. We will ask for recommendations on the national living wage and national minimum wage rates, thereby ensuring that our decisions our backed by evidence and consistent with delivering inclusive growth for working people and competitive businesses across the UK. As usual, we will ask the LPC to make its recommendations by October. The Government will subsequently confirm the new national living wage and national minimum wage rates for April 2027, ensuring there is sufficient notice for employers and workers.
We are grateful to all the employers, worker representatives and other stakeholders who engage thoughtfully with the LPC’s consultation each year, ensuring that the Government can balance the various concerns appropriately. We are proud to be driving reforms to the employment rights landscape and delivering for workers, employers and the wider economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I wish the Minister all the very best; she has already demonstrated that she is an effective performer on behalf of her constituents. In your time, Mr Stringer, you will have seen many Ministers pushed out to defend the indefensible, but very rarely are they caught in the action of passing a statutory instrument while, in real time, the Treasury is peddling and briefing stories of a U-turn—before the ink is even dry, before the vote has been taken and before the regulations have been agreed to.
Why is that? I think colleagues across the House, who want the best for our country and for young people, recognise that there is a growing crisis of young people being unable to access the work market. The latest figures show that 957,000 young people are not in education, employment or training. Although the Government inherited that number, they are actually making it worse—and that is before the impact of the regulations and the unemployment Bill, with which the Minister is deeply acquainted.
If we look at the overall level of young people who wish to find work—those who are formally looking for work—we see that the figure for youth unemployment is 16.1% for young people between the ages of 16 and 24, the very young people in respect of whom the above-inflation rate changes make up the largest part of the regulations before us. Why would any of us in this Committee be passive or neutral about passing measures that every economist and business group that has looked at them believes are likely to discourage firms from taking a chance on those young people?
I often find myself in common cause with the Federation of Small Businesses. It does wonderful work and represents the smallest and most fragile businesses across all our constituencies, which we all want to see succeed on our high streets and grow. They are where growth comes from. The same is true of the British Chambers of Commerce, which also has concerns about the approach the Government are taking to the wage rates for 16 to 20-year-olds—people getting their very first chance at work.
It is far less often that I find myself in common cause with the Tony Blair Institute or the Resolution Foundation, which have both, in the last 48 hours alone, reiterated their concern about the changes that the Minister advocates we vote for and pass today. This is not some Tufton Street think-tank expressing concern but the Resolution Foundation: the finishing school for aspirant young Labour Ministers—sadly, some of the talent that sits elsewhere on the Labour Benches is overlooked—and the ideological heart of the modern Labour party. The Resolution Foundation has said that this change is the wrong direction to go in and called for a moratorium.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would not dream of taking out their phones under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, but if they did so right now and looked at the Financial Times, they would see that Treasury sources are briefing that the Department will be scaling this measure back. That would be part of what I think is U-turn No. 16, although it is very hard to tell—being a bear of little brain, I cannot always keep up with the number of U-turns the Government have made.
My final words come from the author of this strategy herself: the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who was my interlocutor throughout the passage of the 300-page, 1970s, red tape, job-destroying unemployment Bill. Recently, albeit after she had left Government and perhaps moved beyond the influence of those on the Treasury Bench, she spoke about the overall challenge of employment for our wider economy—the coastal, seasonal and hospitality businesses on the frontline, where so many young people, whom we are all here to represent in a non-partisan fashion, had their very first shot at a job, as I did myself. The right hon. Lady said:
“I think we’ve got to recognise, it’s not even a double whammy, it’s not even a triple whammy. I talk about the challenges on business rates, the challenges on VAT, the challenges of the minimum wage going up and the living wage going up”.
Will the Minister update us on the Chancellor’s latest thinking on this measure? What does she think about the difficult challenge for young people having their first shot at life and opportunity?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am genuinely delighted to see the hon. Member for Halifax in her place as the Minister; I congratulate her on her achievement. She has been sent here to speak to a straightforward piece of delegated legislation that raises the minimum wage levels but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs outlined, the situation is becoming more complex.
It is worth saying a few words about what we see in the real world. My constituency is Wetherby and Easingwold, and it does what it says on the tin: I represent the two market towns of Wetherby and Easingwold, as well as other towns such as Tadcaster and Boroughbridge, surrounded by lots of villages. There are lots of small businesses in those towns, and although it would be wrong to say that they are not hiring young people, they have stopped hiring as many young people as they used to.
It is all well and good to compliment the changes and say that wages are rising for the poorest paid, but that does not take into account the other tax changes that have taken place, such as the changes to rates and employers’ national insurance contributions. All these things, when added together, have resulted in businesses cutting back on the number of young people who work for them.
I remember my very first job at WHSmith, when I was still at school. I went for a Saturday job, but I ended up getting a job doing the newspapers and magazines before the shop opened every day of the week. I would get up at half-past 5, and leave WHSmith at half-past 8 to go to school. It was a real experience for me as a 17 to 18-year-old to have to have that discipline and to go to work in the real world. As I have often said, I have never had as much disposable income as I had then—the clubs and pubs of Gravesend were very welcome to it.
The experiences that a young person can gain from short-term or Saturday employment, or part-time employment during school holidays, are vital. I fear that looking just at the rises in the minimum wage, and talking about how much people can earn a year, does not take into account the other pressures on business. For all the importance of raising people’s wages, it does not achieve anything if the jobs are not there.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Having run a business on the high street for the last 21 years, I can safely say that we have not had Saturday jobs around for at least the last 10 of them. That is not to do with the national minimum wage; it is due to a lack of support from Government over the last 14 years. Hundreds of ideas came forward, and numerous consultations were never acted on, so does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit of a leap to say that it is the minimum wage that is creating the issue?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she illustrates the point I am making. It is not about the minimum wage; it is about the other taxes that have gone alongside the minimum wage and put huge pressure on businesses. Lots of people say that raising the minimum wage is great, because it puts more money in people’s pockets, but it is the other pressures at the same time that are the issue. I could name five businesses in just one town in my constituency that did hire young people to work on a Saturday but have reduced the number of people they hire because of the other costs.
I will move on, because I am sure we were not expecting to be here in the Committee Room for too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I raised this issue on Second Reading of the Employment Rights Act. I do not know how many Members on the Government Benches stood for election before 2024, but Labour party manifestos before 2024—it was not in the 2024 one—said the party would ban unpaid internships. I have fought to ban unpaid internships in every single term I have been in this place, and I have never got anywhere. Every Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said, “I don’t see why we are not doing it,” and then it did not happen.
I brought forward an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act 1998 so that it would include unpaid internships. One would have thought that a Government who keep talking about paying young people, getting them on the ladder and doing things for them would have included a simple minimum wage—whether the apprenticeship wage or the minimum wage for the youngest, a minimum wage—in that Act for people who are exploited. Anybody who works for a company for four weeks is adding value to the company, no matter what anybody says. Being asked to go and work, perhaps in London, for a year—having to sort out accommodation and bear all the costs—and not getting paid is exploitation.
I am afraid that, again, I push back on the Government. They parrot that what they are doing for people is great, because they are raising the minimum wage, but that does not take into account the other tax rises that have put pressure on business, and it does not do anything to move things forward for young people who are missing out on opportunity because they do not have the ways and means to work for free. The Government should take a close look at themselves. They have talked about their Employment Rights Act and have come here today to boast about rises in the minimum wage, but they have not ensured that a whole section of young people actually get paid for a day’s work. My party has always believed that work should pay.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, for his contribution and for his kind words at the start of his speech. However, I am not sure that I am defending the indefensible. I am defending the decision to uplift our national living and minimum wages. On 1 April, when the regulations come into effect, we will be delivering a direct uplift of around £900 for a full-time worker on the national living wage and £1,500 for someone on the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds. That is not insignificant.
On the national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, we are absolutely committed and determined to raise living standards for working people and ensure a genuine living wage, and our manifesto made our direction clear. When recommending the 2026 youth rates, we asked the LPC to consider the risk of employment impacts, while balancing those risks with the ambition to remove the discriminatory age bands for adults. The LPC carries out extensive consultations, commissions new research and considers a range of economic, labour market and business data to assess the impact of the national minimum wage on young workers, and it concluded that there is no clear evidence that the recent increases to the national minimum wage
“have affected young people’s employment overall.”
It assesses that a range of factors are driving recent trends among young people, including the sectors they are more likely to work in.
On what the Government are doing about the situation and the figures that the shadow Minister alluded to, we announced at the Budget more than £1.5 billion of investment over the spending review period for employment and skills support, to deliver the youth guarantee and to reform the growth and skills levy for young people. I agree about the significance of jobs at a young age, and I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold for sharing his experience; it is one that I can sympathise with from my own journey and career. The skills learned in those first jobs are invaluable.
That is why the youth guarantee is so important. It will provide 16 to 24-year-olds across Great Britain with enhanced support to move into work or training, including by improving employment support through expanded youth hubs and increased support in jobcentres. I have seen the impact of that in my constituency, where the youth hub has transformed the lives of over 70 young people in the year that it has been running. The hubs are clearly of significant benefit across the country, creating nearly 300,000 additional work experience and training opportunities.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does the Minister agree that unpaid internships should be banned?
Kate Dearden
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on that for a number of years. I am going to come to unpaid internships shortly, so I will respond to him then with an update on our work in the Department.
To finish on 18 to 20-year-olds, we have committed over £500 million to youth programmes and support from 2026-27 to 2029. I want to touch on the wider package, and how we are looking at opportunities for young people and their employment prospects, because it is really important. It includes over £60 million for a new richer young lives fund to improve activities and youth work; £15 million for youth workers; £70 million to rebuild and improve local youth services; £350 million to refurbish or build up to 250 youth facilities; and £22.5 million over three years to create a tailored enrichment offer in up to 400 schools, as well as the work that we are doing on apprenticeships training, which will be completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises that hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24. I wanted to spend some time responding to that point, because this is a clear Government priority and we are working at pace on it.
I thank the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold for raising unpaid internships. I know that he has been campaigning on that for a number of years, and I pay tribute to all his work on it. He will know that we ran a call for evidence from 17 July to 9 October 2025. We had hundreds of responses, which was brilliant to see, and we published our response on Friday. We committed to three key actions to tackle non-compliance: reviewing and expanding national minimum wage guidance; strengthening enforcement through the new fair work agency; and bolstering communications so that young people are aware of and understand their rights. That is a significant bit of work, and something that we are committed to reviewing and keeping an eye on. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will hold to account on that, and I thank him for that.
The regulations represent clear, discernible progress towards our manifesto commitments of delivering a genuine living wage and expanding eligibility for the national living wage to all adult workers. It is not entirely clear whether the Opposition will vote against them today and try to prevent these 2.7 million workers from getting a pay rise—we will see.
I extend my thanks to ACAS, which offers impartial and expert assistance on employment issues, and to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which enforces the minimum wage on behalf of the Department for Business and Trade. We are confident that the creation of the fair work agency, which will be set up from April this year, will ensure a more effective, less fragmented enforcement system.
In closing, I again thank the Low Pay Commission; we are grateful for its expertise and its collaborative social partnership model, which brings together the perspectives of workers and businesses. The minimum wage is one of the most successful Government policies in recent decades and remains one of the cornerstones of our plan to make work pay. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Order Act 2023
Proposed local government reorganisation in Rushcliffe
Tarka Line
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
Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who have signed this petition and secured today’s debate. I also thank the organisations I met during this process, including Unlock Democracy and its chief executive Tom Brake, who is a former Member of this House, as well as the Hansard Society and the Electoral Reform Society, which are universally recognised as independent, non-partisan authorities in this area. Whatever views Members have on this proposal, the fact that so many people have taken the time to sign the petition demands that it is treated with seriousness and respect.
The petition calls for the introduction of a mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public support. The petitioners state:
“We voted for a party based on promises made before the general election, yet we feel none have been delivered—in fact, the opposite has happened.”
I could not have put it better myself. Since the election, we have seen nothing but chaos from the Prime Minister. The Government are making bad decisions: they are damaging our economy, crushing businesses, driving unemployment up, piling on debt, giving away sovereign territory and allowing our veterans to be dragged through the courts. That is because the Prime Minister came into office with no plan for our country.
This Labour Government have now made at least 15 major U-turns, including hiking taxes on working people despite promising not to do so before the election; the cruel cuts to winter fuel payments that left pensioners freezing in their homes last winter; the family farm tax; the refusal for many months to hold a grooming gangs inquiry; scrapping welfare reforms; digital ID; the betrayal of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—the list goes on and on.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
This is unquestionably a really important issue, and the petition is indicative of the public’s unhappiness with this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difficulties people have with this Government include the number of manifesto pledges that have been broken, the introduction of policies that were not in their manifesto, and their constant U-turning, which would spin heads?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that goes to the nub of the motivation behind the petition, which lies not so much in a desire for constitutional change but in a feeling of being let down by this Government—a Government who promised change but has delivered none. All the promises they made have been abandoned, and they have tried to introduce other measures that were nowhere near their manifesto at the time of the election.
The Prime Minister promised the highest possible standards—in his own words, “a Government of service” —yet all we have seen is scandal and chaos. Peter Mandelson was appointed US ambassador despite his links to a notorious paedophile. A communications chief was appointed to the House of Lords despite his links to another paedophile. A Deputy Prime Minister was caught evading tax. A Homelessness Minister resigned after making her tenants homeless. Just last weekend, a Cabinet Office Minister was forced to quit after it was discovered that he had hired a firm to gather information to discredit journalists. We have seen many other scandals—too many to mention today. People signed this petition because they are fed up with the chaos, with the U-turns and with this Prime Minister.
Let me turn to the petitioners’ proposal. Members of Parliament, of whatever party, serve at the pleasure of the British people; it is their right to elect us, and to remove us at an election. There are many questions about how the petitioners’ proposal would work in practice. Would the public go back to the polls in a new general election, or could a new Government with a new Prime Minister be formed within the current House of Commons?
There is also the significant question of a defined national threshold. It would be easy for a well organised, well funded campaign group to remove a Government of any political party, should the threshold be set too low. Would the threshold be 10% of the British public—the same as it is today for recall petitions for Members of Parliament? Should it be 50%, or perhaps a higher percentage than the incumbent Government secured at the previous general election? Whatever the number, it would have to be high enough to demonstrate a genuine national consensus.
Over what period would the signatures need to be gathered? How would they be verified to ensure democratic legitimacy and prevent foreign state actors from interfering politically? There is also the question of frequency: if a petition succeeded once, could another be launched shortly thereafter? Important questions would need to be answered for such a profound constitutional change; however, none of those practical concerns should blind us to the message being sent by the people who signed the petition.
Less than two months ago, I led another debate in this Chamber on behalf of the Petitions Committee, after more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. People are deeply angry about the performance of this Government. They feel unheard. They are sick and tired of the constant mistakes being made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers almost every day. Rather than focusing on making our country better, Labour MPs’ energies are seemingly being consumed by leadership speculation and political survival.
The easiest way to remove this Government almost immediately would be through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons by MPs. Having the confidence of the House of Commons is essential to any Government’s authority. When Governments have lost a confidence vote in the past, the Prime Minister has either resigned in favour of an alternative Government, or requested a Dissolution from the monarch to trigger a general election.
We do not necessarily need new legislation. Labour MPs know the message their constituents are sending them. They know how deeply unpopular the Prime Minister is. They know they no longer want him to be in charge. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said on several occasions, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join with the Conservatives and remove this failing Prime Minister from office by uniting on a vote of no confidence. That would be in the best interests of this country.
After all Labour’s pre-election promises, it is no wonder people are feeling fed up. They feel utterly betrayed. That is why it is important that Members across the Chamber listen to the message the petitioners are sending. The Prime Minister and this Government have run out of road. The sooner we see the back of them, the better for our country.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the Petitions Committee for this important debate, and the 120,000 people across the country who signed the petition. I know from speaking to my constituents, from Lyneham to Corsham, that people feel frustrated, unheard and disappointed. People expect Governments to keep promises and deliver, even if they did not vote for the political party that assumes office, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned. People are crying out for action on the cost of living and the NHS, not for endless Westminster soap operas. Unfortunately, I agree with the hon. Member that the Prime Minister, like his countless Conservative predecessors, seems distracted by his own survival, leaving the rest of us to pay the price.
The question is not simply about constitutional mechanisms, but about the feeling that the Government are not delivering. Across the United Kingdom, families are struggling with the cost of living crisis and access to the NHS. Healthcare remains an uphill struggle. Businesses, particularly in rural areas like Wiltshire, are not being supported to grow. The petition is about a lack of trust. The Government’s official response to it and their ongoing failure to deliver do little to restore the faith of anyone who has asked us to be here today.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I, too, thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in acknowledging the many organisations that have engaged constructively on this issue, many of which have already been named. They include Unlock Democracy, whose chief executive Tom Brake is a former Member of this House, the Hansard Society, the Electoral Reform Society, and many others that have worked on an independent basis to review our constitutional arrangements.
Members’ views on this proposal will differ in line with their views on the effectiveness of this Government, but the number of signatures demands that we treat the petition with the utmost seriousness and respect. The petition understandably calls for a further mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public confidence. My hon. Friend read an excerpt from the petition, in which the petitioners said that they feel they have seen the opposite of what the Government promised before the election. Many people across the country in all our constituencies will recognise that sentiment.
The Government have seemingly lurched from error to error and from crisis to crisis. Decisions that have been made have damaged the economy, undermined business, driven up unemployment, increased debt, and left communities and public services struggling. Above all, they have hit confidence in the Government, because people were promised so much but have seen so little delivered. Whether it is veterans being dragged through the courts or sovereign territory being conceded, the public are not getting what they expected—indeed, they are not getting what the Government said only months ago, in some cases, before the 15 major U-turns. Commitments made before the election have been abandoned: the promise of no tax rises on working people was broken and pensioners were left struggling after cuts to winter fuel payments. My hon. Friend raised many other examples in his opening speech.
The crux of the debate comes down to perhaps the biggest promise that the Prime Minister made before the election: his pledge to deliver the highest standards in public life and “a Government of service”. Instead, the Government have delivered scandal after scandal, many of which were of their own making. Only this weekend, the inquiries Minister had to resign after being investigated by his own Department. It is no surprise to see members of the public signing petitions such as this one to try to regain an element of control from a Government who were elected with an enormous majority but are failing to deliver what they promised.
While the public’s frustration is clear and understandable, we must look carefully at the proposal itself. Any new mechanism must work in all circumstances. The previous Government introduced a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament who were found guilty of certain criminal offences or who seriously breached the standards of this House. That allowed their constituents to decide whether they wanted those Members to continue. I am not necessarily against looking at whether that principle could be expanded to a national level. We want our political systems to be more responsive to the electorate, but we need to look carefully at how that could be done within a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, because that is the existing system in many countries where the public have the ability to trigger elections or recalls at a national level.
It is the electorate who choose us and it is the electorate who remove us, if they wish, at a general election. Under our parliamentary system, a Government hold office because they command the confidence of this House. That is a fundamental principle on which our system and our democracy rely.
As the Cabinet manual explicitly states, a Government’s authority flows from their ability
“to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in his speech, that confidence can be tested at any time through a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that option is available for those Members of Parliament whose constituents feel that we need a general election. I urge all constituents who feel that way to make sure that their representatives in Parliament are aware of the strength of that feeling, because the conventions of parliamentary democracy have served us well.
Introducing a direct recall mechanism for removing a Government or triggering a general election before the parliamentary term is due to expire would raise significant practical and constitutional questions, some of which have already been highlighted, such as whether a successful public vote of no confidence would automatically trigger a general election, or simply require a change of Prime Minister to form a new Government within the existing Parliament, and whether such a change in personnel would suffice.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk noted, it is unclear what threshold should demonstrate genuine national support that would suggest that a Government have irretrievably lost the confidence of the British people, and are not merely going through what might be temporary unpopularity at a time when they need to make difficult but, perhaps, necessary choices. Would it be at the level that has been set for recall petitions for individual MPs, which has tended to be very low? In almost all such cases, once a petition has been triggered, the threshold has been met. That would lead to some instability.
Alternatively, would we be looking at a higher threshold? Would we require 50% of registered voters, or more voters than a Government secured at the previous general election? As has already been mentioned, if the threshold were too low, we risk well-funded groups being able to repeatedly attempt to destabilise any Government of any political party. We would have to seriously consider the risk of that including outside actors with their own motives before making any constitutional changes of this significance.
On a national level, how could we be confident that a signature is verified? Where we have postal votes in a parliamentary or local council election, there is something to compare them against, but unless we are requiring signatures alongside voter registrations, which would go against the direction that I know the Government are setting out in this evening’s legislation, there would be unlikely to be any definitive database against which any signature on a petition could be compared. Furthermore, how could we prevent petitions from being launched back to back, creating permanent instability?
These are just some of the questions that might be asked. They are not minor details, and it is fundamental that we consider them before we look at major constitutional change. We have seen the consequences of poorly considered constitutional reform in the past, such as in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was, genuinely, introduced with the noblest of motives, but we then saw its impact at a time when there was no consensus or majority in Parliament to dissolve Parliament and allow for a fresh election. It seems it was not properly considered.
Although we should be cautious about rewriting the constitution, we cannot ignore the clear message sent by petitions such as this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said, it is only weeks ago that more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. That was just one of a number of petitions expressing similar sentiments. Such a level of public anger should concern every hon. Member. Whether or not they happen to agree, in this case, that this Government are not delivering, it should be a concern across the political spectrum that people feel unheard and ignored.
I urge those who signed this petition, and others seeking an early election, to make sure that their representatives are aware of their view and to encourage those representatives, if appropriate, to pursue that constitutional route because Governments that lose the confidence of the House have, historically, either resigned or sought a general election. I do not think that Governments can continue for too long when a majority of their Members have constituents who have lost confidence in the Government.
After the promises made at the last election it is no wonder that so many of our electors feel let down. That is why this petition matters; it sends a clear signal from the public to Parliament. The message is simple: people want accountability, honesty and the ability to take back control, even where the Government have a very large majority, as this Government do. Above all, the public want competence and a Government who deliver. This Government are fast running out of road and the sooner that the country is given the chance to choose a new direction, the better. Ahead of the next general election we will certainly look at what mechanisms might be appropriate and effective to allow voters to retain control in between general elections. We would be reluctant to rush into committing to specific mechanisms until we have had a chance to properly consider what the consequences, intended and unintended, of such mechanisms would be.
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate, and thank the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for their contributions. I particularly thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), for his thoughtful analysis of some of the questions and challenges that this debate has provoked.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk introduced this debate on behalf of thousands of signatories of the e-petition asking for the public to be granted the right to a vote of no confidence in the Government. As hon. Members in this Chamber will know only too well, at the heart of our parliamentary democracy is the willingness of all our political parties to engage in debates, sometimes robustly, on the critical issues that affect our constituents’ lives. It is therefore important that we are holding this debate. Although the Government do not agree with the central premise of the petition being debated, we will always respect the public’s right to voice their opinions, particularly in this place, through their elected Members of Parliament. Petitions debates are an important means by which to do that. As ever, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government.
In our parliamentary democracy, the Government of the day hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The composition of the Commons is decided at the general election. A general election is brought about by the Prime Minister requesting, from the sovereign, the dissolution of Parliament within five years.
In recent years, thanks to the instability caused by the reckless decisions of the Conservative party, the public had the opportunity to decide not just in 2015 but in 2017 and again in 2019, before the last general election was held in 2024. It is, of course, quite unusual to have so many general elections in such a short space of time, and that reflects the previous Government’s chaos.
John Lamont
For the record, it is also important to note that in each of those elections—with the exception of the last—the Conservative vote actually rose.
Anna Turley
That is absolutely on the record. But the reason that we had those general elections was because of the chaos and instability that the hon. Member’s Government brought about, including the resignation of a wide number of Ministers, which I will come on to talk about. As a result of that instability, some people—particularly politicians and even, dare I say it, our dear friends in the media and the political commentariat—have become addicted to drama and instability in politics. I am sorry to disappoint them today, but we were elected to end that chaos and return the UK to stable and secure Government, and I am proud that we are doing just that.
John Cooper
I am very much looking forward to the ending of this chaos; it seems that we are completely mired in it. As a former member of the fourth estate—I was a journalist for a long time—I am always concerned when politicians blame the media. I do not think the media are creating the chaos; they are simply reporting on it.
Anna Turley
I recognise the hon. Member’s distinction, and I think he is absolutely right. I very much enjoy the role of our fourth estate, but there are many who constantly seek upheaval and drama in politics, which, for those of us focused on delivering for the British people, can sometimes become a bit of a distraction.
As hon. Members here know well, holding the Government to account does not simply stop between general elections; that has never been the case. Parliament remains sovereign and there are opportunities for Ministers across the Government, including the Prime Minister, to account for their actions and explain what they are doing to deliver on the promise of change that the public voted for in 2024. At the last general election, the Labour party promised to take action following years of Tory chop and change. I am sure we all remember the collapse of Boris Johnson’s Government, with 43 members of that Administration resigning in one day.
Our long-standing constitutional arrangements facilitate stability, while balancing the need to test the confidence in the Government of the day in the elected House of Commons. Altering those arrangements could risk creating a constant revolving door and an inability to achieve anything, and would incur significant costs to the public purse, given the expenses associated with administering general elections. Overall, such changes would serve only to undermine public trust in politics, create more instability and cause paralysis in Government.
I remind hon. Members that our constituents already have a clear route to influence the decisions made at the highest levels of Government. All of us here know that our constituents are able to—and do—make representations to us as their local constituency MPs, and we in turn champion their views in this place and make representations to Ministers in Government. In the event that voters signal a desire for an election, the public’s voice will be channelled effectively through their local MPs across the House.
In 2024, the public voted for change; the public voted for more than 400 brilliant Labour MPs in this House. After 14 years of chaos and uncertainty, of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they voted for stability. Introducing a right for the public to have a vote of no confidence could undermine our parliamentary democracy—the duty, responsibility and indeed primacy of this place—and could weaken the Government of the day’s ability to deliver on their mandate.
As hon. Members have referred to, those who signed this petition have said they feel that the promises we made to them at the last general election have not yet been delivered. We all recognise that change takes time but, with every month and every pay packet that passes, I know that people will feel that change more and more.
I am extremely proud of the positive changes that the Labour Government have brought about since the last general election. Given the reference that has been made to manifesto pledges, I will give Opposition Members some good news to share with their constituents about the many manifesto pledges that we have already delivered.
For example, there is our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, which brings better maternity and paternity rights, an end to fire and rehire, and an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts—a manifesto promise delivered; an increase in the national minimum wage, rising to £12.71 next month, a sign that wages are up more under this Government so far than under 10 years of the party opposite—a manifesto pledge delivered; the Border Security Command to crack down on criminal gangs—a manifesto promise delivered; the ending of the exemption of private school fees from VAT to enable the investments that we are seeing every day in breakfast clubs, so that every child can start school ready to learn—a manifesto pledge delivered; and the strategic defence review and our plans to spend 2.5% of gross national income on defence to keep our country safe—a manifesto pledge delivered.
Anna Turley
Sorry—that is a manifesto pledge that we are implementing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarity.
There is also the National Wealth Fund, to support investment in our national infrastructure across the country—delivered; Great British Energy, to support the delivery of clean power by 2030 and the creation of well-paid jobs in the industries of the future—delivered; and Great British Railways, bringing our railways back into public ownership, rebuilding trust in this vital public service—delivered. And we have delivered more than 5 million additional NHS appointments, to bring down the record-high waiting lists we inherited from the previous Government.
That is a whole raft of our manifesto pledges that we are delivering. Alongside those pledges, we are seeing 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, breakfast clubs across the country, wider access to free school meals for families on universal credit, uniform costs capped, prescriptions frozen, rail fares frozen and energy bills coming down. Those are signs that we are delivering on our manifesto. There is so much more we can do, and so much more that we will deliver, before the general election.
In summary, we fear that the introduction of a vote of no confidence by the public would undermine the stability and effectiveness of the Government of the day in delivering manifesto commitments, such as those I have just set out. It would also undermine the primacy of this place, the cradle of democracy, by confusing the clear lines of accountability that general elections provide. The public’s right to remove and replace the Government of the day is already a key part of our democratic system, and is undertaken freely and fairly after a Parliament is dissolved for a general election—that is the historic and sovereign democratic system of the British people. For this reason and the other reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the petition.
This Labour Government are focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last general election. We will continue to listen to the public’s views and deliver, as I demonstrated, on the promises we made to them in our manifesto, to end the 14 years of chaos and decline and build a better Britain.
John Lamont
I had not anticipated having an hour to fill—I joke; I am not going to fill the hour. I thank the petitioner for creating the petition, all the people who signed it, and the Members who have participated in the debate. It has been an example of quality over quantity.
I particularly enjoyed the Minister’s speech, although I feel that she is living in a parallel universe in terms of the chaos, division and uncertainty that this Government are apparently moving on from. For most of us in the real world, I think our perception is somewhat different. The Minister made much of the 14 years of Conservative rule, although it is useful to remember—she mentioned the many elections that took place in that period—that in four of the five general elections that took place in the 14 years of Conservative rule, the Conservative vote went up. More people were voting Conservative and more people had Conservative MPs as a consequence, so it was not all bad.
The petition is less about the proposed constitutional change and more about the feeling, which many people have, of being let down and betrayed by this Government: the sense of promises being broken and not delivered, and a real sense of a lack of direction. We all heard the Minister’s account of all the things that have apparently been achieved during Labour’s time in office, but in many ways that is part of the problem—the Government’s feeling that people should be grateful and should feel better.
The reality out there in the real world is that people do not feel any better; they feel that things are getting worse. Unemployment is up, debt is going up and people are waiting longer for NHS appointments. People feel very let down, and this debate has been an opportunity to reflect on that. I hope that the petitioner and everybody who has been watching the debate have had an opportunity to listen to both sides of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence.
Power to Cancel Local Elections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your Caledonian chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are old friends from the past.
As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members when I say that it is always encouraging to see such strong public engagement in our democratic system. The petition has attracted well over 150,000 signatures, right across the United Kingdom. That level of support speaks positively about how our citizens care deeply about the timing, integrity and accountability of local elections. I thank the petition’s creator Dr Chris Barnes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting prior to the debate, and all those who have taken the time to add their name to it.
The petition calls on the Government to remove the Secretary of State’s statutory power to postpone or cancel scheduled local elections. That power is conferred on the Government by section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. Dr Barnes’s petition states that
“the right to vote is sacred and inalienable”,
and he argues that elections due to take place in May 2026 and beyond should proceed as planned. Many signatories have expressed concern that postponement risks undermining democratic accountability and public trust. Last month, the Government did a U-turn on the decision. Regardless, we are here to debate the principle at the heart of the initial decision to delay the elections.
In their official response, the Government make it clear that the relevant powers are set out in legislation passed by Parliament. They state that such powers are
“used only with strong justification”
and that any use is subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the statutory instrument process. The Government have also indicated that they have no current plans to amend the legislation in question. They add that similar powers have previously been used in limited and specific circumstances, including in the context of local government reorganisation. The debate therefore concerns not only the principle of regular elections, but the appropriate balance between statutory flexibility and democratic certainty.
Local elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy. Councillors make decisions on housing, social care, planning, transport and a range of other services that have a direct impact on daily life. I should know, having spent a good number of years as a councillor myself.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Chairman of the Petitions Committee is introducing the debate very well. I was a local councillor too, in Basildon in the early 1990s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing that the Government have done a reverse ferret, so we can now have local elections across the country, including in Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Southend and Labour-led Thurrock? Those councils will now have to face the electorate on their appalling record.
Jamie Stone
I thank the right hon. Member for his customarily incisive intervention.
Local elections surely ensure that decisions are subject to scrutiny and renewal. The expectation that electors will have an opportunity to choose their representatives at predictable intervals is surely fundamental to public confidence. Independent bodies have emphasised that very point. The Electoral Commission has stated that scheduled elections should, as a rule, proceed as planned and should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances. It has cautioned that uncertainty around election timing can undermine public confidence and create difficulties for voters, campaigners and administrators alike.
Similarly, the Electoral Reform Society has expressed concern to me about the democratic implications of postponements that significantly extend councillors’ terms. In particular, it has warned that where delays coincide with electoral cycles, some councillors could serve for up to seven years without facing the electorate. O that I had ever had that opportunity in my own career as a councillor! Such extensions risk weakening accountability and should prompt careful review of the safeguards surrounding the Government’s postponement powers.
Those concerns are shared, to varying degrees, across the political spectrum. My own party has argued that local elections should not be treated as administrative conveniences. We have emphasised the importance of protecting fixed and predictable electoral timetables. We have raised questions about the concentration of discretion in the hands of a single Minister. We have called for stronger safeguards and greater transparency where postponement is proposed. Similarly, Conservative Members have underlined the importance of upholding democratic mandates. However, some have reasoned that, once conferred by Parliament, statutory powers must be capable of being exercised where the law so permits.
In response, the present Government have stressed that the powers in question are not new; they were established by Parliament to deal with defined circumstances such as the structural reorganisation of local government. The Government argue that a mechanism must remain to ensure orderly transitions where boundaries change or authorities are merged, and that such decisions are subject to legislative oversight and are not to be exercised arbitrarily. I am sure that we will examine those points more closely in the debate.
Those differing perspectives are united by the shared recognition that elections are not merely procedural events, but the very means by which authority is conferred and renewed. Any decision to postpone them must therefore meet a very high threshold of justification and transparency. It surely must never be motivated by self-interest. That would instil distrust in our democracy, which is very precious to us all.
The petition and the debate that it has prompted reflect broader public anxiety about democratic accountability. In recent years, as we all know, trust in political institutions has been tested. It is therefore understandable that proposals or decisions that affect when voters may next go to the polls attract scrutiny and very strong opinions. At the same time, Parliament has long recognised that exceptional circumstances may require flexibility. The legal framework governing elections is complex, and changes to local authority structures, emergencies or other significant disruptions may necessitate adjustments. The question for this House, however, is not whether elections matter—I trust that all Members of the House believe that—but how best to reconcile the principle of regular democratic renewal with the practical realities of governance.
The petition process exists precisely to enable such questions to be posed and examined. That is why we are here tonight. When substantial numbers of people across the country express concern in a democratic system, as they have done with this petition, Parliament must surely listen. It is right that Ministers have the opportunity to set out clearly the legal basis for the powers concerned, the circumstances in which they may be used and the safeguards that exist. It is equally right that Members on all sides test those explanations where appropriate.
I hope that today’s debate will contribute to clarity, transparency and accountability. I reassure all those who signed the petition that their concerns are being taken seriously in this debate, because that is precisely what the Petitions Committee is all about. I will listen with the greatest interest to what my colleagues have to say and to how the Minister who is kindly representing the Government responds.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Mundell. Thank you for chairing this debate. I also thank the almost 153,000 people across the country who signed the petition, including 186 in my constituency of Woking who I think signed it because they—we—unreasonably lost our right to vote in Surrey county council’s elections last year, which were unreasonably taken away by this Government.
Did people lose their right to vote because of massive, significant events that meant that we just could not go and vote? Was it a world war? Elections in the first world war and the second war had to be postponed. Was it a foot and mouth crisis like 2001?
Mr Francois
Just as a matter of record, we had a general election in Britain in July 1945, when we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, I see no reason why we could not have local elections this May in peacetime.
Mr Forster
I quite agree. My memory does not stretch back as far as that, but the right hon. Gentleman is completely right. Elections have been postponed only during serious wartime, during the foot and mouth crisis of 2001 and, as we all—even I—remember, during the covid pandemic in 2020. But in Surrey and across a lot of the country, people lost their right to vote because of local government reorganisation, which is not exactly an existential threat to our way of life.
People in Surrey are now stuck with county councillors who were last elected in 2021. The only reason why there are Conservatives representing my constituency is that since 2021 it has not been possible to vote them out of office. Every year since then, the Conservatives have put up candidates for Woking borough council. They have lost every single election.
We are now creating a new council for my area, West Surrey council. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to give my area a fresh start. We have not had such an opportunity for 50 years, but in the meetings setting it in motion, there are people who have lost their mandate because it has expired. That is completely unreasonable, and it is because of the use of the Secretary of State’s powers that the petition opposes. After the past month, the Secretary of State probably wishes he had never had them in the first place.
These are my questions to the Minister. Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can she confirm whether the same legal considerations applied to the nine local council elections that were postponed in 2025, including those for Surrey county council? Can she confirm to me and my Woking constituents, by outlining what legal advice the Government have had, that those elections were lawfully postponed? Finally, what material change in circumstances occurred between the decision to postpone the 2026 local elections and the subsequent decision to reverse that postponement?
Because the Government have not been open and transparent about the legal advice that they received, my constituents of Woking and the 153,000 people who signed the petition have lost what little trust they had in government and politics. The Government can start to regain that trust by publishing their legal advice and ensuring that in future no one Minister can cancel local elections.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank people in my constituency and across the country for signing this petition in such numbers and with such great speed; that is very revealing of the distress that has been caused.
The first question is how we got into this mess. This Government’s handling of the local government reorganisation process has been nothing short of shambolic. Councils across the country, including in my area of Sussex, have been forced to make complex and controversial decisions at breakneck speed. Local government reorganisation was not in the Labour manifesto. It is such a huge change, but it was not even mentioned. In Sussex, as in many places, it was obvious that councils operating under a rainbow of different political persuasions would struggle to find consensus over new boundaries and structures, but the Government insisted on going ahead anyway.
The decision to allow councils to postpone their elections was even worse. It has become very apparent that the councils that asked for delays did not do so for practical, logistical reasons, but simply because they were afraid they would be dumped out of office. That is exactly the situation at my council, West Sussex county council, where the Conservative ruling group has known for some time that it would face oblivion at the next election. When offered the chance to save itself last year with what was described as an election postponement, it reached out and grabbed it. It probably could not believe its luck when it was given the opportunity to cancel elections again this year—at least until the Government’s handbrake U-turn in the face of probable legal embarrassment.
Holding elections at such short notice places great strain on council officers, especially given the pressures of ongoing unitarisation—I really feel for them, given the pressure they are under. However, it is the right outcome, even if we have reached it in the worst possible way. Repeatedly denying residents the right to vote was wrong, wrong, wrong. By the time it had finished, the Conservative group in West Sussex would have retained control for seven years—far beyond the four years it was originally voted in for and for which it had a mandate.
The Government’s U-turn, which means that elections are back on, is tough on councillors who were recently voted in in by-elections, which were called only because of the delay, and that includes two Lib Dems in my own constituency of Horsham. If the Government had let elections go ahead when they should have done last year, we would never have wasted money on by-elections that never needed to happen.
Across the country, of the 30 councils that asked for a delay this year, 26 were Labour, three Conservative and one Lib Dem, which was in Cheltenham. In defence of Cheltenham, the position is unique because of recent ward boundary changes. All 40 councillors were only recently elected, in 2024, in what was a specially timetabled election. They are currently just two years into their normal four-year term, but will now be forced to hold another election halfway through.
I am not surprised that the elections issue has caused such anger across the country—leading to this petition—because it is about something that is as fundamental as you can get: the right to vote. I fully support the petitioners in my own constituency, and I am glad they are going to get their chance to vote after all, even if it means I am going to have to spend a lot of my weekends until May knocking on doors, like everyone else here.
I do not doubt that the Conservatives will be swept from power in West Sussex. In the last few years, the political map of Sussex has changed beyond recognition. In 2023, Horsham district council became Lib Dem for the first time this century, and in 2024 I had the honour of becoming the first non-Conservative MP for Horsham in 144 years. So I look forward to 7 May, when we can finally bring West Sussex county council kicking and screaming up to date.
To conclude, this was a mess we did not need to get into, so I support the proposal in the petition to remove the Secretary of State’s right to cancel elections. We have only to look at recent events to be certain that such a right is wide open to political exploitation, as has just happened. I hope the Minister will consider amending the legislation, as proposed.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
No taxation without representation is quite a powerful political adage, and it has worked well over the years. What people were facing in many parts of the country was paying their council tax, but not being able to have a say and, in certain cases, elected county councillors staying in position for a full seven years.
However, it was not just the Minister that did this. It was done with the connivance of the Conservative party, which did everything it could to deny the vote in Norfolk, Suffolk, East and West Sussex, and initially in Surrey—doing its best to stop people voting for two consecutive years. And the Lib Dems got in on the act in Cheltenham, although, granted, in slightly different circumstances.
Talking of the Lib Dems, I have been having a very good chat with a prominent Liberal Democrat who I get on rather well with, Sir Bob Russell, who represented Colchester for many years. He made the point that there was last fundamental local government reorganisation in England 50 years ago, but no one suggested that elections should be cancelled, delayed or postponed. In fact, the debate about the shape of local government reorganisation became part of the campaigns and an issue upon which people voted.
I am proud of the fact that 153,000 people signed the petition, but I am even prouder that 4.6 million people will get the vote on 7 May because of the judicial review that I took against the Government. I am proud of that, and Reform will go on fighting for proper, open democracy.
It is clear that section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000 delegates way too much power to a Minister of any Government, and that elections are completely fundamental to liberty and freedom in our country. We need to change section 87—I ask the Government to support this—to make sure that, in the future, any delays to elections, for whatever reason, must be the subject of primary legislation, open debate and a vote by all Members of Parliament. If we do that, we will never finish up in this awful mess and with this lack of trust in politics again.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for the skilful way in which he introduced this important topic.
The Government’s original reason for postponing the elections was that councils were too busy with local government reform. In Essex, we had the bizarre situation where some of those involved in LGR thought they were not too busy to have elections, and some—mainly Labour-led councils—thought they were.
I served on Basildon council in the early 1990s, when we went around this buoy before, under John Major’s premiership. The idea then was not to have mayors, but to have one unitary system across the county. I was involved in the negotiations between Basildon and other authorities. In the end, to cut a long story short, the whole thing broke down because no one could agree on who to team up with. There were too many old rivalries and too many differences between towns, and the whole thing collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. When I heard we were going around that buoy again, I confess, perhaps based on my previous experience, that I was deeply sceptical. I remember saying to my local Rayleigh and Wickford Conservative association at one of our quarterly executive meetings more than three years ago, “Don’t take it as axiomatic that this will all happen. It fell apart last time; it could yet fall apart again.”
Where are we now? We were supposed to have mayoral elections this May; the Government have postponed them to May 2028. We are supposed to have a mayoral combined authority, so now we face the bizarre position where we would have an unelected combined authority—it is an unelected committee of a handful of senior councillors drawn from several constituent councils—but with no mayor. The fate of the combined authority now appears to be effectively in abeyance.
Labour’s whole argument for doing all of this is to move from a two-tier system to a single-tier system. That is not true. The two-tier system we have at the moment is Essex county council as the upper tier, with a series of district, borough and city councils below. The third tier of parish and town councils are basically unaffected either way. We are now moving to another two-tier system, where we will have a mayoral and a combined authority as the upper tier and a bunch of unitary authorities—whether three or four or five—as the lower tier. We will have gone through all this cost, misery and uncertainty to go from one two-tier system to another. The whole argument is nonsense from the get-go.
Moreover, I have been door-knocking in my constituency for 25 years, and I have never—not once, ever—had an elector say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Members can take it from me: if Essex people want something, they are not shy to let their politicians know. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is grinning; he has obviously experienced that himself. They do not want a mayor of Essex. If they do, they have not said so. It has no demos. There is no public demand for it. People are not clamouring for a mayor. We have never had one in 1,000 years, but suddenly the Government think we need some Sadiq Khan for Essex. That is about as popular as a bowl of—well, it is not very popular.
Where do we now sit? Southend unitary authority—forgive me, it is Southend city council, for which my great friend Sir David Amess campaigned for many years; if he were here, he would chide me now. Southend city council conducted its own consultation about a year ago, and two thirds of the people who replied did not want any change at all. The Government instituted a wider consultation county-wide—for the avoidance of doubt, that is Greater Essex, including Southend and Thurrock—which closed on 15 January. When the Minister replies, perhaps she could tell us, some six weeks on, what the result of that consultation was. If she does not have that information to hand, perhaps she could tell us when she intends to publish the results of the consultation. I am sure that that will be before the local elections—before we get to purdah in the third week of March—so that the good people of Essex know what their fellow county people have said before we go to the polls. I am going to take a punt: it is going to reveal that there was little enthusiasm for any local government reorganisation whatever in Essex. If the Minister wants to prove me wrong, she can publish the results of the consultation.
Labour sought to postpone these elections and now, thanks to campaigning by—I admit—Reform, and by the Conservatives and others, but overwhelmingly due to public pressure, which perhaps both parties have managed to articulate in our different ways, the Government have given in. Now those elections are back on, and people in Southend, Basildon and Thurrock can go to the polls and peacefully and democratically express their opinion on the Labour mob who run those three councils should be allowed to carry on.
Mr Francois
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland, because no debate in Parliament would be complete without him.
Jim Shannon
Honourable would be enough for me. Does the right hon. Member agree that the elections are not just bureaucratic processes? They are how communities hold leaders to account, set local priorities and influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. If anybody tries to stop an election, it will backfire on them. Does the right hon. Member agree that people’s opinions are the priority? Let people decide. Do not deny them their right to the ballot box.
Mr Francois
I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have a great deal of time for, as he knows. First, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee laid out clearly the responsibilities of local government, so I shall not try your patience, Mr Mundell, or that of the rest of the Chamber by repeating them, but it is everything from planning to housing, adult social care and education. These things affect people’s everyday lives, and they are really important. People should have a democratic right to decide which councillors run those services, which they pay for as customers via their council tax. So of course there should be elections.
Secondly, and on a personal note, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other colleagues here will understand this: nobody delayed the general election. I went into battle 20 points behind in the polls. No one gave me a bye; I had to fight to be here. I had to convince my employers, in my constituency, to renew my contract of employment to represent them, and so did everyone else in this House this evening, so why should it be different for local councillors? Why do they not have to get their contract of employment, in effect, renewed by their employers at the ballot box?
I thank the Minister for the fact that the local elections will now go ahead. She may recall that we had some sparky exchanges in the Commons Chamber about this, but we have ended up with the right decision, albeit after far too long. So if the people of Essex wish to support the Government’s bonkers housing targets—mandatory and top-down, imposed by some Whitehall civil servant who could not find Essex with a TomTom, and supported by a mad computer algorithm—they can go and vote for that. If, conversely, they want to vote for Conservative councillors, who care about the area they live in and want to defend the green belt and carry on providing good services to people at a cost that they can afford, they have the chance to vote Conservative—although, for the record, other products are available.
People can actually have elections in Essex and pass a verdict, and I very much hope that in my corner of the world—for Essex county council, for Rochford district council and for Basildon borough council—they will vote Conservative. But however they vote, whomever they choose, whomever they give the very important mandate to run those really important services to, the fundamental point is that they will be allowed to exercise their right to choose. It was this Government who very nearly took that away and we should never let them forget it. Other than that, I have no firm view on the matter.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Cancelling elections is always wrong, unless there is an extreme situation that necessitates postponement of an election. I cannot think of many examples in recent years in which that was necessary. I remember when Margaret Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council. She extended its term by one year only and then the GLC was, rightly, abolished. I remember that during the covid pandemic, the Greater London Authority’s term was extended by one year, but then it was shortened in the next term, so there was a five-year term and then a three-year term. Cancelling elections—I think, in this case, purely for political reasons—is fundamentally dishonest of this Government. It was only because of the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who sought a judicial review, that the Government were forced to do another U-turn, allowing the right of the people of this country to vote for their chosen local councillors in the forthcoming elections on 7 May.
I would like to make a further point, because democracy is not only about how people vote in local elections and whom they choose as their local councillors; it is also about the structure of local government. My borough is the London borough of Havering, as the Minister knows only too well because I have spoken about it on many occasions. I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) did not acknowledge that the London borough of Havering actually is also an Essex borough. The problem is that the people of my borough have never been given the chance to choose whether we want to be under the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, or whether we would prefer to be a unitary authority or under the new Greater Essex. We simply do not get given the chance to decide. We are not asked. Our opinion does not matter. We are forced into an artificial Greater London structure that does not suit the interests of my borough. It means that we are paying vast sums of money to, effectively, subsidise inner London. It means that things like ULEZ are imposed on us. It means that planning is taken out of our control, so we are Londonised and are becoming a concrete jungle. All these things have no democratic mandate from the people of Havering.
Postponing elections is really just as bad as denying local people the right to choose what kind of structure they would like to be in. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton was in Romford outside the town hall only last week, and the popularity in my borough of a local referendum on becoming a unitary authority outside Greater London is extremely high. I say to the Minister that if we believe in democracy, we need to be given the chance to make those decisions.
The key point here is that we are only debating this issue because of the petition—I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on introducing it to the House. Frankly, it is a disgrace that we have to do this and that so many people had to sign a petition purely to demand their right to vote in a democratic election on 7 May. My borough was voting anyway; our election was not postponed. We are looking forward to quite a big change in Havering—and I think there will be a big change—because people are tired of being governed by City Hall and tired of being governed by a town hall that is not representative of the local community. I firmly believe that we will have the first Reform UK council in the Greater London area.
I would like to make a point to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I agree with everything he said. The Liberal Democrats have an honourable position in terms of democracy—I think there was a little issue in Cheltenham, but let’s not worry about that. The Liberal Democrats were very clear that there should have been elections. However, under the restructuring of local government, his new local authority will be called West Surrey. Surely it should be called West Surrey and South Middlesex to reflect the true historic county identity of that area. If we are going to rename local authorities, we should give them names that reflect the geography and history of the area. It is very important that Middlesex is included in the name of the new unitary authority. I hope he agrees.
Mr Forster
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting that matter, with which I have some sympathy, and which Liberal Democrat colleagues in Spelthorne have highlighted. We are going to have a new council called West Surrey, one sixth of which is in south Middlesex. The Government are considering the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, and I hope they give it due consideration. One of the concerns is that only one sixth is in south Middlesex, so why should it be half the name? However, I am more concerned about the fact that the council will inherit over £4 billion of debt from the former Conservative administrations. That is more of a priority for me than the name, but I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Rosindell
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has sympathy with me, because local identity matters. Giving a council a name that everyone feels represented by is very important, so I hope that will become a reality. Middlesex Heritage is campaigning strongly for this. Even I get requests to raise this issue, although I am not a Middlesex MP—I am an Essex MP, and proud of it.
I hope that the Government have learned a lesson here. Democracy has been fought for over many centuries and many generations. It is not something to just discard, postpone or delay purely for political advantage. I am afraid that the Government have been caught out on this issue. I believe the Minister should apologise today for the denial of democracy. Thank goodness the threat of a judicial review prompted the Government to make the U-turn so that the people of this country can properly vote in local elections on 7 May.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate you on securing quality, if not quantity, of speakers in this debate, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing the debate, and the 262 of my constituents who signed this petition. They are right: the Secretary of State’s power to cancel elections, certainly without recourse to Parliament, should be removed. The Liberal Democrats opposed cancelling the elections and are opposing top-down reorganisations of councils in various places. We opposed the cancelling of the elections at the time, including in Parliament. That is why we tabled a prayer motion in the House of Commons and a fatal motion in the House of Lords, which would have stopped the Government’s secondary legislation that cancelled the elections. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not support the motion in the House of Lords, and therefore the cancellation went ahead.
The delaying of elections in certain local authorities meant that incumbent councillors were permitted to remain in post for longer than their elected period, which, as other hon. Members have said, directly contravened the democratic mandates given to them by voters. Simply moving the goalposts and silencing millions of voters is totally unacceptable and a subversion of the democratic process. The public deserve to know how such an obviously undemocratic plan was allowed to get so far. Even though the Government have said they will not provide it, the Liberal Democrats will repeat our call to see the full legal and other advice that the Government relied on, so that the public can see exactly how the plan came to fruition.
It is not just this Government. In May 2021, 5,000 councillor elections went ahead, but not the hundreds of elections that the Conservative Government cancelled in Cumbria, Carlisle, South Lakeland and Somerset because of unpopular, top-down reorganisations. What the Conservatives began this Government have continued, with an unwanted, top-down reorganisation of many council areas.
It was in not just Cumbria and Carlisle, but my own county of Somerset, where the Conservatives took it to extremes. The 2021 election delay to facilitate the unwanted Somerset-wide unitarisation was being discussed by Ministers with the then Conservative leader while the Conservatives’ previous merger of two Somerset district councils was barely a year old. The merged district council, which went on to become part of the new Somerset unitary council, has gone down as the shortest-lived local authority in history. Millions of pounds were wasted and the public will was ignored, just as it is far too often ignored now. In both Somerset mergers, calls for the previous Government to respect a referendum or poll of local people were ignored. Elections were delayed and the new super-large council emerged, covering 60 miles. About 20 towns and 400 villages were lashed together for Conservative convenience, even though the public voted clearly for two smaller unitary councils.
Now, just like then, local authorities have been grappling with the severe and additional pressures that the Government’s reorganisation is placing on their budgets. As a result, and because of Government flip-flopping and the lack of clear and prompt communication about whether local elections will go ahead, many are now scrambling to prepare for elections in just a few weeks’ time. They are staffed by electoral services officers, many of whose district council employers have been lined up for abolition. Does that not raise serious questions as to whether they will be able to deliver essential free and fair elections?
Given the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections, can the Minister confirm whether the same legal considerations applied to the nine local elections postponed in 2025? Does she believe that the postponement of the elections by the Conservative Government in 2021 was lawful or not? As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, the characteristic here is cancelling elections for unpopular, top-down reorganisations. Somerset will be lashed together with Dorset, Wiltshire and some other authorities to become Wessex. When I have visited flooded villages on the Somerset levels, nobody has come up to me and said, “What I really want is a metro mayor.” Unless we can bring back King Alfred, I suspect they are not going to back the idea at all. Will the Minister make clear what amount of taxpayer money is being spent on legal costs arising from proceedings related to the proposed postponement of local elections?
These are real questions that the Government need to answer. The Liberal Democrats, who oppose the cancelling of elections, will keep asking those questions. We have consistently stood against cancellations by the Conservatives and by this Government. We are clear that the decision to cancel should never have been taken, and democracy delayed is democracy denied.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, at a time when Parliament is very active in the world of local government, which shows how much it matters. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about his local government experience and the diversity of services that local authorities provide; over 800 different services are provided by each council on average. That reflects the level of interest that all Governments and parties have in ensuring that the organisation and structure are correct.
As the Opposition, we have approached the issue of local government reorganisation with the seriousness with which we treated the same issue when we were in government. Where we are this evening, in looking at this petition, and where we have been in recent weeks, is fairly and squarely a mess of this Government’s making.
We must reflect that, when in government, we undertook, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford described, a number of reorganisations of local authorities, in each case committing that elections would never be deferred for more than a 12-month period—and they never were. There are good grounds for saying to our constituents, “Why spend millions of taxpayers’ money electing councillors to an authority that is about to be abolished? Better instead to have elections for the successor authorities.”
At the outset of this process—the former Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is well recorded in Hansard—there was a very clear devolution priority programme in which councils were told, “You are going to be abolished. The Government will bring forward that legislation. Elections will go ahead for new unitary authorities or new mayors in your local area, so democracy will not be denied. You are engaging with this process in good faith. The voters will have their say. But what we are not going to do is elect people to councils that are about to be abolished.”
We are in this position today because the Government have signally failed to deliver on their devolution priority programme. Just one of those local authority areas, Surrey, has achieved the status of getting its new unitary authorities approved by Parliament—18 months into a process that the Government have described as a flagship programme.
Let us reflect on the process that Parliament followed. At the outset, the former Minister brought proposals to a Delegated Legislation Committee in March 2025 to postpone the elections in all the devolution priority programme areas. Members of the Conservative party on that Committee voted against those proposals, because we were not convinced by what the Minister was setting out about the deliverability of the underlying devolution priority programme. We have been proved correct.
In a situation where the Government were clear that the authorities were going to be abolished but had yet to bring forward any clear programme for the creation of the new mayors, and had yet to pass the legislation in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would set up the framework for that, we made the argument that cancelling elections was not a responsible thing to do. Nonetheless, the Government pressed ahead, despite those warnings from the Conservative Opposition. Following that, of course, there was a reshuffle in Government.
At this point, it will be of value to reflect on the Gould principles, which underlie decision-making and state that, when cancellations of this nature occur, a minimum of six months’ notice is normally provided. Clearly, putting elections off for 12 months in authorities that, at the end of that period, would simply be 12 months closer to abolition creates huge uncertainty for local voters.
When we look at the frequent urgent questions, the opportunities we have used in Hansard through departmental questions and Opposition day debates to raise this issue, it is clear that we have sought to hold the Government to account. I reflect, for example, that I was told in response to an urgent question in December that, to quote from Hansard,
“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]
The following day, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government told the House that those mayoral elections scheduled for this May in those devolution areas were being cancelled after all. It is abundantly clear that there has been chaos in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —a complete lack of direction—and it has left local government leaders across the country, who have been seeking to act in good faith and with an eye to the good use of taxpayers’ money and maintaining democracy in their areas, in an incredibly difficult position. The fact that we have seen Ministers, literally 24 hours later, reversing the position that they had been telling Parliament, has been characteristic of that entire process.
Let us reflect on the decisions that led to the most recent hokey cokey, the Government having made it clear that they were minded to press ahead with cancelling those elections. We know that the feedback from local government leaders around the country is that they were placed under enormous pressure by the Department and Ministers to say that they wanted the cancellation to go ahead, to the extent that drafts of letters were sent back to council leaders asking them to say in more clear and serious terms what the impact would be on devolution if the elections were to go ahead according to schedule; to their credit, many of those leaders and local authorities resisted the pressure that they were put under. But that resulted in the Secretary of State making the announcement that he would be bringing forward proposals to cancel elections in those 31 local authority areas, with Pendle being added 24 hours after the announcement was made—again, characteristic of the chaotic approach that the Government have adopted.
What is curious about the whole process—and this is the nub of the questions that I put to the Minister—is that although we have heard a lot from Reform Members about the judicial review, we need to be clear that Reform did not win a judicial review against the Government. The Government surrendered without a shot being fired; they essentially offered no defence. The Secretary of State, with the judicial review coming into view, decided to reverse his decision. Had he brought forward legislation to Parliament to cancel or postpone these elections, that would have been beyond the scope of a judicial review, as parliamentary proceedings are—as was the case when he dealt with exactly the same set of questions on the basis of legal advice that the Department had been provided with, roughly 12 months beforehand.
The key question is: what had changed? What was different that made something advised to be unambiguously lawful, dealt with through the delegated legislation process —with a clear robust defence from Ministers that it was the right thing to do and entirely in accordance with the measures in the Local Government Act 2000—become unlawful eight or nine months later? There is very little that legal advisers have brought to the Opposition’s attention that suggests that, had the Secretary of State pressed ahead with his decision, placed that decision before Parliament and had Parliament voted for the elections to be cancelled, that would be subject to challenge.
It is clear, however, that in defending a judicial review the Government would have had to set out the correspondence and discussions that they had with all the local authorities that they were putting under such acute pressure to seek the cancellation of the elections. The Opposition are going to be pushing hard to understand what it was that led the Secretary of State to delegate the decision to a different Minister, rather than make it himself as the legislation envisages, and to instead reverse at the last minute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford noted.
That decision was taken at huge cost and had a huge impact on local authorities, many of which, on the basis of the Government’s assurances, had released the polling stations, told schools that they would now be open on polling day, and had stood down the polling clerks and staff who were not going to be needed because the Government had cancelled the elections. Many had told the police that they could stand down their planned patrols ensuring that those elections could go ahead, because the Government were cancelling. The police now have to put that operation back together at incredibly short notice.
I know that the Minister’s answer to the question of what changed is likely to be that the Government do not discuss the basis of their legal advice. That is a principle that Governments of all parties have stuck to for many years. However, the legal context of the decision made in March 2025—I remind the House that we, as an Opposition, voted against the decision—was that it was lawful and in accordance with custom and practice for the Government to postpone the local elections. What was different when the Secretary of State came to put this decision before Parliament nearly 12 months later? What had changed—other than the grave concern of many Labour council leaders that they were facing a drubbing at the polls—to lead the Secretary of State to decide not to press forward with asking Parliament to agree, through the legislative process, that election cancellation, as he had indicated, in his own judgment, that he would?
I finish with these points: in response to the understandable fury of many local leaders at the mess with which they had been left, the Secretary of State rather hastily announced £63 million of additional—as it was described—“capacity” grant. It would be helpful if the Minister set out, for the benefit of the House, what guidance has been given for the use of that capacity grant. It sounds rather like the amount that would be required to set the elections back up again at very short notice, expensive as that would be.
I reflect on the words of one of the Minister’s predecessors, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton. He spoke in Parliament in a debate on an urgent question. He described himself as “blunt” and said:
“Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith.”
I agree. He—a former Minister of this Government—said:
“They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent.”
He concluded, regarding this Government’s actions, that
“we need to be better than this.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1166-1167.]
Does this Minister agree?
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading this debate, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition that has brought us here. Their engagement, as hon. Members have said, reflects the strength of feeling about local democracy, the future of local councils and the changes needed to get public services and stronger economic growth across England.
I stood to be a local councillor 20 years ago this year—standing for election for the first time. I remember it as a humbling and important experience. I share the views of all hon. Members about the foundational nature of democracy. I grew up in the Wirral. Some 52 years ago we had quite a number of councils there and it was part of Cheshire, but when I was born we had a unitary council, so I was born in Merseyside. Now, we are part of the Liverpool city region, with a metro mayor, so I am personally aware of how change can affect areas.
On the question of whether people demand mayors, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made the reasonable point most people are focused on the bread and butter. However, in my experience, having had a mayor for some years, the people I represent have felt and seen the benefit of that. I say to the right hon. Member, “Watch this space.”
I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners and expressed in this debate. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly. People must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. They must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are sustainable, capable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) and I have engaged several times in this House—and will continue to engage—about the points that he rightly makes about Woking’s debt and what we must do to guard against such things happening again in future. Our responsibility is to safeguard both.
In many parts of the country, residents continue to live with a two-tier system that is inefficient, confusing and poorly suited to the demands of the modern state. That is why the Government are undertaking the most ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in half a century. We are replacing outdated two-tier arrangements with simpler single-tier unitary councils that are better equipped to take decisions quickly, create economic growth and support integrated public services.
This is where I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, because bringing together, for example, housing and social services under a unitary council is a different arrangement. His characterisation of the situation as us not moving away from two tiers because there will still be an Essex-wide body is not quite right. The value of a unitary council is bringing together those services that are now apart. It is not quite the situation that he describes.
Mr Francois
My constituency is pronounced “Rayleigh”, by the way. My advice to the Minister is to cut your losses and drop the whole thing in Essex, because it is a shambles. However, under the Government’s plans we will have a unitary tier, and then a tier above that which is a combined authority drawn from some of those councils and a mayor. It is patently obvious that that is two tiers of local government replacing two different tiers of local government. To pretend that it is one is fantasy.
Alison McGovern
Just as the right hon. Member says—Rayleigh and Wickford.
In bringing together the functions of district and county councils we can integrate public services better. That we still need a strategic tier does not, in my opinion, undermine that argument. That is why with one council responsible for growth, decisions can be taken faster, opportunities seized more confidently and investment aligned behind a coherent long-term vision. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. As I just said to the right hon. Member, when housing, public health, children’s services, adult social care and planning sit within a single organisation, the public benefits. Support services can work around the whole person, not just the element of their life that happens to fall within a particular tier of government.
Nearly a third of England’s population live in areas where responsibility for services is split between two councils, and residents tell us that they struggle to know which council is responsible for what. As I have said previously, one county council recorded more than 140,000 incidents of residents contacting the wrong authority when trying to get help. That is not the public’s failure; it is a failure of a system designed for a different era.
Two-tier government is significantly more expensive than it needs to be, and across the country, taxpayers fund duplicate political and managerial structures: two sets of councillors, leadership teams, finance functions, planning departments and often different electoral cycles. Those inefficiencies waste tens of millions of pounds each year. That money should be directed to social care, children’s services, housing and neighbourhoods.
The petition focuses on one specific aspect of this broader programme of change: the powers available to Ministers to make changes to the timing of local elections in areas undergoing reorganisation. As Members know, the Secretary of State originally concluded, based on extensive representations from councils, that postponement would release essential capacity in 30 areas where councils set out detailed concerns about their ability to deliver complex structural change alongside running full elections. Those decisions were taken case by case, guided by evidence submitted through more than 400 representations, and reflected clear precedents for temporarily aligning electoral cycles with structural transition.
However, following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government have now revoked that decision. A fresh decision was taken quickly to ensure certainty for councils, candidates and voters. A revocation order was laid and, as such, all the elections that had originally been proposed for postponement will now proceed in May 2026. We have written to all affected councils and the Government are working closely with returning officers, administrators and suppliers to provide the practical support required to deliver those elections successfully within the required timetable.
Let me turn to a couple of the questions that Members asked. The hon. Member for Woking and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), asked me about legal considerations that applied to previous decisions. Those previous postponements were legal. As we know, the powers to postpone elections exist in statute and they are unchanged by the most recent decision. In a previous delegated legislative Committee, I committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, as other Members who were in that Committee will remember. That response will be circulated in the usual way. The shadow Minister himself talked about the way in which Governments of all parties have handled legal advice. I am sure that I do not need to repeat the reasons why we would treat the advice we received in the way that we did; he knows those reasons well.
The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and others mentioned the circumstances in Cheltenham, which show that there are circumstances in which the power that we have discussed today can be used. In addition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Margaret Thatcher extending and changing the terms of the GLC, so clearly there are circumstances in which it needs to be used.
Finally, a number of Members asked whether we would consider changing the law. The Government will engage with amendments to Bills in the usual way. We recognise, of course, that the reversal of the original decision places additional pressures on councils in reorganisation areas. As has been mentioned, last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in capacity funding, on top of £7.6 million that has already been provided, to support councils to deliver reorganisation effectively. We are in touch with councils directly about those resources.
Let me turn briefly to the petition’s central concern: the powers themselves. Parliament provided these powers for the specific context of structural reform and previous Governments have used them in comparable circumstances, as has already been said today and as I have just mentioned again. However, we fully recognise the strength of interest among Members in how these powers are framed and exercised.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides an appropriate forum for considering these issues. As I have just mentioned, the Government are considering amendments tabled to that Bill, and will engage with them in the usual parliamentary fashion. I do not intend to prejudge discussions in either House.
Looking ahead, the focus now is on supporting councils to run safe and effective elections in May, and on progressing reorganisation in a way that improves local services and delivers long-term value for money. The new unitary authorities that will follow will eliminate duplication, strengthen accountability and make place planning—including planning for housing, transport, economic development and public services—easier, as it will be within a single strategic framework. The new unitary authorities will also deliver significant savings, estimated at about £40 million a year in allowances and associated costs, with savings of at least £120 million over the first three years, which can be reinvested into frontline services.
Elections matter deeply—they matter to us all—and so does the long-term resilience of local government. Members will be aware that, after the past decade and a half, I have a significant job on my hands to get all local government towards a better and more sustainable future. When further legal advice was received, the Secretary of State acted swiftly to revoke the postponement decision and confirm that elections will proceed in May 2026. The Government remain committed to delivering simpler, stronger councils to serve their communities.
Jamie Stone
As you know, Mr Mundell, I am somewhat long in the tooth, as we say north of the border. I was just doing a wee sum here on a piece of paper—I have contested 11 elections, and I would say that my wife and children do not always greet the prospect of another election with huge enthusiasm, but I know what I am talking about. It seems slightly surreal to me that, once upon a time all those years ago, I was talking at great length in Dingwall about dog poo in some of the towns and villages of the highlands, and now I find myself here having introduced a debate on local government elections.
This evening’s contributions have been very helpful. The Minister in her reply displayed a certain knowledge of local government, which is a comfort, because not everyone understands the whys and wherefores. I want to make two comments. First, in my contribution, I referenced changes being referred to statutory instruments. I argue—but I think this is for another day—that the supervision and examination of statutory instruments is something we could do a little bit better in this place.
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) talked about what constituencies should or should not be called. If I wanted to be pedantic I could insist that my constituency be called Caithness, Sutherland, Easter Ross, Wester Ross, the Black Isle and the northern parts of Inverness-shire—but we will not go that way.
I thank all the people who signed the petition. I have to be seen to be even-handed in this debate—as you well know, Mr Mundell—so I shall conclude with simply this: we hold democracy as being very precious in this country, and when we see what is happening in other parts of the world, I think we realise even more so how important that is. Trust in democracy is absolutely vital; if that goes, then we are in trouble.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
…Removing the two-child limit does not undermine work incentives. From time to time, the Conservatives suggest that it does, but actually it does not. Removing the two-child limit increases the income of many families in work and increases the reward for work, and it does not undermine work incentives.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 140.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):
Sir Stephen Timms
…Removing the two-child limit does not substantially undermine work incentives. From time to time, the Conservatives suggest that it does, but actually it does not. Removing the two-child limit increases the income of many families in work and, in some cases, increases the reward for work, and it does not substantially undermine work incentives.
Sir Stephen Timms
…The Department publishes quarterly statistics on the benefit cap, which includes the number of households that are capped and how that changes over time. The most recent quarterly statistics show that of 119,000 households capped at the start of the quarter that ended in August last year, 40,000—about one third—were no longer capped by the end of the quarter, although others were newly capped, so there is a lot of churn in the cohort of capped households. The 40,000 households that left that cohort included 2,900 who had ceased to be capped because their earnings exceeded the threshold of full-time earnings at the national living wage. We want to encourage more people to make that transition.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 141.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham:
Sir Stephen Timms
…The Department publishes quarterly statistics on the benefit cap, which includes the number of households that are capped and how that changes over time. The most recent quarterly statistics show that 119,000 households were capped at the start of the quarter that ended in August last year and 40,000 households were no longer capped in the quarter, although others were newly capped, so there is a lot of churn in the cohort of capped households. The 40,000 households included 2,900 who had ceased to be capped because their earnings met or exceeded the earnings threshold. We want to encourage more people to make that transition.
Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
As I said in my statement, I recognise that the intentions behind the 2014 reforms were good intentions, but it became very clear, very quickly that problems were developing within that system. The right hon. Lady asks about council deficits and about the challenge. That became pretty clear, pretty quickly, and in 2019 the Conservatives brought in the statutory override, because it was clear that councils were struggling with the increasing demands they were facing.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 56.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson):
Bridget Phillipson
As I said in my statement, I recognise that the intentions behind the 2014 reforms were good intentions, but it became very clear, very quickly that problems were developing within that system. The right hon. Lady asks about council deficits and about the challenge. That became pretty clear, pretty quickly, and in 2020 the Conservatives brought in the statutory override, because it was clear that councils were struggling with the increasing demands they were facing.
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman asks about early support. I completely agree with what he says, which is why we are investing £1 billion in rolling out Best Start family hubs, expanding early years education and school-based nurseries and investing in local authorities’ ability to develop early help.
[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 58.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education:
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman asks about early support. I completely agree with what he says, which is why we are investing £1.5 billion in rolling out Best Start family hubs, expanding early years education and school-based nurseries and investing in local authorities’ ability to develop early help.
Written Statements
Unpaid Internships
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country, and create opportunities for all. This will help tackle low pay, poor working conditions, and poor job security, all of which have been holding our economy back.
In our plan we committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of a formal educational or training course. This Government believe that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay and employers should pay workers what they are entitled.
Today, we are publishing the Government’s response to the call for evidence on unpaid internships.
The call for evidence related to internships which are unpaid or paid below the national minimum wage, work trials, voluntary workers, volunteers, and work shadowing.
While voluntary workers, volunteers, and individuals who are work shadowing are not entitled to the national minimum wage, there are a small number of employers who are engaging individuals, particularly young people, under these terms incorrectly to avoid paying them.
This Government are committed to striking a balance between ensuring individuals have a choice in the type of work they do, and how they do it, while ensuring employers are not able to take advantage of individuals, especially young people, by making them work for free.
The call for evidence attracted responses from employers, individuals, and interested stakeholders on unpaid internships and internships paid below the national minimum wage, and other similar categories of people who may be conflated with interns.
It is important that employers can continue to offer genuine opportunities, such as work shadowing or work experience placements which are permitted under the national minimum wage law that can offer young people valuable insights into the world of work. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities which can be an enriching experience for young people, and we are clear we will not allow this opportunity to lead to exploitation.
The evidence highlighted that while the majority of employers are doing the right thing, there is a small minority who flout the law. This is fair on neither workers nor responsible employers. To tackle this problem, the Government will:
Update and expand the national minimum wage guidance so employers better comply with the law and workers are better aware of their rights.
Continue to crack down on employers breaking the law through existing enforcement channels and via the forthcoming Fair Work Agency.
Raise awareness of workers’ rights through communications campaigns to help young people understand their rights and what action they can take if they are not being paid what they are legally entitled to.
[HCWS1371]
Kinship Zones
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Kinship care ensures that children who cannot live with their birth parents are able to grow up in homes filled with love, stability, and a sense of belonging, often at times of crisis and without preparation. The Government recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in keeping children safe within their families and communities and are committed to improving the support available to them.
Today I am announcing the launch of new kinship zones, designed to test how co-ordinated, locally led support can improve outcomes for kinship families and the children in their care.
Kinship zones will bring together local authorities, the national kinship care ambassador and central Government to provide joined-up support to kinship families. The ambassador will be working with the participating local authorities to develop their delivery plans for the pilot, including how they could repurpose any existing expenditure on allowances towards support for family networks and to develop their kinship local offer.
The kinship zones pilot will operate in seven local areas across England from 1 April 2026 for three and a half years, the final two years subject to approval at the next spending review, with an investment of over £126 million of Government funding. In addition to providing a financial allowance to kinship carers, each kinship zone will respond to local need, while contributing to a shared evidence base on what works best for kinship families. Eligible financial allowances made under the pilot scheme will be income tax free, ensuring kinship carers get the full financial benefit of the support offered.
This pilot builds on the Government’s response to the independent review of children’s social care, which highlighted the importance of family-based care and the need to better recognise and support kinship carers. It also aligns with the ambitions set out in “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, which reinforced the importance of strengthening family networks and providing early, joined-up support. Alongside other reforms, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the kinship zones programme will help test approaches that could inform future national policy.
An independent evaluation will assess the impact of the pilot on outcomes for children and families, including placement stability and carer wellbeing. Findings will be used to inform further decisions on the future of kinship support.
[HCWS1374]
England Rare Diseases Action Plan 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The Government published England’s fifth rare diseases action plan on gov.uk on 27 February, ahead of international Rare Disease Day on the 28th. This Government remain committed to improving the lives of people living with rare diseases, and today’s action plan provides more detail on the steps we will be taking over the next year to meet our priorities.
The UK rare diseases framework was published in January 2021 following the national conversation on rare diseases, which received nearly 6,300 responses. This helped identify the four priorities of the framework in tackling rare diseases: helping patients get a final diagnosis faster, increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals, better co-ordination of care, and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs.
The 2026 action plan updates on progress we have made across the system—in the NHS, in health education, in regulation—to improve the lives of people living with rare disease:
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has set out a position paper with commitments for major reform in regulation of rare therapies.
NHS England is developing a framework for individualised genetic therapies—designed for a specific patient—to lay the way for future commissioning decisions, and we have seen the treatment of the first patient with an individualised therapy in the NHS.
And new funding has been allocated to pilot two centres for people with undiagnosed rare conditions.
A central principle of our approach to rare disease policy is the prioritisation of lived experience. The sustained advocacy and specialist insight of patients, families, and patient organisations have significantly contributed to greater awareness and continued progress in the field. Following the extension of the UK rare diseases framework into 2027, across the coming year we will be continuing to deliver the England rare diseases action plan and engaging with the rare disease community to inform future policy options.
[HCWS1372]
Asylum Changes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This country will always provide sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution. But we must also ensure our asylum system is not creating pull factors that draw people on dangerous journeys across the world, fuelling and funding the human traffickers.
Genuine refugees will find safety in Britain, but we must also reduce the incentives that draw people here at such scale, including those without a legitimate need for protection. So, once a refugee’s home is safe and they are able to return, they will be expected to do so.
This is a firm but fair approach, restoring order and control of Britain’s borders, while protecting those fleeing war and repression.
Last November, as part of the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the second world war, this Government announced that refugee protection would become temporary. At the same time, refugees who wish to stay in Britain and have skills will be able to apply for new work and study visas, helping them integrate with and contribute to society.
Britain will also open new, safe and legal routes, with community sponsorship becoming the new norm. The entire approach is designed to shift the asylum system in Britain away from dangerous, illegal crossings, and high levels of applications from those without legitimate asylum claims.
Under these changes, adults and accompanied children claiming asylum from today will receive a 30-month period of protection, if granted. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those whose countries are now deemed safe will be expected to return home.
Under the previous system, refugees were granted five years of protection and allowed to bring their families—followed by near-automatic, fee-free permanent settlement with continued access to benefits and housing. This was among the most generous offers to refugees in any country in western Europe. This has become a pull factor that has seen asylum claims in Britain rise steeply, including tens of thousands of illegitimate claims each year, as they fall across the rest of the continent.
Refugees under the reformed system will need to renew their permission to stay or apply for a legal visa route. Family reunion remains paused while new rules are designed that bring financial and integration requirements in line with those expected of British citizens.
The reset in Britain’s asylum offer, inspired by Denmark’s success, will encourage those wishing to build a life in the UK to do so via legal routes and reduce the pull factors driving illegal migration. The first step towards a new, “core protection” system will be introduced through a change to the immigration rules later this week.
While Denmark was cutting asylum claims to a 40-year low, the UK saw a 13% increase in the year to September 2025. Across the EU, applications fell by 22% over the same period.
Since 2015, Denmark has made refugee status temporary—subject to review every two years—introduced restrictions on family reunion and increased the wait for permanent settlement to eight years, subject to strict integration and employment requirements.
Under reforms announced last autumn, refugees in the UK will have to wait 20 years for settlement, unless they switch to a legal visa route, as part of the “core protection” model.
New routes will be created as an alternative to “core protection” for those who can contribute through work or study, encouraging use of the legal migration system and contributing to better social cohesion. Further details of these will be set out in future immigration rules changes.
Unaccompanied children will continue to receive five years’ leave, while the Government consider the appropriate long-term policy for this group. Further details will be set out in due course.
Robust age assessment measures are already in place to root out false claims by migrants claiming to be under 18. AI technology currently being tested will strengthen this further.
There will be transitional provisions for people who submitted an asylum claim before today, so that existing rules continue to apply.
[HCWS1373]
Flexible Voting Pilots
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
The way we vote in a polling station has changed little since the Ballot Act 1872. As part of our commitment to encouraging participation in our democracy, this Government will explore how we can modernise the way in which polling stations operate, to make voting in person more efficient, more convenient and better aligned with the expectations of today’s electors.
As part of this drive towards modernisation, the Government are partnering with four local authorities at the scheduled elections in May 2026 to test innovative approaches to voting. I have made the pilot orders necessary to enable this testing. Cambridge city council, North Hertfordshire district council, and Tunbridge Wells borough council will be piloting early or advance voting, with electors being given the opportunity to cast their vote in person in the days leading up to polling day on 7 May. In Milton Keynes city council, the impact of providing a centrally located voting hub on polling day, in addition to the usual polling stations, will be tested.
These flexible voting pilot schemes are designed to explore how we can modernise the voting experience by introducing greater flexibility, improving accessibility and enhancing voter satisfaction while safeguarding the integrity, security, and transparency of the democratic process. They will also allow for exploration of how flexible voting methods can better support electors who may face barriers to participation, such as disabled voters, those in remote areas, and communities that are less likely to engage.
Comprehensive evaluation will be vital to our understanding of the impact of these new approaches on voter convenience and satisfaction, accessibility and inclusive participation, and their feasibility and cost-effectiveness when delivering resilient and secure voting. Evaluations will be developed and undertaken with the participating authorities and the Electoral Commission.
By working in partnership with local authorities, the Government aim to build a stronger evidence base for future reforms and ensure any changes to the voting process are grounded in real-world experience and robust evaluation.
We remain committed to strengthening our democracy and encouraging full participation in our elections. The flexible voting pilots will help to modernise our centuries-old and storied democracy, aligning it with contemporary expectations of voters, while continuing to ensure the security of our electoral system.
[HCWS1375]
“Growing up in the Online World” Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Today, we are publishing a landmark consultation on how to give young people the childhood they deserve in an online world. We want every child to enjoy a childhood filled with love, learning and play—one that is just as safe and enriching online as it is offline. To this end the Government are seeking views on a range of measures on how to better protect children and prepare them for the future in an age of digital technologies and rapid technological change.
We know that millions of families across the country are grappling with how much screen time children should have, when children should get a smartphone, what they can see online, and the impact online use can have on sleep, concentration and mental health. Many feel they are fighting a losing battle against platforms designed to keep children scrolling. Additionally, we know many parents, carers and those that work with children have growing worries about AI, including children forming relationships with chatbots as if they were real people.
This is why many across the UK are calling for there to be a minimum age of access to social media. At the same time, we recognise that many others, including leading children’s charities, warn that a blanket ban could push children towards less regulated parts of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared for the online world they will inevitably enter when they get older. This is exactly why we want to seek views across a range of measures. These cover establishing a minimum age of access to social media, but go further to consider ways we can better protect children from AI chatbots and potential restrictions on addictive and risky functionalities across a wide range of services, including messaging and gaming.
The Online Safety Act 2023, one of the most robust systems globally, brought in strong protections to tackle illegal content and protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. However, there is growing agreement more needs to be done to keep children safe online.
Policymaking must consider a range of views and be rooted in the best available evidence. The consultation seeks views on further measures to improve children’s relationship with the online world. The consultation will gather insights from the public, parents, carers, young people, civil society and tech companies on how to keep children safe online, including across social media, gaming platforms and AI chatbots.
Responses will help shape decisions on:
Whether there should be a minimum age for social media, and if so, what age would be right;
whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features that keep children hooked late into the night—like infinite scrolling and autoplay;
whether mandatory overnight curfews would help children sleep better and what age they should apply to;
whether children should be able to use AI chatbots without restriction;
how age-verification and age-assurance technologies can support effective implementation;
whether the use of mobile phones in schools guidance should be put on a statutory footing; and,
how we can further support parents, carers and those that work with children in screentime and media literacy.
The consultation will run for three months, and the Government will explain our proposed next steps by the summer. We are also tabling amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to put in place powers to enable to us to act swiftly on the consultation findings, without prejudging its outcomes. They will enable us to make regulations based on the response to the consultation, including restricting or banning children of certain ages from accessing social media; limiting access to specific features that are harmful or addictive; raising the age of digital consent; and, age-restricting or limiting children’s use of VPNs. This means that we will be able to act quickly to take evidence-based measures that will protect children, rather than waiting years for new primary legislation.
The Government are clear that it is the responsibility of industry, not parents, to make online services safe for children by default. But public views are essential to getting the next steps right.
We urge views from all groups with an interest in this matter and hope to hear from parents, children’s organisations, bereaved families, industry and from children themselves. Alongside the formal consultation we are also launching today a child and parent-friendly version of the consultation to ensure these important voices in this debate are properly heard.
Alongside the formal consultation, the Government are launching one of their most wide-ranging national conversations in recent years. Over the coming months, families, young people, and communities from all over the UK will be invited to share their views through community events, MP-led local conversations, and engagement through schools and civil society organisations. We will also work closely with researchers and academics to assess the developing evidence base, as well as learning from international experiences, including in Australia.
In addition, we will work with parents to run live pilots with teenagers to test a range of different interventions aimed at 13 to 17-year-olds. These will include social media bans, overnight curfews, and daily screentime limits in practice and will help us to ensure we make decisions that are grounded in real-world evidence as well as public views.
We can, and will, act to give children the safe, online childhood they deserve.
[HCWS1370]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, welcome to a debate on a melange of statutory instruments. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn when the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Usually this is a standard thing to say, but I can advise the Committee that on this occasion we are expecting a vote at the end of Amendment 209, which is being debated now.
Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 14 January 2026. If approved in the House and in the other place, it will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council for two unitary councils, east Surrey council and west Surrey council, covering the entirety of the county of Surrey.
This proposal, alongside a three unitary option, was taken to consultation after councils in Surrey responded to the invitation to submit proposals issued on 5 February. On 28 October 2025, Minister McGovern announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two unitaries proposal. In reaching this decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable.
Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services that its residents rely on, as well as investing in their futures. To deliver new unitary councils, the order requires May 2026 elections for the new councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. Establishing these new unitary authorities will help with our vision: stronger councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers to improve public services and help grow local economies.
Before I outline the content of the draft order, I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords two related issues: the level of unsupported debt in Woking and devolution for Surrey. On Woking’s debt, the Government recognise that Woking Borough Council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt, and value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are also committed to providing the new unitary authority with interim financial support, for example, capitalisation support, until this process is complete.
On devolution for Surrey, on 12 February we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority. This will ensure that relevant functions held at county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint, where possible. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests and local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography.
I turn to the content of the order. It provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking are abolished. The councils of those districts and the county will be wound up and dissolved.
In their place, their functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities—east Surrey council and west Surrey council. This order places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other and the shadow authorities. It also places a duty on existing councils to create joint committees for east Surrey and west Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities. I take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved for their continued hard work and collaboration on local government reorganisation in Surrey.
In conclusion, through this order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order for the reorganisation of the 11 districts and one county in Surrey into two unitaries. I do not totally agree with either her solution or the reasoning behind it. The Government are continuing to push through reorganisation that does not have the support of local people or, in this case, even the existing councils.
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to this draft SI explains that, of the very small number of responses—around 5,500 from a population of 1.2 million—the vast majority rejected the two-council solution and much preferred a three-council solution, as did several of the local district councils. Businesses also favoured the proposal for three unitary councils: on average, only 25% gave a positive response to the proposal for two unitaries, and 65% for three unitaries. This is being pushed through regardless of local knowledge and wishes, which is never a good backdrop to the creation of new councils. I know; I am in one.
The drive to create large unitary councils is a desire for centralisation, in which all councils are made to fit a predetermined model regardless of geography, demographics and local will. Surrey county—not the county council—has a population of 1.2 million. The creation of just two unitary councils means that each of those will cover a population of about 600,000, which would be bigger than that of the City of Bradford’s council, for example, although not as quite as big as Leeds City Council’s, which is one of the largest in the country. It would be much smaller than all the nearby London boroughs and the north-east metropolitan councils or even Greater Manchester.
What is driving this push for very large unitary councils, when previously created ones do not fit that model? It seems to be driven by a desire by central government to view local government as simply the service delivery arm of central government—local government can deliver adult social care, children’s services, highway functions, licensing functions and so on—but it omits what is really important in local government, which makes it what it is at its very best: to provide ambitions and aspirations for local people, to challenge the status quo and to drive for something better. That is more difficult when you have councils of this population size.
One consequence of creating a unitary council with a population of around 600,000 is that, inevitably, the ward sizes, after a local government boundary review of wards, will be fairly large. I understand that there will be 72 councillors—I think I have got that right—in the new unitary councils. They will represent very large wards. I have experience of being a councillor representing a very large ward; it has 14,000 electors, and it is difficult to keep in touch and make the link that is at the heart of democracy between the elected and the elector. These proposals with large ward sizes will stretch that link to its very limit, which is something to be regretted.
My next point is about the debt, which the Minister referenced. One of the drivers for the abolition of county councils was that they were becoming financially unsustainable, simply because of the services that they were being asked to deliver—the ones with the huge pressures, such as adult social care services, children’s services, SEND, and so on. There were huge and growing financial pressures—I understand that. Meanwhile, in Surrey, Woking council has saddled its district council and residents with, to quote the Minister, huge, unsupported debts. The Minister may like to put a figure on that.
The Government are prepared to provide a sweetener of £500 million pounds to pay off some of that debt. But if I was a councillor in that council, going into the new unitary, I would be wary of entering it while it was saddled with a substantial debt. The Government are prepared to capitalise it, which is great, but that means that more revenue from the revenue budget will be used to fund the mortgage requirements of the debt. It is not a good start for new councils to begin their life, with all the problems that inevitably follow a reorganisation, saddled with a substantial debt. It will make it difficult for those councils to get off to a good start.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.
There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.
Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?
I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?
The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?
Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.
We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.
More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?
This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?
Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.
We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.
Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.
The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.
On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.
On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.
This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also be asking the Grand Committee to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The schemes we are debating provide vital support for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, which are often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. We all recognise the deep suffering that can be caused by diseases such as these. Having attended these debates in the past, I am always grateful for the opportunity to debate these schemes and discuss the wider support for people diagnosed with these terrible diseases.
I will begin by providing a brief overview of these two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to amend. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—henceforth the 1979 Act scheme—provides a single lump-sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. They includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump-sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme or would have an award but for their percentage disablement.
The mesothelioma lump-sum payments scheme—or the 2008 Act scheme—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need.
Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, they also allow claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can bring to whole families.
These regulations will increase the value of one-off lump-sum payments made under these schemes for those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. While there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates of these payments in line with prices each year, we are maintaining the position taken by previous Governments and increasing the value of lump-sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. This also means that the increase will, once again, be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to make a couple of remarks in relation to these statutory instruments. It is a long time since the pneumoconiosis compensation schemes were brought in—so long that a photo that I was shown on Friday of a very youthful now Minister was remarkably recognisable, but not because of the length of time that has transpired. In my very first case as a Member of Parliament, at 10 in the evening on my very first day, I went to meet someone who was dying that night of mesothelioma. It was, I suppose, rewarding to be able to help push through the changes and improvements that were made a few years later.
I have two points to make. The first is that we call these social security payments, but they are social society—industrial disease—payments. Governments—and, therefore, this Government—are missing a trick. When we talk about the benefits bill, we should extract compensation for industrial disease as a separate element. That is not a benefit; it is something that pays people for the difficulties—with mesothelioma leading to death— caused by exposure that should never have happened. The fact is that there are still cases. Agriculture is a good example of where not all asbestos has been cleared out. Some industries were quicker and better organised than others. There are still schools with asbestos tucked away in all corners.
The people who were working in the collieries, shipbuilding, foundries, the baking industry and others were having to breathe in this stuff. There were sometimes asbestos gloves that they were using routinely as part of their work—then they struggled to breathe in later life. Compensation is not a benefit; it is a right. That should be extracted out and separately categorised in the statistics, so the taxpayer can see the cost of negligence by multiple employers, including—and often particularly—government over many decades.
The second point is more practical. I have been in Parliament since 2001, in one House or other, and we have had Government after Government all repeatedly talking about saving red tape and bureaucracy. I have a proposal on red tape on bureaucracy. Why are we wasting taxpayers’ money every year—on the time, involvement and work—to update something that could be updated by a little change to legislation automatically? There is no controversy in the idea that there is more accountability for diseases that are now recognised across the House as a problem, a danger and a legacy that needs to be addressed. Why are we wasting any money and time, rather than having an automatic annual increase? I put to the Minister that this would be a small but appropriate removal of red tape and bureaucracy. While it is a minor saving to the taxpayer, the principle of it seems nevertheless to be an appropriate one. I see no sufferer from these scourges objecting to an automatic increase every year.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for that personal information. I obviously agree with these statutory instruments; it would be strange if we did not—but it is industrial compensation rather than a benefit, and it ought to be recognised as such. Could the Minister quantify the 3.8%? I am not very happy with us just being quoted figures in terms of percentages. What is the general amount being paid, and how much does 3.8% thereof amount to? Percentages mean 3.8% of zero is zero, to take it to the very level.
Could the Minister also talk about the current occupations that give rise to these two dreadful—let us call them—diseases? They are dust related. Many industries have in many ways stopped the dust coming from their products. To deal with the point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in terms of it being annual rather than just having a continuation, I speak against that, because I would rather that we increased the amount each year or considered and put forward an increase, rather than just have an automatic, modest increase, which might take no account of real values.
I agree with the 3.8%, but ask what it means in practice and whether the Minister could tell us what industries and occupations are giving rise to these dreadful diseases.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her masterly summation of these most welcome regulations, yet again—some of us here are the usual suspects in debate—for having some little insight as to what they mean for our communities and from whence they came as legislative devices.
In a long Westminster stay in both Houses, I have not encountered such mastery, sincerity, persuasiveness and enthusiasm from a ministerial, oppositional or advisory role in any of many committees on which I have served greater than that of the Minister. It has always been expert, committed and long-standing, from a parliamentary servant who has been at the elbow of a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a wonderful record of duty and expertise. The standing of this Mother of Parliaments has fallen low, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock still reaches the heights.
Primarily, these regulations centre on two great industries—and there are others. I have in mind slate and coal, quarrying and mining, both of which are in steep decline with minimal activity nowadays, but they are important to many individuals and for families. They represent great humanity, suffering and anxiety about what we know of as the dust. We debate it here, of necessity, each year in Grand Committee. Could we not just once debate on the Floor of your Lordships’ House? That would indicate an understanding of the impact of these diseases on our major communities and far-flung settlements. I recollect watching an aged former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, the Earl of Stockton, in your Lordships’ House making a spirited and critical speech to his own Government’s Benches. He paid moving tribute to the miners and steelmen who he said had made the difference in two World Wars, defeating first the Kaiser and secondly Adolf Hitler.
All industries come with health challenges. In these regulations, the department gives much detail, which is always welcome. Do we know how many individuals are receiving payments for both mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis? I think for certain that the increases in all payments will be welcomed when the cost of living is increasingly an issue.
Finally, I observed in the other place the distant origin of these health and safety matters. There were two great Acts in Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s third Administration. It was in 1975, I think. One was employment law, and the other was health and safety. The Secretary of State for Employment was one Michael Foot, then Member for Ebbw Vale. These legislative activities were all-night sittings, time and again. As he piloted his measures through, I recollect sitting alongside him alone at 3 am on the Front Bench in a near-empty Chamber. It was hard going. He prevailed, and the measures are social history, historic in themselves. Later, in Mr Callaghan’s Administration, the Government were without a majority and with their life ebbing away amid a winter of discontent, but plans were made to cover these terrible diseases of industrial life. I recollect the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the late Lord Ells-Thomas being very active on the subject of quarrying in their homeland as Members of Parliament, along with Cledwyn Hughes, then the Parliamentary Labour Party chair and later Lord Cledwyn of Penhros and Leader of the House of Lords. Another MP, a Minister like me, was Harold Walker, who was soon to be Lord Walker of Doncaster.
My own role included visiting two key players for the quarrymen and their needs. One was Mr Tom Jones, an officer of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, and the other a retired solicitor and former Member of Parliament, whose name was Jones, too. These two were detail men, and they formed the details that led to the legislation that has led to regulations such as these. I recommended solicitor Jones to Lord Cledwyn for an honour, and it happened—a knighthood, indeed.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. This is somewhat of an anniversary for the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and me, albeit a very sad one. I think the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Stedman-Scott, would be quite surprised if we did not turn up for it. I speak as a chair, for many years, of the mesothelioma oversight committee. I could recite the industries affected, but I will leave that to the Minister.
The only thing I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the Minister. I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, introduced the legislation, for which thanks are due. It is important to remember these things.
The average age of those diagnosed is 75 and over, for whom the payment sums, which look very healthy at the start of the table, are less than £20,000. If there is any reason for keeping these figures under review, rather than being automatic, it is the fact that they do not look very good any more. It would be much appreciated if something could be done about that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I think this is about the fifth anniversary of me taking part in these uprating instruments. This year, for me, they are completely different.
When I started my charity, Tomorrow’s People, more than 35 years ago, the first lady I employed was absolutely outstanding. Last year, I received a letter from a lawyer, saying that somebody who had been employed by my charity had contracted mesothelioma and they wanted to talk to me about the buildings that we occupied. I got in touch with them immediately and said, “Yes, of course I will help. Could you tell me who it is?” They went back to the person and then came back to me to say that it was this lady, the very first one I had ever employed, who had got mesothelioma. It suddenly hit home that this was a disease that affected somebody whom I rated highly and had great respect for. She came here to see me for lunch and told me her story, and I have kept in touch with her. I expect—and hope—that she is watching what we are doing today. I want to say that it made the whole thing pretty personal.
I am pleased to say that we on these Benches support these two sets of draft regulations, which provide for a 3.8% uprating of the lump sum payments available under the mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis compensation schemes from April this year. These schemes remain a vital, no-fault safety net for those suffering from some of the most devastating industrial diseases. Mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis are cruel conditions, often emerging decades after exposure and, in many cases, at a point when it is no longer possible to pursue former employers through the courts. The provision allowing dependants to claim when a sufferer dies before making an application reflects the harsh reality and rapid progression of these illnesses.
Maintaining an inflation link is essential if these payments are to retain their real-terms value, particularly given the debilitating nature of these diseases and the financial strain that they place on families. The long latency period associated with asbestos-related illnesses makes statutory compensation schemes not merely desirable but necessary. Although there is no statutory duty to uprate these payments each year, successive Governments have taken the view that that is the proper course. I agree. Uprating in line with inflation is the least that justice requires, ensuring that compensation continues to provide meaningful recognition and practical support.
These instruments may be technical in form, but they are significant in human terms. For those confronting terminal illness as a consequence of historic workplace exposure, this support represents fairness, dignity and the acknowledgement of a debt long owed. We on these Benches therefore fully support the regulations before the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. I confess that I would miss it if we did not gather once a year to talk about the impact of this, but I will come on to that in a moment. It is always a moment, and I appreciate that, from around the House, we have all come here to demonstrate the strength of cross-party support for these two lump sum schemes.
It was good of my noble friend Lady Donaghy to acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and others, as well as that of my late and much-lamented noble friend Lord McKenzie, who did so much work in this space for many years. My noble friend Lord Jones showed very well that, when it comes to anything in this space, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. He talked about the history of all the great Labour figures who knew that they came to Parliament to speak up for those who did not have a voice and those who had suffered at the hands of people who, in many cases, should have known better but, in some cases, did not know better. We learn as time goes on.
I remember my noble friend Lord Mann from a very long time ago as well. It is incredibly moving to think that his very first piece of casework was somebody who went on to die that day from one of these terrible diseases. As noble Lords will know, I am a priest in the Church of England, so I know what it is to be with people when they are close to death. It is a privilege as well as a challenge. To be able to take that experience and use it to advocate for others is what so many people go into politics for, so I commend my noble friend for being here to tell that story and to speak up for those who are not here and are unable to do the same.
Let me pick up on my noble friend’s point about process. This is a debate that we have regularly. Most years, somebody will suggest that we should put this into the annual uprating and then somebody else will say that we should not and give reasons why. On the reasons given today, the thoughts on the opportunity to debate these regulations and the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy about wanting to keep the amounts under review are interesting.
One thing I should say to my noble friend Lord Mann is that, if these payments were uprated automatically in the way that, for example, social security benefits are—these are almost always affirmative—they would still require affirmative regulations that have to be debated in Parliament. They could theoretically be rolled into a general social security operating order, but that would do the exact opposite of what my noble friend wants by putting them in with benefits rather than separating them out from benefits. Today is an opportunity for us to be here and to discuss this; either way, it would not make a difference to the claimants.
My noble friend made a wider point about understanding that these are not benefits. Of course, these schemes are quite different. Technically, they come out of what is known as departmental expenditure, rather than, like most benefits, annual expenditure. They are not benefits; they are compensation for something that people suffered but should not have done. My department offers a range of other financial support to people, including the main industrial injuries disablement benefit. Many people who get these diseases may have other costs as a result of their disability and may get things such as personal independence payments, the attendance allowance or other state benefits to cover their income replacement needs. The department wants to provide all the appropriate support for people who really cannot work as a result of injuries, while wanting to make sure that those who are economically inactive or unemployed are supported to get back to work, where they should be. We can help them to do that, and we should be expecting them to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the amount. One of the reasons it is labelled as a percentage is that the amount any individual gets depends on the scheme and the age of sufferer at the point of death, so the amounts that people are paid are different. I can tell him the average amounts: under the 1979 Act scheme, the average award to sufferers was £14,700 and to dependants it was £11,500. Under the 2008 scheme, the average award to sufferers was £26,600 and £8,500 to dependants. That would have included a range of figures for individuals.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked me for the number of awards. For the record, under the 1979 scheme, there were 2,540, and under the 2008 scheme, there were 610. Those statistics are from the latest financial year for which figures are available.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, I recognise that there are many who want those amounts to be larger. All I can say is that the Government keep this under review and will continue to do so.
In terms of the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, there is nothing that brings this home like knowing somebody affected by this, and being asked about the building in which, presumably, she also worked as well as the person she hired.
My noble friend Lord Mann talked about asbestos gloves. Some noble Lords will remember, and I remember, some of the horrific stories that have been told. I remember one of my noble friends talking about what happened onboard ships, where ratings were basically playing with balls of asbestos. There were stories of people trundling trollies down corridors of hospitals, porters and all kinds of things. There were stories about schools and all kinds of public buildings. There are people who are suffering simply for doing their jobs. Most of these jobs were in public service, serving the community and caring. The very least we can do is to make sure that they get appropriate levels of support.
I think that I have addressed most of the specific questions I was asked. I just want to finish on a positive note. I mentioned the work of the HSE in relation to awareness of exposure, but I would like to put some of the work that has been done elsewhere in government on the record. Quite often we discuss research, and we know how important research is in supporting individuals with these diseases. It is still the case that the life expectancy is incredibly low, especially by the time that people are diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. DHSC invests over £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and cancer is a major area of NIHR spending at £141.6 million in 2024-25.
Respiratory disease is a clinical priority within the NHS long-term plan. The aim is to improve outcomes for people who have these respiratory diseases through early diagnosis and increased access to treatment. NHS England has established 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country. These have been vital in providing clinical leadership for respiratory services and supporting services in primary care. Indeed, that continued investment in cancer research and support for people with respiratory diseases is key to reducing the numbers of families affected in the future and providing better support following a diagnosis.
I think that I have addressed all the questions that were asked. Once again, it is always a privilege to participate in this debate. I acknowledge the position of those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. The least we can do is carry on providing support. In light of that, I beg to move.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I beg to move that the Grand Committee considers these regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 15 January. They form a key part of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, which strengthens independent oversight and support for our service personnel and their families.
Before turning to the detail of these regulations, I acknowledge the considered scrutiny that this House gave to the “family” definition during the passage of the Act. In particular, I thank those noble Lords who engaged so thoughtfully on the definition of “family”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who is not in her place, for her scrutiny, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions on clarity, bereaved families and the breadth of modern family structures. Their careful examination directly shaped the regulations before us today.
Noble Lords offered valuable insights, particularly on recognising kinship carers and other parental figures. The House rightly highlighted the importance of those who step in, whether grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or family friends, to provide stable, long-term care, who should be fully recognised within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Noble Lords also raised the issue around non-traditional family structures, as well as on legal clarity, financial dependency, household membership and the position of bereaved families. These contributions have been instrumental in shaping the regulations now before the Committee.
The Government listened closely to those debates. The draft regulations reflect the issues raised, providing a clear and inclusive definition of “relevant family member” that fits modern service life. It is the same definition brought to Committee in this House, with only one small legal adjustment. The purpose of these regulations is to give full effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act by setting out a clear and inclusive definition of “family member” for the commissioner’s welfare remit. The Act creates an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with strong statutory powers to investigate welfare issues and report directly to Parliament, strengthening transparency and support across defence. By replacing the ombudsman with a more proactive model, it delivers a long-standing commitment to improve the lived experience of service personnel and their families. These regulations enable that.
A clear and inclusive family definition is essential because the commissioner’s ability to act depends on who falls within their remit. We know that service life impacts not only serving personnel but those closest to them. Partners, children, parents, siblings, carers and others often shoulder the pressures that come with military service. It is therefore right that the commissioner’s remit reflects this wider network of support.
During the passage of the Act in this House, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the definition of “relevant family members” should be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposed definition. The Government consider that the family definition meets this higher level of parliamentary approval, which is reflected in the draft regulations before the Committee. Given that the definition is fundamental to the commissioner’s welfare role, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve it directly.
At the same time, secondary legislation provides some flexibility to amend the definition in future without reopening primary legislation, ensuring that it can adapt as family structures evolve. This balanced approach strengthens parliamentary scrutiny while maintaining the ability to respond to social and demographic change.
The policy intention behind the definition is clear: to ensure that those most affected by service life are able to access the commissioner’s support. The definition therefore takes a broad and inclusive approach. It includes partners, including former partners and those in relationships akin to marriage, biological and stepchildren, adult children, siblings and stepsiblings, parents, stepparents, long-term foster carers, guardians and kinship carers. It also includes other relatives who are financially dependent on, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are included where they fall within one of these categories immediately prior to the serviceperson’s death. This reflects the wide range of relationships that form modern service families and responds directly to the issues raised during the Lords’ scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, including the role which was especially raised of kinship carers and the importance of ensuring that bereaved families remain supported.
It is important to be clear that this definition applies solely to the commissioner’s welfare remit. It does not expand the scope of the service complaints system, nor does it alter other Ministry of Defence definitions of family members. It is tailored specifically to the commissioner’s purpose.
These regulations are made under powers provided by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. This legislative framework gives the Secretary of State the authority to define relevant family members for the purpose of the commissioner’s functions, to make consequential amendments to related legislation and to establish transitional and savings provisions.
The Government have acted within that framework to produce a definition that is legally robust, operationally workable and reflects faithfully Parliament’s intent. These regulations are necessary to ensure that the commissioner can operate effectively from the moment the Act comes into force. Without a clear and comprehensive family definition, there would be significant uncertainty about who can raise concerns with the commissioner and who falls within their remit. Peers expressed strong interest in ensuring that the definition is inclusive and legally clear. During the passage of the Bill, issues such as financial dependency, household membership, the treatment of bereaved families and the position of kinship carers featured prominently. The draft regulations address each of these points directly.
These regulations also introduce essential consequential amendments to ensure a smooth transition from the Service Complaints Ombudsman to the Armed Forces Commissioner. This includes transferring functions and updating legislative references so that the system remains coherent and accessible. Transitional and savings provisions ensure that ongoing cases or applications are not disrupted. Families and serving personnel will receive clear guidance as the new system is introduced, helping them to understand their rights and how best to engage with the commissioner’s office.
In summary, these regulations provide the clarity, inclusivity and coherence required for the Armed Forces Commissioner to discharge their welfare functions effectively. They reflect the concerns, expertise and priorities expressed by this House, and they ensure that the commissioner’s remit aligns with the realities of modern service life. The Government believe that these regulations strengthen the support available to our service personnel and their families. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations, and I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I support, and for the way in which he did so.
In the interests of transparency, I should declare the interest that some Members of this Committee have already heard during the passage of the Bill through the House, which is that six months ago my daughter married a senior RAF officer. Therefore, I have a personal stake in the subject matter of the Act and the way in which it will be carried out by the Armed Forces Commissioner. I welcome the fact that it has the widest possible definition of family and family members to enable the commissioner to undertake her or his work.
There is just one question I want to ask, which I hope is not wrong, but it might be. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom”.
However, I take it that the provisions of these regulations will apply to service personnel wherever they are around the globe, not solely those based in the United Kingdom. Of course, at this very moment Armed Forces personnel are engaged in conflict in the Middle East, so I hope that is a question that is not out of order and can be answered in the affirmative.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I also take this opportunity to welcome this provision. I just have one question, and I apologise in advance to the Minister that it is detailed, but I am attempting—dare I say—to help the Government. Since this Act became an Act, the Armed Forces Bill has been published, and an element of the Armed Forces Bill is to seek to reinvigorate the reserve.
Schedule 1, paragraph 4 talks about disqualification in the original Act:
“A person is disqualified from being the commissioner if the person is a member of the regular or Reserve Forces”.
Most people reading that would assume that the Reserve Forces refers to the part-time volunteer reserve. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. But, of course, on leaving regular service, former regular personnel also have a reserve liability, initially as part of the irregular reserve, where they can be called to training at any point for up to 15 days. This depends between service, but potentially for six years. If this also applied to the irregular reserve, as we refer to it in the Army, it would effectively disbar former members of the Armed Forces from applying for this job for six years.
There is then a more interesting question, given what the Armed Forces Bill is seeking to do with the recall reserve. It seeks to align the three services where a recall liability would then be for a further 18 years, part of what we call the strategic reserve—which is confusing. That would effectively disbar a former member of the regular forces who is not in a part-time volunteer reserve for up to 24 years. I have got no problem with the period of how long they would be disbarred but, given that we are seeking to reinvigorate these other two aspects of the Reserve Forces, it is causing some confusion. When we are talking about the reserve, do we mean just the active reserve, or that if you are a member of a strategic reserve—that is, recall reserve— it will not apply?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, defining “relevant family members” under the Armed Forces Commissioner Act. That clarity is welcome, and these Benches will not oppose the regulations.
Having said that, there are still one or two unaddressed concerns which emerged during the debate on the passing of the Bill in this House. Recent cases have raised serious concerns about the way in which complaints are handled. There continue to be too many service personnel who lack confidence in the system and fear adverse career consequences if they come forward. That culture of hesitation is precisely what the creation of the commissioner was intended to address. As the Minister knows, these Benches supported the establishment of the commissioner; we recognised the need for a stronger, accessible and trusted route through which serious welfare concerns could be raised. That is why we also welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to relevant family members. Service life affects not only the individual in uniform, but the families who support them. On the face of it, the definition in these regulations is broad and sensible, and it is reassuring that it has been developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Families Federations.
However, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the legislation, I sought to strengthen the provisions specifically in relation to whistleblowing. My concern was and remains that, given the reputational damage suffered by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, we should provide a simple, clearly understood and protective route for raising serious concerns. I was not persuaded that existing mechanisms were sufficient. There is already statutory precedent for whistleblowing protections within Armed Forces legislation and, although my amendments were not accepted, the Government committed to a review of whistleblowing in defence, an undertaking which I welcomed and accepted in good faith. I ask the Minister to give us an update on where that review has got to, because I would be personally interested to know if there is an interim or final report scheduled to be published.
Against that general backdrop, I will ask the Minister two questions specific to the regulations. First, what practical safeguards will prevent career or informal detriment, direct or indirect, to the victim, where a family member approaches the commissioner? If families are to be empowered to raise concerns, they have to be confident that doing so will not harm the serviceperson whom they seek to support.
Secondly, although these provisions will be monitored, there is no statutory review clause. Given the novelty and sensitivity of this expanded remit, will the Government commit to publishing a formal review within a defined period?
As I indicated, we on these Benches do not oppose these regulations. They form part of a broader, necessary reform if confidence in the complaints system is to be restored, and that restoration of confidence is vital. Our service personnel and their families deserve a system that is independent in spirit, deserving of their trust and does what it says on the tin. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say in answer to the specific question from my noble friend Lord Stansgate that, yes, the regulations apply to wherever anyone serves. I thank him for raising that issue and allowing me to clarify that point.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I wish to read a particular thing. I thank him for his question and for his work with the reserves. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work he does with respect to them. The specific nature of the noble Lord’s question concerned what the term “Reserve Forces” includes. Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 inserted new Schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. The meaning of “Reserve Forces” in this legislation is the same as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996. It includes the volunteer reserve and the ex-regular reserve, but not individuals in the so-called recall reserve. That is the legislative position. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her general welcome of the regulations before us and the constructive way in which she engaged with them. I made a commitment on the whistleblower review. An interim review has been done; we are looking at that. We will invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, to the Ministry of Defence to have a look through where we have got to with the whistleblower review before we publish something, so that they can see where we are.
The intention of that, with respect to this issue and the noble Baroness’s question regarding the families, is for us to ensure that families who complain or bring forward concerns around service life under this provision or, indeed, in a more general sense are protected from feeling as though they will suffer detriment as a result of bringing something forward either under this instrument or more generally. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question, which she asked specifically in reference to this point, and her more general point about whistleblowing.
All the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who I mentioned will, in due course, receive a letter asking them to come to the Ministry of Defence to discuss where we are on this point. I made that parliamentary commitment, and it is important to honour such parliamentary commitments. In general, you may not be able to amend legislation, but—this is an important point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know—if a Minister makes a commitment to do something in order for something to be withdrawn, it is important that they follow through on that. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s questions with respect to safeguards and the review.
On monitoring, let me reflect on that point about the review. The point about secondary legislation is that, if something is not working, you can look at it again, but the broad definition of what we have and the work of the commissioner are important. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the commissioner has to publish a report and give it to Parliament. One would expect that if a particular problem had arisen as a result of their work, that would be reported in that annual report so that we could all see whether the regulations were working in the way we had hoped or whether the commissioner was drawing attention to something that Parliament needed to consider again. I would expect that to be the place where any review that was necessary would be pointed out.
With those remarks, I hope that I have answered the various questions asked by noble Lords. I thank everyone for their contributions and their involvement in these regulations.
Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, which were laid on 13 January, I will speak also to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
First, let me express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent for successfully steering the Private Member’s Bill through this House to Royal Assent in 2024. I also thank the honourable Member for Bridgend, who was instrumental in guiding the Bill through the other place. I pay particular tribute to Aaron Horsey, who has campaigned with remarkable dedication on behalf of bereaved fathers following the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim; Aaron joins us here today.
The Parental Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of this entitlement. The further two sets of regulations ensure that those having a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.
Currently, fathers and partners in these tragic circumstances who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Although the Employment Rights Act removes the continuity of service requirements for paternity leave, fathers and partners remain limited to a maximum of two weeks’ statutory leave. Bereaved partner’s paternity leave will plug this gap to ensure that bereaved partners are guaranteed a longer period off work to care for their child.
Thankfully, the number of people who face this situation is low. Each year, there are around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth. We estimate that around half of those eligible will take up this leave, meaning that these regulations are likely to support about 90 bereaved partners each year. Some partners may be eligible for shared parental leave, which accounts for the reduced figure.
Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning that there is no continuity of service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the death of the mother or primary adopter. The leave must end on the child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of their adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is always entitled to at least two weeks of leave.
To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee rather than a worker or self-employed. They must be the child’s father or the mother’s or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother’s or adopter’s death. They must also have main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking the leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, these regulations will ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.
The notice requirements reflect that an individual will be in a devastating and unforeseeable situation immediately after their partner’s death. Therefore, to start the leave in the first eight weeks after their partner’s death, they can give notice informally, any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could, for example, be a text message or a phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner has died, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing. This longer and more formal notice period balances the needs of employers with the flexibility needed by employees in these tragic circumstances.
Taking bereaved partner’s paternity leave will not affect a parent’s ability to take any other family leave entitlements they qualify for, such as shared parental leave. However, the entitlement must be taken in one continuous block. If an employee takes bereaved partner’s paternity leave to care for a child, and the child sadly passes away or an adoption placement ends, the bereaved partner will still be entitled to eight weeks of leave. This reflects that the leave is designed to support care responsibilities during an exceptionally difficult time. This approach is consistent with other forms of parental leave, such as adoption leave, helping to maintain a clear and coherent framework across family related entitlements.
Employees on bereaved partner’s paternity leave will be entitled to redundancy protections while on leave, regardless of how much leave they take. They will also be protected for 18 months from the birth or placement for adoption if they take six weeks or more continuous leave. This is equivalent to the protections given to those who take shared parental leave and neonatal care leave.
The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from reorganising work during employee absence. As the entitlement is unpaid, the cost is limited, and we considered the measures necessary and proportionate, given the tragic circumstances in which they will apply.
The Government appreciate the challenges businesses face in fulfilling their duties towards their employees. My officials are working with ACAS to ensure that guidance is available. The Government will also publish this guidance on 6 April on GOV.UK.
I take this moment to thank all those who have been involved in the development of the bereaved partner’s paternity leave. I hope they are as proud as I am of the difference this will make to families in one of the darkest periods of their lives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, these Benches offer our wholehearted support for these regulations, and I know our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if he were not involved in the Chamber on the Crime and Policing Bill, would join me in supporting them.
The sort of circumstances we are speaking of can be some of the most devastating circumstances and experiences. This is the sort of grief that does not pause, that does not observe working hours and that demands time, space and the presence of everyone in support. At least, then, the grief can be borne. I pay tribute, as has the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, to those who have secured—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned and will resume at 5.53 pm.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I pay tribute, as did the Minister, to those who have secured this important step forward. Of course, we on these Benches know this terrain. It was His Majesty’s Official Opposition when in government who laid the foundation upon which these regulations rest. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 was a measure of which I and my party are proud. It was one of the most humane pieces of legislation of recent decades; a recognition by the state that the law must sometimes speak not in the language of productivity or commerce but in the language of compassion. Fathers must not be left behind, and these regulations are a welcome step forwards to ensure they are not.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his compassion and understanding of the issue and his support for the regulations. They represent an important step forward and will ensure that fathers and partners who experience this unimaginable loss are afforded the protection, stability and support they need in an exceptionally difficult and unforeseeable period in their lives. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
House of Lords
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Child Poverty Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in relation to the (1) implementation, and (2) outcomes, of the Child Poverty Strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock)
My Lords, the Government are progressing urgent legislation to remove the two-child limit from April, which is expected to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the final year of this Parliament. Our monitoring and evaluations framework sets out our plans to track progress as part of our 10-year strategy for delivering long-term change. This summer we will publish a baseline report setting out the latest statistics and evidence, with annual reporting thereafter.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister, who I suspect is one of the finest advocates for the Government in either House. She will know that some critics of the Government crave a greater overarching vision or story; others complain that policies such as removing the two-child benefit cap somehow reward the feckless. Would she like to take this opportunity to explain where this strategy sits amongst government priorities and why it is so important?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and commend her on her great taste in Ministers, if I may say so. It is also a really great question. The Prime Minister made it clear very early on what a high priority it was for him, and for this Government, to tackle the horrors of child poverty. Some 900,000 more children were in poverty as a result of the previous Government. This Government are determined to stop that, so policies such as removing the two-child limit and others that we have already announced will lift around 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Do we know why it matters? It is not just to those individual children while they are kids; poverty scars their life chances. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to have mental health difficulties by age 11. When they are adults, they are more likely to be unemployed and likely to earn less. Our country cannot afford to do that to our children, and our country cannot afford our children to underachieve. That is why it matters.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the better futures social outcomes fund was announced in the child poverty strategy, with government payments tied to the achievement of measurable improvements in people’s lives, such as increased family stability. Family breakdown can be a driver, as well as an effect, of poverty. Can the Minister explain how progress in this area will be measured and whether the funding structure will enable ongoing work, after milestones have been reached, to prevent families slipping back into difficulties again?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the importance of family stability; it is extremely important for children to grow up in a stable family wherever possible. He is right that poverty is both a driver and a consequence. We know that poverty puts huge pressures on families. Lifting the two-child limit and giving families higher rewards than those that they have now will lift over half a million families out of poverty and help to take the pressure off.
The noble Lord mentioned the better futures fund. That will be a 10-year programme focused on a range of long-term measurable outcomes, including family stability. He asked about how it will be measured. It is currently in the design phase, but the funding will primarily be used for social outcome partnerships, and those bidding will be expected to show the sustainability of their proposed ideas. We absolutely take seriously the importance of family stability. We are going to address the questions of poverty that drive problems, but we also want to do what we can to support families.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her normal diligence on this subject. Alongside new measures
“to increase incomes, reduce essential costs and strengthen local services”—
I take those words from the Government’s own document—between 2025 and 2026 there have been 11 strategy documents. They are very good reading, but they do not help the people with the problems that I have just outlined. Can we speed this up? Let us stop talking about 10 years and instead talk about what is happening this year and next year.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will say two things. Children did not fall into poverty overnight and they will not all come out of it overnight. Poverty has a range of drivers. We are determined not simply to address this problem now but to find a way of tackling it in the long term. However, since the noble Lord wants examples of action, I will give him some. What have we already done? As we have made clear, we are going to put £39 billion into social and affordable housing. We are expanding free school meals to all families on universal credit, putting £600 million into the holiday activities and food programme, extending the warm home discount scheme to an extra 2.7 million people, and removing the two-child limit to lift 450,000 children out of poverty in this Parliament. That is action, and this Government are taking it.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister what the definition of poverty is? If it is “below the average” then there is no hope of getting rid of poverty. Is it an absolute standard? Secondly, has she calculated the amount owed to the Child Maintenance Service by absent fathers? Why should the taxpayer fund maintenance for children that the father owes and is not paying?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are using two metrics. We are using relative low income after housing costs, which is the international standard measure, but we are also using deep material poverty. That is a new measure that has been devised based on material deprivation, which reflects our commitment to addressing deeper child poverty. Material deprivation is traditionally calculated by asking the public what essentials they think families should have and getting a list of them. They are things such as warm homes, appropriate housing, enough food to eat, et cetera. The measure shows that if a family cannot afford at least four of those then they are in deep material deprivation. Having both those metrics helps us to measure what is going on in families.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness about child maintenance. Everybody should pay for their children, whether they are still with the other partner or not. The Government have done a lot to drive up the rate of support for child maintenance. We are taking reform steps to make it even better, and we will keep doing that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the strategy has been widely welcomed for the reasons given by my noble friend and because of its holistic cross-government approach, but there is considerable concern that Home Office policies on asylum, settlement and no recourse to public funds will undermine the strategy with regard to migrant children, who are already at disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty. Can my noble friend therefore confirm that the strategy includes migrant children and do what she can to encourage Home Office colleagues to do more to protect children in poverty from the impact of their policies?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. I assure her that the strategy, when it was being developed, looked at all children. We want to recognise the impact of poverty on children, whether or not they made any choices—because, as children, they do not make choices—contributing to their circumstances. It is clear that some of the measures we are taking, for example in relation to benefits, will benefit only those families who are eligible for those benefits. For example, the two-child limit affects only those on universal credit. Universal credit is available to families only in circumstances where their immigration status permits it. However, there are safety nets in the system to protect children, and I would be happy to share that view with colleagues across government.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, like many others, I warmly welcome the child poverty strategy; there is much to commend it, such as—to pick one particular aspect—the expansion of free school meals for children. However, I have a question about auto-enrolment of children for free school meals. There is much evidence to show that auto-enrolment not only lifts children out of poverty but increases educational attainment and allows schools to ensure that they get the pupil premium needed. Can the Minister therefore tell us what barriers remain for the introduction of auto-enrolment?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to raise that with colleagues in the DfE, but I reassure the right reverend Prelate that a lot of work has been and is going on in relation to free school meals for children on universal credit, making sure—whether it ends up being auto-enrolment or whether it is about communication or identification—that we get this out to all children. Free school meals are really important and are crucial to children: not only do they get to eat but hungry children struggle to learn, so it is a win-win all round. We think this is an incredibly important measure and we want to make sure that it works.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, no child should grow up in poverty, and we agree that reducing child poverty must be an absolute priority for any Government. The surest answer to helping reduce child poverty is to ensure that more families can access the security and dignity of work, which I do not believe the noble Baroness mentioned. There are many young parents among the current high level of youth unemployment—16.1%—so what steps are the Government taking to engage directly and urgently with this cohort to enable them to secure work and optimise the chances of giving their children a better future?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Viscount, and I have said many times from this Dispatch Box that, for many families, work is the best route out of poverty. Of course there will always be those who cannot work, and they deserve a welfare state that supports them, but this Government have invested considerable sums and will invest considerably more in supporting families to work. We already know that parents are actually more likely than average to be in employment. They want to work—they want to support their kids, they want to be a good role model and they want to show them that that is what adult life looks like—but many of them will need extra help, so we are investing heavily in those who have barriers to work. The noble Viscount mentioned young people. The Government have done so much on young people. He will know that Alan Milburn is doing a report for the Government looking at why so many of our young people—one in eight—are not in employment, education or training. That figure is a disgrace and we have to tackle that.
Forest-Risk Commodities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement due diligence requirements for forest-risk commodities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering their approach to addressing the deforestation impact of the use of forest-risk commodities in our supply chains, and we will update the House at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the national security assessment, which the Government still refuse to publish in full, has been leaked in full to ITV News. It states that nature loss, including deforestation, is already slowing UK growth and productivity and could leave annual GDP 12% lower by 2030 than it would otherwise have been, making a mockery of the Government’s growth agenda. Will the Minister confirm these figures? When will the Government start taking nature loss as the grave economic threat that it is and get on with urgent job of protecting nature?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the UK remains absolutely committed to providing international climate finance, both now and in the future, and to play our part alongside other developed countries and climate finance providers to deliver on our international commitments. There is a real economic benefit globally, not just here, to do that. We are on track to deliver £11.6 billion in international climate finance by the end of 2025-26 and are supporting the transition to more sustainable food and land use globally to help ensure the future of our global supply chains.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I imagine that the Minister is aware that the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Indonesia, which is a substantial producer of palm oil and palm oil products. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Indonesian palm oil products exported to us are not being grown in plantations planted in place of tropical rainforests?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned, we remain steadfast in working with partners to deliver our shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation. Clearly, examples such as that which the noble Lord has just given are part of that. We need to ensure that any regulatory frameworks we bring in are robust and proportionate but also effective in addressing any deforestation in UK supply chains. Any decision-making will also have to consider the implications of the EU deforestation regulation on UK businesses that trade with the EU, and that is part of the bigger picture in order to address exactly the issues that the noble Lord is talking about.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, some might say that the Government’s proposals for nature loss are very ambitious; some might say they are overambitious. Does the noble Baroness agree that taking 10% of farmland out of food production to go towards clean energy projects is not in the interests of the country? Surely, taking farmland out of production in this way must count against nature loss and biodiversity gain.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Government are working alongside farmers and environmental organisations on our farming road map, “Farming 2050, Growing England’s Future”, in order to set the course of farming over 25 years. We need a long-term vision for farming and food security, and this road map will be designed to get there, because ultimately, we need to deliver our food security alongside our environmental objectives.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, this is surely part of a much wider problem concerning the line of sight that businesses in this country have over their supply chains and supply lines. That applies to forests and to modern slavery, but it also applies generally in all sorts of ways—I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—to the sources and sustainability of the products on which we rely. This is not just about food security; it is also about ensuring that businesses know what their supply lines are and where they are from. What are we doing as a nation to make it easier for businesses to understand their supply chains?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend asks a really important question. We announced a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct as part of the UK trade strategy, and that is exploring the UK’s effectiveness in preventing human rights harms, labour rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. That is how we are looking to support businesses and give them access to the kind of information my noble friend talks about.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, while it is right to take steps to protect forests overseas, I point out that Brazil and Indonesia, for example, have 50% forest cover, versus only 13% here. These countries already protect their forests through the Brazilian forest code and the Indonesian timber legality assurance scheme. Can we not do more to make the world greener in our own country by increasing our paltry 16.5% forest cover target? I declare my interest as an investor in SLC Agricola and Anglo Eastern Plantations, and as a forest developer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have ambitious tree-planting proposals, including planting three new national forests—one has already begun and two are well on the way—because it is important that we increase tree coverage. We are also looking at how we can better protect the forests we already have, particularly our ancient woodlands. The environmental improvement plan the Government have recently published addresses many of those issues.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, what projections have the Government made of the impact on regional GDP and jobs if UK food and retail businesses lose market share because overseas competitors can show that they are stronger on deforestation-free credentials? Will the Minister commit to publishing any economic modelling behind their current chosen timetable and the scope for these due diligence regulations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Due diligence, particularly around trade and standards, is incredibly important. We want, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, to grow our economy in this country, but at the same time we must support business and ensure that we are doing so in a way that is sustainable—whether it is to do with the environment or human rights and so on. We discussed the issues she talks about with the Department of Trade, and we will continue to have very close discussions with it on how we continue to grow sustainable businesses in this country.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, regulations about forest-risk commodities were starting to be drawn up in 2023. In August 2024, the Labour Government said that they supported the policy and would work on it. It is really concerning to hear the Minister now say that they are still considering this policy. I know there was an issue connected with aspects of Northern Ireland, but can the Minister please say what is going on? Are they now going to change to the EU regulations which were decried around the world, or can we press on so that we can do something to help save the planet?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall take the noble Baroness’s concerns back to Defra because they are fair. But the issue is that we must make sure that we get the best regulatory approach to address deforestation in our supply chains. There are a number of factors we are considering, and I will just mention a couple. First is the compatibility of the forest-risk commodities approach which is enshrined in Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 and the EU’s deforestation regulations. The issue is the differences between them—the EU approach introduces a strict deforestation-free standard and customs controls, whereas the Environment Act addresses illegal deforestation. The Government’s ongoing review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct that I just mentioned, led by the Department for Business and Trade, is also looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s approach to preventing human rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. We must tie all this together if we are going to get it right and make it effective.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to palm oil, global production affects at least 193 threatened species, with potential impacts on 54% of all threatened mammals and 64% of all threatened birds. It is the leading cause of orangutan decline: eight orangutans are lost every day. Do the Government not need to take urgent action on the deeply problematic product of palm oil?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have already mentioned, we are absolutely committed to delivering this and ensuring that any regulatory framework we bring in that will affect any kind of product, such as palm oil and the UK trade in it, is going to be robust and effective, because there is no point in doing it if it is not going to make a difference.
UK Streaming and Cinema Sector
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent developments in the UK’s streaming and cinema sector, in particular the impact of the bid by Netflix to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The way we consume entertainment is changing rapidly, driving greater consolidation in the streaming and entertainment markets. Cinemas and independent British content play a vital role in our communities, and DCMS works closely with the BFI and the UK Cinema Association to ensure that they continue to thrive. Given legal and commercial sensitivities, it would not be appropriate to comment on any live or potential merger involving Warner Bros. Discovery; should any transaction by any company progress, it would be up to the CMA to examine its implications for competition and consumers.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that on Friday, Netflix, doubtless terrified of the prospect of this Oral Question and the ferocious scrutiny of your Lordships’ House, withdrew its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery in favour of Paramount Skydance. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the news, which is good for British consumers, who will continue to benefit from choice in the streaming market, good for our world-class content creators and good for the British cinema industry, which is vital to our high streets? Will she also agree that the bid highlighted the importance of intellectual property and the strength of the UK’s copyright regime and confirm that the Government will continue to protect UK rights holders by ruling out any new copyright exemptions that would allow big tech to scrape UK content with impunity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
While I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord’s analysis of the reason Netflix withdrew its bid, the Government recognise the importance of a competitive and diverse streaming market for consumers, creators and the wider screen sector. We also recognise the vital role of intellectual property in a strong copyright regime. That is why the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DCMS are working closely with the creative and AI sectors to consider all potential options and get to the right solution. We have convened expert working groups and parliamentarians, including a number of noble Lords, to inform our approach and will continue to engage stakeholders to ensure that our copyright framework values and protects human creativity. We will publish a comprehensive report and economic impact assessment by 18 March this year.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will have the Cross Benches next, then we will come to Labour.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a television producer. The Media Act set up prominence for public service broadcasters in the digital space, but it does not cover video-sharing platforms such as YouTube, which is where increasing numbers of young people are watching their content. Now that the BBC has announced a partnership with YouTube, does the Minister agree that the prominence regime should be extended to amplify discoverability of public service broadcasting content on these services?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Public service broadcasters are vital, and it is important for us to recognise how central YouTube is to a number of young people’s access to content. We welcome Ofcom’s recommendation that public service broadcasters and platforms such as YouTube work together urgently to ensure that public service media content is made prominent on fair terms. We are considering Ofcom’s recommendation for legislation to support this. However, we want to see the outcome of these discussions in the first instance and encourage YouTube and PSBs to work together to try to achieve a deeper partnership that could benefit them and audiences. If I have not quite answered the noble Viscount’s question, I am happy to pick that up with him afterwards.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Black, in welcoming the news that he mentioned and highlighting the importance of intellectual property and the UK’s copyright regime. Other jurisdictions are now moving away from weakening copyright. Australia has ruled out new exceptions, creators are prevailing in cases in the US courts and EU policymakers are exploring stronger rights. Does my noble friend the Minister accept that weakening UK copyright law now would be economically and strategically misguided, just as the value of high-quality creative content is becoming clearer to AI developers and legislators worldwide?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government want a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, can be trusted and unlocks innovation. As I mentioned, expert working groups and a parliamentary working group have been convened and stakeholders will continue to be engaged as Ministers consider all options. I have been told that I can confidently say that we will publish a full report, economic impact assessment and consultation response by 18 March. I look forward to future debates covering the outcome of that process.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Government accept that if we as a nation are to continue to be as successful in this area as we have been, we must look to the training set-up for those who are creating the content? How are the Government encouraging people to take up careers in this, especially at level 4 and 5 qualifications? Will the higher education sector actually take part in providing these services?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Is that related to AI or content generally?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In relation to the screen workforce and skills, we are investing across the skills pipeline: there is £10 million for the National Film and Television School expansion, and we are scaling up the British Film Institute Film Academy and delivering short stories through the growth and skills levy. We are keen that young people and people throughout their careers can access opportunities to be part of what we consider to be one of the jewels in Britain’s creative crown.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Government are considering a commercial research exception that would deny streamers the right to withhold consent for use of content when it is used in research and development, but all AI pretraining is technically R&D. Does the Minister accept that this would fatally undermine licensing markets, with payment only at a point of market entry after a leverage is lost? The best thing the Government could do is to rule out any such exception.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It would be a bit pre-emptive of me to rule out any exception before the reports I have mentioned are published. I would be very happy to return to your Lordships’ House to discuss this matter further once that has taken place.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, with regard to the original Question, decisions such as this have the potential to significantly affect our creative workforce in this area, particularly the freelance workforce, in terms of size and rates of pay. Will these concerns be a significant part of the new freelance champion’s remit, and when will we hear more about this new role?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Anticipating that this question might come up, I asked whether I was able to give a definitive date for when the freelance champion will be appointed. Unfortunately, my wording is still just “as swiftly as possible”. I can report to your Lordships’ House that the Minister for Creative Industries, my colleague in the other place, Ian Murray, has held a round table with the sector to work through a number of the issues around the remit of this role. I genuinely hope, for a whole host of reasons, to be able to report back to your Lordships’ House on the next occasion I am asked that question. At the moment, unfortunately, my answer is “as swiftly as possible”.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, can I encourage my noble friend the Minister to regard these questions as a sort of canary in the coal mine? The Government’s original opt-out proposals on AI exemptions obviously caused a great deal of consternation in the House, and I think the idea of a commercial research exemption would be similarly difficult if it were the proposal the Government eventually came forward with. Even if the Minister cannot rule something out at this stage, can she at least acknowledge the fact that many of us in the House regard that as little more than a smokescreen for mass copyright theft?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have heard that loud and clear, and I will convey the sentiment of the House back to colleagues in DCMS.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. The Minister said that she cannot at this stage rule out certain aspects of what might be contained in the paper due from the Secretary of State this March, but can she rule in the importance of making sure that AI developers must license UK content for the training and grounding of their models?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Our priority is to ensure that the UK is ready for AI-related risks while supporting responsible innovation and long-term growth. We are considering all potential options to deliver on the UK’s ambition. It would be a very foolish and brave Minister to pre-empt a report that has yet to be published, but I look forward to future debates on this matter.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Even if the Minister cannot rule out specific measures, can she perhaps agree that weakening UK copyright law now would be misguided?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The only thing I am very clear on is that, like noble Lords, we want a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, can be trusted and unlocks innovation. As I said, I cannot pre-empt the report, but I look forward to future debates on this matter.
NHS: Violence Against NHS Staff
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rafferty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce violence against NHS staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the department and NHS England are working with NHS employers and trade unions to prevent and reduce violence in the NHS by improving prevention, security, reporting and investigation, as well as enhancing training and post-incident support. As announced in the 10-year plan, the Government will strengthen existing measures by introducing this spring a new set of staff standards to ensure that NHS organisations are held to account for improvements.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her, as ever, detailed and insightful response, but I am sure she is also aware that certain groups are disproportionately affected by violence in the workplace. Black and Asian nurses make up over 30% of the total number of registered nurses in England yet report higher exposure to both verbal and physical abuse than their white counterparts. How are the Government supporting NHS trusts to protect staff from all forms of violence and racism?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that racism, violence and abuse in the NHS, and indeed anywhere, are quite unacceptable and there is clearly so much more that we have to do. The Government’s progress is about the establishment of the workforce race equality standard, which measures NHS organisations against nine indicators, including bullying and harassment. The report about the standard was published in June of last year. We also have the equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which again identifies six high-impact areas for employers, and this is expected to be strengthened by the introduction of a new staff standard on tackling racism, which is due in April.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the level of violence towards staff in healthcare settings which the Minister has just mentioned is unacceptable. The 2024 NHS staff survey found that violence had increased since 2023, with a quarter of the workplace reporting harassment. Given that staff safety is essential to the functioning of the NHS, what specific funding is being made available to trusts for preventive measures, such as de-escalation training, alongside direct protections such as increased security personnel?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right about the increase as reported in the staff survey, and it is indeed shocking and totally unacceptable. The reporting of incidents of physical violence has also increased and, while I do not want to see more violence, if it is there, we need to know about it. On funding and NHS organisations, it comes within their general budgets. We are guiding and supporting those organisations to ensure they use the money in the most appropriate and effective way.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I have had reason to visit St Thomas’ Hospital on a number of occasions recently to visit the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I assure the Chamber that she is progressing well and thanks everybody for their messages of support, which have come from all sides. Just across the river, I have witnessed on two occasions levels of violence against the staff which I have never witnessed in some of the toughest parts of London or other cities. Nobody who has not experienced what the staff in NHS hospitals have experienced can appreciate the threat that is regularly meted out, to the extent that, last week, I had to act as a witness on behalf of a member of staff at St Thomas’ because he was having to fight off somebody who was trying to beat him up in the hospital.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is a terrible thing that the noble Lord reports, and I appreciate him drawing your Lordships’ House’s attention to it. I can only reiterate the unacceptability of growing violence, bullying and harassment towards staff. Our work is to retain, recruit and get the best out of staff—I know this is a matter of interest to noble Lords—but we cannot do that in this environment. It is absolutely key that staff do not just feel safer but are safer in the workplace.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, when working as a district nurse in 1981, I worked with an elderly male patient who had a rat in a cage as a pet. I made a rookie mistake that I would not make now: I said I was frightened of it. The next time I visited, when I drew back his bedclothes to give him a bed bath, the rat leapt out at me. I just draw attention to that, but can the Minister explain how and what statistics are kept on the sickness and absence of healthcare workers who work in the community as a result of physical and psychological aggression from patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I am very sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness had and should not have had. Sadly, I am sure that she was not—and is not—alone in having had such experiences. We have zero tolerance towards violence, bullying and intimidation, and I would regard that as being an instance of that. We need to improve our data and our recording. We are developing a common reporting framework for violence prevention and reduction which will support the adoption of more consistent approaches to dealing with it and improve comparability across not just systems but services. The noble Baroness’s point about community-based violence is as valid as points about hospital-based violence: violence is unacceptable wherever it is.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of the General Medical Council. I was very sorry to hear the example given by the noble Lord; unfortunately, we have all heard too many such examples. If a healthcare professional is the subject of violence in the workplace, the police may be required, sadly, to arrange for a forensic physician to examine the victim. That experience can be stressful and daunting for the member of staff in question. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what steps are being put in place to support those practitioners in such instances?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think I understand my noble friend’s question; if I have misunderstood, I will gladly write to her. The point here, I think, is about not just practice but culture. We need to see good leadership. We need good organisational culture to improve staff engagement and staff responsibilities when faced with dealing with such incidents. Again, our NHS working cultures need to be more compassionate and more inclusive, and they need better support, including around occupational health and staff well-being. Practitioners are part of the solution, and of course we give them our full support.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in advance of this Question, the Medical Defence Union wrote to a number of noble Lords, for which we are grateful. It outlined that if a healthcare professional is the subject of violence in the workplace, the police may be required to arrange for a forensic physician to examine the victim. This experience of course doubles the terrible experience that the individual has been through and is daunting for them. Can the Minister confirm what steps or guidance the department and NHS England, as long as it continues to exist, are putting in place to support medical staff in such instances?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point. All NHS staff have access, for example, to a helpline for support and to Practitioner Health for when they need more complex mental health support. Of course, anyone who is experiencing violence or abuse should report it to their line manager so that it can be properly investigated, including reporting it to the police. These are very difficult situations for the person who has suffered abuse and for members of the team who have to support them. I take the point about forensics; forensic investigation can worsen it, but it is also necessary to secure conviction where necessary.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stockwood
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026
Baroness Wheeler
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Title.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - Division on Amendment 209 - Ayes: 121 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 209 disagreed.
17:43 - Division on Amendment 248B - Ayes: 71 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 248B disagreed.
17:56 - Division on Amendment 262 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 262 disagreed.
20:19 - Division on Amendment 273 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 273 agreed.
20:31 - Division on Amendment 274 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 274 agreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are what I will term minor drafting changes designed to clarify the operation of the new offences in Clauses 65 to 67 and 69.
Amendments 199 to 208 and 210 to 229 make minor changes to ensure that the operation of the child sexual abuse image-generator offence at Clauses 65 to 67 is clear and consistent across the United Kingdom. Amendments 230 to 233 make drafting changes to clarify the language used in the “paedophile manual” offence at Clause 69.
These amendments do not modify the policy intention behind these offences; rather, they make necessary clarificatory changes to ensure that they operate effectively. I beg to move and hope that the House will agree.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s technical amendments. We spent some time in Committee debating the definition of a “thing” used to generate horrific CSA images. I am pleased that the Government have tabled Amendment 201 to clarify that a “thing” explicitly includes a service.
Modern AI is not just a program sitting on a hard drive but an ephemeral, cloud-based service. By adopting this broader language, we ensure that those who provide the underlying infrastructure for CSA image generation cannot evade responsibility through technical loopholes. These may appear to be technical drafting changes, but they provide the necessary teeth for the primary offences in Clauses 65 to 67.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are largely consequential and minor drafting changes. They relate to the important topic of child sexual abuse image generators. I have little to say to this group other than that the topic which they address is one of serious and urgent concern.
The rapid emergence of generative AI has presented new and troubling challenges. The recent Grok AI scandal, in which an AI model generated harmful sexual content publicly, some of which involved children, highlighted the potential for mainstream tools to be misused in ways that normalise or distribute abusive material. That episode underlines why robust legal safeguards are essential as technology evolves.
The Government have continued to delay passing legislation regarding AI regulation, which was alluded to as far back as 2024. I thank the Minister for his assurances that the Government will continue to monitor developments in this area and work with industry to protect children from abuse and exploitation.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
“(c) “thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16. It also clarifies that a service can be a CSA image-generator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 65, page 81, line 16.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Baroness Kidron
“46D Child sexual abuse image-generation risk assessment(1) A provider of an online service, including but not limited to a generative AI large language model, must risk assess the likelihood of their service being used to create or facilitate the creation of a CSA image or images as defined by section 46A. (2) If a risk is identified in a CSA image-generation risk assessment—(a) where the provider is regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must report the risk within two working days to OFCOM, and agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks within 14 days;(b) where the provider is not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must notify the National Crime Agency within two working days and agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks of the online service being used to create or facilitate the creation of CSA images within 14 days.(3) Where a provider regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with OFCOM (see subsection (2)(a)), they can be subjected to OFCOM’s enforcement powers as set out in Part 7, Chapter 6 (enforcement powers) of that Act.(4) Where a provider not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with the National Crime Agency (see subsection (2)(b)), they commit an offence.(5) A provider that commits an offence under this section is liable to be issued with a penalty notice by the National Crime Agency.(6) In this section a “penalty notice” means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding whichever is the greater of—(a) £18 million, or(b) 10% of a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue for the most recent complete accounting period.(7) A penalty notice may be reissued where a provider continues to commit an offence under this section.(8) In carrying out its duties set out in this section, the National Crime Agency may consult with OFCOM.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Bill includes amendments which prohibit the creation of Gen-AI models specifically designed to create CSA images, but it is still possible for general-purpose models to be used to create CSA images. The Government has committed to allow providers of other Gen-AI services to risk assess how their services could be used for this purpose. This amendment makes that a requirement.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for trying to add her name. Such was the enthusiasm that there was no space.
As already discussed, the Government have brought in new Clauses 92 and 93 to allow companies and responsible third parties to risk-assess the creation of CSA by gen AI models. That is an important detail. If the company is red teaming, or the regulator needs to test, it must not be guilty of an offence for doing so. But this new measure is permission, not obligation—and permission is not enough.
Amendment 209 seeks to do three things: to make risk assessment mandatory; to require mitigation within 14 days; and to hold companies not covered by the Online Safety Act to the same standard via the National Crime Agency.
A report from UNICEF last month referenced an Interpol study across 11 countries which found that at least 1.2 million children have disclosed having their images manipulated into sexually explicit images in the past year. In some countries that is equivalent to one child in every classroom being subjected to this new form of child sexual abuse. The report recommended the introduction of guardrails for AI developers at the design stage. In a meeting earlier in your Lordships’ House, we were told repeatedly and reminded graphically that AI CSAM creates appetite in offenders and that what happens online does not stay online.
We have consulted, and Ofcom has consulted—Parliament has debated this for years—and now we are consulting again. I argue that there are three reasons for accepting the amendment right now.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Kidron—I was very happy to put my name to this. The noble Baroness and others in this Chamber were at a meeting that we had at lunchtime today with a variety of really knowledgeable experts in this area. Even for those of us who have been to these sorts of meetings in the last few years fairly regularly, the latest news is really deeply shocking. I cannot even begin to tell your Lordships how shocking it is.
Indeed, there was an expert from Finland there who is about to deliver a very comprehensive analysis of the status quo, which will be delivered to Ofcom and published shortly. She was unable to give any details; however, she did tell us—I must confess that I am not that shockable, but I did find this pretty shocking—that the earliest instance that this research has discovered of a child being abused sexually was a child who was seven hours old, if noble Lords can believe that. What is more, we were told that there are manuals available on the web and the dark web which tell perpetrators, if they wish to sexually abuse newly born infants, how to do so in such a way that it is not able to be medically identified.
It reminds one slightly of the recent, very brave, interview that Gisèle Pelicot gave, which some of your Lordships may have seen—if noble Lords have not, I recommend it—in which it appeared that the reason that Gisèle did not realise what was happening to her was that her husband had availed himself of sufficient medical knowledge to know that, when he drugged her, he also put muscle relaxants into the medication. The normal physical reaction of anyone’s body, particularly a female body, when it is being violated is to resist it and seize up; in the case where you had muscle relaxants administered, of course, that was not the case, so, when Gisèle woke up, she did not feel well, but she did not realise what had happened. There are manuals on the web telling perpetrators how to do that with newly born infants in order that it is not identified. This is the world we are living in.
I am reminded of an analogy that we often used to use when I was a management consultant, when we were trying to indicate to a business that things were getting slightly out of control and not going the way they wanted: the parable of the frog in the water, which is gently increasing in temperature until the point that it realises it is being boiled alive, by which time it is too late. If you look at the scale of the abuse that is happening and the way in which artificial intelligence is accelerating this exponentially, it is never too late, but I can only add to the words of my noble friend Lady Kidron: how much longer do we have to keep on beseeching the Government to listen?
I reminded the meeting of a meeting I had a few months ago with a Minister from another department and her team. The Minister was female and all the advisers were female. We asked them, “How many of you have children, and what age are they?” They told us, and we then described some of the things that are happening to children of that age. You could see a visible change in demeanour and body language. This is not something that is happening to other people, or happening remotely on the BBC news or online; it is happening to us and our children, and it becomes deeply personal. The reason why the noble Baroness and others of us feel so passionately about this is that it is happening all around us—to our children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces—and we appear to be blind to what is going on.
We are blind in the sense of finding solutions that will work and blind to even trying solutions that may not be perfect but at least indicate a level of intent to do something about it. The companies that are the aim of the noble Baroness’s amendment know what they are doing; they are aware of what they are allowing. They are probably doing some risk analysis, which is probably not very good reading, but they know exactly what they are doing. To try to limit the Government’s approach to only those engines that have clearly been designed primarily to produce child sexual abuse material is the tip of the iceberg. It is all the other ones that are doing the damage. Until and unless we face up to that, zero in on them in such a way that they have to pay attention, and make it seriously painful for them, we are not going to change anything.
I appeal to the House, should the noble Baroness decide to take this to a vote, to send a clear signal to the Government about what is going on. Those of us in this House who are involved in this are frequently approached by the Government’s own Back-Benchers from another place—many of whom have young children —who are deeply concerned about what is going on. They are desperate for their Government to show real leadership and, rather than having consultation after consultation, to take action. So I appeal to the Government to look at this very seriously and I appeal to the House, if the noble Baroness decides to divide, to go with her.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was at the meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, so graphically described. I wish all noble Lords had been there too. If they had been, they too would support this amendment. It makes me weep to think of the harm and damage being done to babies—babies—and young children. It is shocking, and if we do not vote for this amendment, we should be ashamed of ourselves. It might not affect you personally, but you have to care about the millions of children out there who are having to face this abuse.
The growth in artificial intelligence tools is exposing children to new and enhanced harms. Perpetrators are using image generators to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material that can be used to abuse and extort children, including to financially blackmail young people. Devastatingly, Childline is hearing from more and more children who are experiencing this type of abuse. For example, a 16 year-old boy contacted the charity saying that a girl claiming to be his age made fake sexual images of him and threatened to share them with his friends unless he sent her £200. What is this world coming to, with children being blackmailed like this? Children are speaking about feeling incredibly scared, distressed and isolated in these situations. They are unsure about why it is happening or where to turn for help.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is a grim subject, like, I am afraid, many of those that we are going to discuss in our proceedings today. An overwhelming case has been made by those who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I very much hope that the Front Benches—Government and Opposition—are listening to the views that have been expressed.
I shall offer one argument additional to those that the noble Baroness has set out. In addition to regulatory sanctions against the providers of these online services, and in addition to any possible criminal remedies that may arise, there is also the possibility of civil sanctions: claims for damages brought by groups of parents who have the misfortune to have had their children dealt with in this appalling way. Any such claim for damages would be immeasurably assisted were the providers of the online services to have a legal duty to risk-assess the likelihood of their services being used in this way.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I was also at the meeting, which has been referred to, that was held this lunchtime and dealt with the troubling question of what seems to be an epidemic of growth in the exploitation of children on the internet. I must say that it revealed figures that I was not aware of, and I regard myself as relatively well briefed on this matter.
Further information came out today—particularly from the work, which has already been alluded to, by Members who were present at that meeting—that much of the of the material that is seen online also moves across into the real world. The use of these elements on the internet to groom children, to set up meetings with them and then to participate with them in illegal acts has been growing to a point where it is quite clearly an epidemic that must be dealt with. We are at the start of something extraordinarily unpleasant that needs to be looked at in the round, in a way that we have not yet done or been able to do.
Having been heavily involved in the Online Safety Act, I am conscious of the fact that we are dealing with legislation which has been overtaken by technology. The developments that have happened since we the Bill became an Act have meant that the tools we thought were being given to Ofcom and being used by the Government are very often no longer appropriate. They are probably not as far-reaching and certainly do not deal with the speed with which this technology is moving forward.
I have not been able to attend any meetings which Ministers may have had with my own side on this, but I gather that there is a Whip on against this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could think hard about how he wants to play this issue out. It seems that one of the problems we have in dealing with legislation in this area is that we are never dealing with the right legislation. We want to amend the Online Safety Act but obviously, by moving an amendment to this Bill, which is from another department, we are not maximising the chances of having an output which will work. In addition, the way Ofcom is interpreting the Act seems to make it very difficult for it to reach out on new technologies, such as those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her excellent speech introducing the amendment.
In a moment of transition, when we are so keen to try to grasp things so that they do not get out of our control, there may be a case for further work to be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that she was happy to try to look again at the wording of her amendment if it is not appropriate for the Government. I am conscious that the Government are also trying to move in other areas and that other departments are also issuing measures which may or may not bear directly on the issue. It seems that there is a very strong case—although I do not know how my noble friend will respond—for asking for this issue to be kept alive and brought back, perhaps at Third Reading, where a joint amendment might be brought between the noble Baroness and her supporters and the Government to try to make sure that we do what we can, even if it is not the complete picture, to take this another step down the road.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I will make a very small intervention because people have spoken so eloquently before me. I support the amendment 100% and I am surprised that the Front Benches are not taking a different view. For crying out loud, I am not easily shocked but the briefing that we have all spoken about that we went to this afternoon shocked me. We are so behind the curve on this and we have to get ahead of it, so I support the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is saying about Third Reading, but it would be wiser to vote for this amendment now—if noble Lords have any conscience at all, they have to vote for it—and if it is slightly defective it can be amended at Third Reading. If we do not do it now, there is a huge risk of it not coming back.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I strongly support Amendment 209, which was so convincingly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was very pleased to have signed it, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes.
This amendment is a vital safeguard against the “innovation first, safety later” culture of big tech. Although the Bill will rightly prohibit the creation of models specifically designed to generate CSA images, it remains silent on general-purpose models that can be easily manipulated or jailbroken to produce the same horrific results. As the unacceptable use of tools such as Grok—referred to by my noble friend Lady Benjamin in her powerful speech—has recently illustrated, we cannot leave the safety of our children to chance. We face a technological and moral emergency. The Internet Watch Foundation, represented at the meeting today which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend mentioned, has warned of a staggering 380% increase in confirmed cases of AI-generated child exploitation imagery. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right that the extent of this abuse is sickening beyond imagination.
The amendment would mandate a safety-by-design intervention, requiring providers to proactively risk-assess their services and report identified risks to Ofcom within 48 hours. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, pushed back against this proposal, arguing that it
“would place unmanageable and unnecessary operational burdens on … the National Crime Agency and Ofcom”.—[Official Report, 27/11/25; col. 1533.]
He further claimed that these measures risk creating “legal uncertainty” by “duplicating” the Online Safety Act. Both assertions need rebutting. First, protecting children from an industrial-scale explosion of AI-generated abuse is not an unnecessary burden; it is the primary duty of our law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Secondly, we cannot rely on the theoretical protections of an Online Safety Act designed for a world before generative AI. Ofcom itself has maintained what might be called a tactical ambiguity about how the Act applies to stand-alone AI chatbots and large language models.
Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who we will support if she puts the amendment to a vote, we ask for an ex ante duty: providers must check whether their models can be used to generate CSAM before they are released to the public. Voluntary commitments and retrospective enforcement are simply not enough. The Government have already committed to this principle; it is time to put that commitment into statute. I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 209 and ensure that we move away from ex post measures that address harm only after a child has been victimised.
The current definitions of “search” and “user-to-user” services do not neatly or comprehensively capture these new generative technologies. We cannot allow a situation where tech developers release highly capable models to the public without first explicitly checking whether they can be used to generate CSAM. Voluntary commitments and retrospective civil enforcement are simply not enough. We need this explicit statutory duty in the Bill today and I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 209.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of relevant online services to assess and address the risks that their platforms may be used for the creation, sharing or facilitation of child sexual abuse material, placing a strengthened duty on them to take preventive action. More than anyone in this Chamber, I fully recognise the intention behind strengthening preventive mechanisms and ensuring that providers properly assess and mitigate risks to children. Requiring companies to examine how their services may facilitate abuse is, in principle, entirely sensible. The scale and evolving nature of online exploitation means that proactive duties are essential.
However, I have some concerns about the proposed mechanism, on which I hope the Minister may also be able to provide some input. The amendment appears to rely on providers conducting their own risk assessments. That immediately raises several practical questions, such as what objective standard those assessments would be measured against, whether there would be statutory guidance setting out minimum criteria, and how consistency would be ensured across companies of vastly different sizes and capabilities. There also remains the crucial question of what enforcement mechanisms would apply if an assessment was superficial or inadequate. Without clear parameters and oversight, there is a danger that such a system could become uneven in practice.
I would welcome reassurance from the Minister as to how the Government intend to ensure that risk-based duties in this space are transparent and robust for the purposes of child protection. The question is not whether we act, but how. We all share the same objective of reducing the prevalence of child sexual abuse material and protecting children from exploitation. The challenge is ensuring that the mechanisms we legislate for are clear and enforceable in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, for tabling Amendment 209 and for her commitment to doing all we can to prevent online harms. I was struck strongly by the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Bertin, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Russell of Liverpool, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
This is a really serious issue. The Government are committed to making sure that we have constructive engagement with the noble Baroness, as I have tried to do, including one formal and one informal meeting this very day, to ensure that we can make this work in the interests of what everybody in this House wants to do: to ensure, particularly given the rapid development of technology, that the public, and especially children, are safeguarded from harm. This Government are committed to tackling sexual exploitation and abuse and ensuring that new technologies are developed and deployed responsibly. I know that that matters; I know that it is important, and I know that this Government want to make sure that we deal with it.
A few weeks ago, the Grok AI chatbot was used to create and share vile, degrading and non-consensual intimate deepfakes. This House should ensure that no one lives in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology. From the Prime Minister to the DSIT Secretary, we said at the time that we will do something to stamp out this demeaning and illegal image production.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
If I was in the same meeting as the Minister, officials were unable to say that LLMs and generative models would be covered by that amendment. Indeed, they said that the policy of the Government was chatbots only. Chatbots are the subject of another amendment that I have tabled, which we will come to later. We have to be clear that the amendment in front of us remains only because I was told this afternoon that the new government amendment would not cover the same territory.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The government amendment has been tabled. I am asking the noble Baroness—whether she does this is self-evidently a matter for her—to withdraw her amendment and look at the amendment that we have tabled today on a cross-party basis and on behalf of DSIT and the Home Office, the department that I represent. That amendment will be debated around 18 March, and she can make comments on it at that stage. I am trying to meet the needs of the House and the Government to respond to what are complex and difficult challenges. All I will say is that, by bringing more AI services into the scope of the Online Safety Act, we will ensure that there is a clear and consistent regulatory framework that will allow us to hold companies to account.
In Clause 93, we have introduced the technology testing defence that will enable persons authorised by the Secretary of State to test technology for these harms. The defence will give providers reassurance to test the robustness of their models’ safeguards, identify weaknesses and design out harmful inputs. This, in turn, will reduce the risk of their models being criminally misused, particularly to abuse women and children. This further supports all AI companies in scope of the Online Safety Act with their risk-assessment obligations.
Given those measures—the noble Baroness will have to make a judgment on this—but the Government consider that Amendment 209 is therefore unnecessary as it cuts across the approach that I have outlined to date both in the Bill, in Clause 93 and the clauses I outlined earlier, and the proposed amendment that I shared with her as best I could prior to this debate. The House has a chance to look at that now that it is published. This cuts across that duty and imposes a broad statutory duty on online services, duplicating regulatory mechanisms, and it could create legal uncertainty. The noble Lord, Clement-Jones, challenged me on that, but that is the view of Ministers, officials and our legal departments. We are worried about the similar enforcement routes outside the Online Safety Act framework.
We take this seriously. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made are extremely important. I was not able to attend the briefing earlier, but I know how much that has impacted Members who have spoken today. The National Crime Agency and police will play a key role in protecting children from UK child abuse. It is warned that the scale and complexity of online child sexual abuse are resulting in tens of millions of annual referrals of suspected online sexual abuse. Policing resources are best spent on protecting children and arresting offenders, so it is appropriate that Ofcom continues to play a critical regulatory role in preventing and tackling the AI generation of child sexual abuse material.
I have tried to persuade the noble Baroness but, if I have not succeeded, there will have to be a Division. I do not want there to be one because I think this House should speak with one voice on tackling this issue. The laudable objectives of the amendment are, we believe, better addressed through both the existing legislative framework and the targeted government amendment we have tabled today to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to bring illegal content duties in line for chatbots. This will mean that providers need to mitigate potential risks to prevent children facing such abuse.
I hope I have convinced the noble Baroness. Again, I apologise to the House for the lateness of the tabling of the amendment. We are trying to work across government on this, and that amendment will be debated on 18 March. In light of that, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, as a point of information, I feel it would be useful to say that Clauses 64 and 65, to which the Minister refers, are in fact a narrowing of an original amendment, laid by me and other noble Lords, that the Government deliberately narrowed so that it deals only with electronic files that have been deliberately and exclusively created to create child sexual abuse. I very much welcome those clauses. However, if the Government had not narrowed that amendment, I would not be standing here today with this amendment.
I am grateful for the Minister’s time, and I am happy with the chatbot amendment as far as it goes—and inasmuch as I have seen it an hour before everyone else—but it does not deal with this issue. I rang the Minister this morning and asked for a meeting to say, “If you can tell me that this is covered by the chatbot amendment or that it’s already covered in another way, I will back down”. But I am afraid that nobody could tell me that, because it is not. That is just how it is.
I say to the noble Lord speaking for the Official Opposition, no, no, no. It is not okay to say, “We must work out how to do this”. This is an opportunity to work out how. We always do it this way. We pass an amendment; we get a power; and Ofcom and the Government do the guidance. I say to the whole House, and particularly to my friends on the Labour Benches who may be considering voting against this, have any of you seen child sexual abuse made out of your image? I have. It is not funny; it is serious and it is easily done. I think it is unacceptable to vote against an amendment that says only, “Risk assess”. It is not okay to put a product out in the world if you do not have any responsibility for the harm it causes. So, I do not expect to win, because the Government are whipping against and the Opposition are sitting on their hands, but I think it is important to say to the people who are in a vortex of this kind of abuse that at least some of us in this House have their backs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
When the noble Baroness says that some of us in this House are concerned about this issue, I want to say to her that all of us in this House are concerned about this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and myself have many differences in this House, but we are at one in trying to improve the position of the regulations to tackle this issue. The amendment that I have tabled is a very important step forward on behalf of the Government, on a DSIT and Home Office basis, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord. I do not want to have a Division in this House. The Government and the Opposition may well win that vote, but I do not want that Division to happen; I want us to go forward in a constructive way, to look at the amendments that are tabled and to make a change that really benefits people.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I say to the noble Lord that there is only one way to prevent a Division on this issue, which is either to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that it is covered, or that we will keep it alive until Third Reading so that we can make sure that it is covered. If I have insulted anyone by suggesting that only some of us are willing to walk through the Lobby to protect children from child sexual abuse, forgive me, but unless the Minister has something to say, then as a matter of principle I shall divide the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to the operation of the CSA image-generator offence in Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
“(c) “thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17. It also clarifies that a service can be a CSA image-generator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66, page 85, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(a) to make or adapt a thing for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) to possess, supply or offer to supply a thing (a “CSA image-generator”) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to clarify the operation of the CSA image-generator offence in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
“(c) “thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9. It also clarifies that a service can be a CSA image-generator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 67, page 89, line 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Baroness Levitt
“(ia) sections 8A to 8C (rape and other offences against children under 16);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16), inserted after clause 73.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 234, 235, 237, 249, 250, 448 and 467, which will give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. She recommended that the law should be changed so that an adult who engages in penetrative sexual activity with a child who is under 16 is charged with rape. I thank the noble Baroness for the audit. She worked closely with us as we developed these offences, and it was important to us to ensure that we met her objectives. I thank her for her strong support of the Government’s proposals.
We are taking a two-stage approach, starting with the amendments being debated today. These will create new offences covering rape and other penetrative sexual activity with a child who is under 16 by an adult. The important thing to note is that the prosecution does not have to prove that the child did not consent, so ostensible or purported consent or reasonable belief in consent is completely irrelevant. This eliminates any question of whether an under-16 seemed to have consented. All that matters is the age of the child. If the child is under 13, the defendant’s belief about their age is irrelevant. If the child is aged 13 to 15, an adult who believed that the child was aged 16 or over would not be guilty, but only if that belief was reasonably held. This mirrors the existing approach to sexual offences committed against children.
The maximum penalty for these offences will be life imprisonment, and these offences will sit alongside existing ones in relation to sexual activity with and towards children. The Crown Prosecution Service will therefore retain discretion to charge the full range of child sex offences where appropriate, though we expect that the use of other offences will be very limited. As with existing offences against children under 13, the CPS will prioritise the more serious charges. We are also tabling the necessary consequential amendments, such as ensuring that where the relevant criteria are met, offenders will be eligible for extended determinate sentences.
This brings me to the second stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was clear in her audit that the law in this area needs to be changed to ensure that children are treated as children. Alongside our new offences, we are committed to doing two things. We are going to carry out a public consultation to look at how to treat what are known as “close-in-age relationships” within the cohort of relevant child sexual offences. This responds to the noble Baroness’s recommendation that the Government should consider a close-in-age exemption to prevent the criminalisation of teenagers who are in relationships with each other.
We will also conduct a post-implementation review of the new offences to test the impact they are having. We know that there are some concerns about the element of reasonable belief in age, and this review will look closely at how that works in practice. I assure the House that the Government will continue to progress this work as a matter of priority to ensure that we get the law right in the long term. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we believe that Amendment 235 delivers on the crucial recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her national audit. By creating these strict liability offences where consent is rightly irrelevant and the offence of reasonable belief in age cannot apply, these clauses send an important signal making it unambiguously clear that no adult can claim ignorance or excuse when preying on the young and vulnerable.
The audit explained how grooming gangs repeatedly evaded rape charges for penetrative sex with 13 to 15 year-olds. Cases were downgraded or dropped because victims were misperceived as having consented or been in love with abusers, despite children under 16 being legally incapable of consent. Perpetrators avoided accountability by claiming it was reasonable to believe their victims were older than 16, perhaps due to their demeanour or because they had fake ID. These clauses strip away both loopholes for good, and on these Benches we give them our full support.
The intent of Amendment 236 to elevate penetrative offences against young teens to rape is laudable, but, as we signalled in Committee, we have several concerns. Mandating rape charges for every act of intercourse with a child under 16 may sound resolute, but it introduces unnecessary evidential hurdles and extra elements that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which could result in guilty offenders walking free. Forcing every case into a life sentence framework risks deterring pleas from defendants and unnerving juries, driving up acquittals on technicalities. Amendment 236 also retains the “reasonable belief in age” defence, which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted—offenders have exploited to evade justice. We believe the Government’s approach offers a surer path to protecting vulnerable children, and it has our support.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we support the Government’s approach and indeed welcome it. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I tabled an amendment in the same form, in essence, as Amendment 236 in this group. The amendment would create a specific offence of rape of a child under 16 to close the loophole in the current law whereby an adult who has sexual intercourse with a child between 13 and 15 is not automatically charged with rape. That was one of the key recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. In Committee, these Benches were critical of the fact that, although the Government had accepted the noble Baroness’s recommendation to do this, they had not brought forward a legislative proposal to change the law. With Amendment 235, they have done exactly that.
I am also pleased that they have gone slightly further and included within the scope assault by penetration and causing a child to engage in sexual activity. Overall, this is a welcome step and, in light of it, we will not press Amendment 236 to a Division.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the acknowledgement by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, that, in essence, Amendment 236 covers the same ground as the government amendments. I commend the noble Lords for bringing forward their amendment and making sure that it is on everybody’s radar. As the noble Lord said, the Government’s amendments go further than Amendment 236 was intended to, in that it covers all penetrative activity, not just penile penetration, and it is accompanied by all the necessary consequential amendments, such as ensuring, when relevant criteria are met, that offenders are eligible for extended determinate sentences.
We are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her work and bringing about this important change. It makes it absolutely clear that penetrative sexual activity between adults and children under 16 is fundamentally wrong, cannot be excused by any suggestions about consent and will be treated with the utmost seriousness.
Baroness Levitt
“Sexual offences against children under 16(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 8 insert—“Rape and other offences against children under 16
8A Rape of a child under 16(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with A’s penis, and(b) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.8B Assault of a child under 16 by penetration(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of A’s body or anything else,(b) the penetration is sexual, and(c) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13. (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.8C Causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity within subsection (2),(b) the activity is sexual, and(c) either—(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or(ii) B is under 13.(2) An activity is within this subsection if it involves—(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina,(b) penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,(c) penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or(d) penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”(3) In section 73(2) (exceptions to aiding, abetting and counselling) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) an offence under section 8A or 8B (offences against children under 16);”.(4) Schedule (Sexual offences against children under 16: consequential amendments) contains minor and consequential amendments.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause creates new offences of rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a sexual activity involving penetration, in relation to children under 16.
Baroness Levitt
“(ca) an offence under any of sections 8A to 8C of that Act (rape and other offences against children under 16),”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16), inserted after clause 73.
Lord Katz
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends subsection (6)(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all minor and technical in nature. Amendments 238 and 251 modify provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10, which provide for the new grooming aggravating factor and relate to the duty to report child sexual abuse respectively. In each case, the provisions refer to a run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. When the Bill was originally drafted, this run of offences all related to offences against children, which are relevant to the provisions in Clause 75 and Schedule 10. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 has since added two adult-related offences into the run of offences at Sections 66 to 67A of the 2003 Act, specifically at Sections 66E and 66F. These two amendments simply remove the new adult-focused offences from the list of relevant offences in Clause 75 and Schedule 10.
Amendment 388 to Schedule 18 adds to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill an amendment of a provision recently inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code. Finally, Amendments 447, 453 and 454 provide that the provisions on child sexual abuse image generators at Clause 65, costs protections at Clause 162 and anonymity for firearms officers at Clauses 168 to 171 all have UK-wide extent, as was the original drafting intention. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They seem to be entirely reasonable and we support their implementation.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Official Opposition’s support for these amendments.
Lord Nash
“Action to forestall the sexual exploitation of children by combating CSAM(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must, for the purpose of forestalling the sexual exploitation of children, make and bring into force regulations which require manufacturers, importers and distributors of relevant devices to satisfy the CSAM requirement specified in subsection (2).(2) The ‘CSAM requirement’ is that any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM using that device.(3) The duties of manufacturers, importers and distributors to comply with the CSAM requirement specified by regulations under subsection (1) must be subject to enforcement as if the CSAM requirement was a security requirement for the purposes of Part 1 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must—(a) enable the Secretary of State, by further regulations, to expand the definition of ‘relevant devices’ to include other categories of device which may be used to record, transmit or view CSAM, and (b) protect the privacy of the users of relevant devices through making provision to ensure that software of the kind required by subsection (2) does not, and cannot be used to, collect, retain, copy or transmit any data outside of the relevant device on which it is operating, or determine by any means the identity of the user of the relevant device on which it is operating.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) For the purposes of this section—“CSAM” means images, video recordings or live videos involving child sexual abuse, including—(a) any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child within the meaning of the Protection of Children Act 1978, and(b) any prohibited image of a child, within the meaning of section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, that is not an excluded image within the meaning of section 63 of that Act;“relevant devices” are smartphones or tablet computers which are either internet-connectable products or network-connectable products for the purposes of section 5 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022;“manufacturer”, “importer”, “distributor” and “supply” is each as defined in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to forestall the sexual exploitation of children by mandating the installation of software which prevents the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material on smartphones, tablets, and subsequently other devices, which are supplied for use in the UK.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly the fact that I am—and have been for many years—an investor in many technology companies, mainly software companies.
I do not think I need to spend too much time telling noble Lords of the appalling worldwide industry of child sexual abuse, as I know many noble Lords are only too aware of it. There have been many powerful speeches about it already today and I went through it in quite a lot of detail in Committee, but I will mention a few facts. It is estimated that in the Philippines alone, one in every 100 children is coerced into this industry, often with their parents’ consent, for the gratification of paedophile customers across the world. It is estimated that around 70 million child sexual abuse images are floating around the internet, many of which are of very young children and some—quite a few, sadly—even of babies, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned earlier. Many depict incest.
Some of the victims in these images have been viewed tens of millions of times. Imagine what it is like as a young girl or an adult walking down the street and seeing a man—it would be a man—look at you and peer at you for a few seconds, and to wonder whether that man has seen you raped online. With the advent of AI, it is, as we now know, possible using just text to speech to generate increasingly appalling images.
Depending on whose statistics you look at, this country is the second or third-largest consumer of this dreadful stuff in the world. The National Crime Agency issued a report last month saying that it arrests 1,000 paedophiles a month in this country. There were tens of thousands of outstanding investigations, and it is estimated that there are well over half a million offenders in the UK alone. For some offenders, this online abuse is a gateway to real-life contact abuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has mentioned already. There is no doubt that some of this is fuelled by addiction to pornography and the desire for even more extreme content.
Under existing legislation, material can be taken down only once it has been seen—often by children. With livestreaming of this abuse, which is a very large industry, the images are watched in the moment and often immediately taken down. The tech companies already have methods of taking down much of this non-livestreamed material, but most of them are not using these methods effectively. Technology is now available to block on device the viewing of child sexual abuse images, or the making or livestreaming of them.
My amendment would mandate that this technology be installed on smartphones and tablets supplied in the UK. Of course, it would be open to manufacturers to develop their own technology to do that if they did not want to purchase a third-party product. Everyone I have spoken to, from regulators to technology experts and the companies themselves, is completely confident that that can be done. The problem is not the technology; it is achieving very high accuracy levels, at 99%, and very low false positives, at under 1%.
Of course, the Government will also need to be satisfied that the technology works effectively. Several discussions about this have already taken place between the Home Office, DSIT, the Internet Watch Foundation and the technology company I introduced to them. The Government may also initially, at least because of the difficulty sometimes of telling a 16 or 17 year-old from an 18 year-old, want to bring it in effective for a lower age. Since at least half of children being abused are under 13, that would be a very good start. My amendment would require the regulations to be brought into force within 12 months, but the regulations could mandate a further period for implementation.
Noble Lords will have noted that in place of my original Amendment 239, I now have down Amendment 239A. The difference is the addition of proposed new Clause 4(b) to ensure user privacy, which is perfectly possible under the technology because it is on the device; the data is not stored and does not go into the cloud.
We have the opportunity under the Bill to effectively hamper this appalling activity—indeed, industry—thereby saving and protecting many children from harm. I believe we have a moral obligation to pass this into law.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 239A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, as I believe we need to protect our children, however and wherever we can, from child sexual abuse material being created and shared. Shockingly, over 70 million images—yes, 70 million—are being circulated around the world, far beyond these shores, via the scourge of the online world. There is sexual imagery involving children as young as seven to 11, being exploited and watched by an ever-growing audience. This is not only immoral but cruel, despicable and illegal. It makes me weep to think that children’s childhood is being snatched away from them as we speak.
Organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation have helped to secure arrests of those for CSAM offences but, despite those arrests, the number of offenders continues to grow. Demand is not being diminished; it is being fed by sick-minded, perverted individuals. Heartbreakingly, where demand for new imagery grows, so does the abuse of real children to produce it.
Social media is central to how offenders operate. Some 40% of CSAM offenders attempted to contact a child after viewing material, with 70% doing so online, mostly through social media, gaming and messaging platforms, while 77% of offenders found CSAM on the open web, with 29% citing social media.
I have met young people who have remained victims of this vile practice years after they became adults. They describe the ongoing harm they suffer because the images of their abuse remain in circulation. They have had their abuse material viewed millions and millions of times. Research has confirmed that survivors with an online element to their abuse found significantly higher levels of long-lasting harm, including depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harm, substance abuse, social isolation and sexual dysfunction, compared with survivors whose abuse was never recorded or shared online.
The cruelty that these survivors must endure extends even further. Some are actively hunted in adult life by offenders seeking to see how they look today. Can your Lordships believe this? With AI, offenders are now generating new abuse imagery featuring adult survivors—in some cases producing material in which the survivor appears to be abusing their younger self. Does that not make you want to cry?
Imagine if it was your child or grandchild, and what it means to live that reality. Imagine a survivor, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, described, walking down the street, catching the eye of a stranger and immediately, involuntarily, thinking, “Have you seen the image of me being abused?” Does that not make your heart bleed? This is the daily experience of people whose abuse is permanently accessible online.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for tabling this amendment. We are all familiar with regular updates on our smartphones that eat more and more of the memory and use up more and more of the battery. They happen systematically, usually for security reasons, very regularly and seamlessly. However, I was not aware, until the noble Lord tabled his amendment and we had some discussions and meetings around it, that the technology that we are talking about to intercede and stop our devices being able to access or use this sort of material already exists to some degree on our telephones. Who among us who has an iPhone, like me, knew that the software to prevent and screen child sexual abuse material already exists but can be activated only if you go into the parental controls and turn it on—at which point it then starts working? I had no idea that that was embedded in my phone.
The technology exists. The large manufacturers of these gadgets already have access to that technology. In some instances, they have already developed it to a very sophisticated level but, for all sorts of reasons, have chosen not to roll it out. One of the major arguments used against this sort of thing being rolled out is from the free speech brigade—one of whose protagonists I am glad to see is not in the Chamber today. They will always say that free speech trumps everything else. It is an unfortunate choice of verb, but that is the argument put forward.
But the reality is that the technology we are talking about works in such a way that in no way, shape or form does it prevent free speech. It does not in any way, shape or form intervene with those platforms which are encrypted. It operates separately to those platforms but works in such a way that, without revealing what is going on in those encrypted messages, it stops the sort of material that we are talking about actually getting involved in the first place. In my view, that is not exactly an interdiction of free speech.
For all these reasons, I ask the Government to look at this very carefully and closely. We are not dealing with some wonderful space age technology that has yet to be developed; we are talking about technology which already exists. There are individuals who have a huge amount of knowledge and experience in this area. It is probably a brilliant example of His Majesty’s Government pursuing one of their avowed aims, which is to work more closely with foreign jurisdictions together in this sort of area.
For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will give a positive response, and that we will not have, “Oh, it is very difficult”, or, even worse, that we will have a consultation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking on issues related to online safety, I seem to spend most of my time apologising for the fact that the Act is not as up-to-date, efficient or effective as it should be, but here is another example of where technology has overtaken the good work that we did all those years ago to try to bring forward that legislation.
I learned about this at the same meeting that has been referred to already. At first sight, it looks as though it is an answer to a lot of problems that we have with the way in which younger people in particular interact with the internet. Those of us who were involved in pursuing what is now the Online Safety Act will be aware that we were largely looking at the user end of the material and cycle, looking at the apps and their interactions, that were being generated by those who were involved in servicing the internet. We did not look at technology in the hardware side at all and had no real thought about anything that we were dealing with in the then Bill affecting it. Yet this seems a very interesting and easy-to-adopt technology that would solve a lot of problems in relation to issues about the spread of material, which we would think should not be available where there are things like age bars or other means of providing gaps in the access to it.
There are always going to be problems with how we manage the changeover between childhood and adulthood, and we are aware that the technology is moving fast on that as well. It may well be that what is current today may be out of date by the time this Bill becomes law. But the Government should look very closely at the way in which this technology operates to prevent, at the equipment level, access to material which should not be seen by children particularly.
There will, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, be issues about free speech, and I do not think we should underestimate those. There are obviously ways in which this could be used against societal values; but for the particularity of how children are to be protected, making it impossible for them to access material, which they should by law not see, on the equipment they buy seems a very useful way forward, and I commend it to Ministers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Let me say from the outset that, in principle, on these Benches we conditionally support Amendment 239A, which has been spoken to so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
The noble Lord very clearly set out the urgent issues involved, as did my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and all of us who were there in the same meeting which we have referred to before. We are at a technological and moral crisis point, as we have debated in a previous group regarding child sexual abuse material online. We face a children’s mental health catastrophe, and the ubiquity of child sexual abuse material is a central driver of that catastrophe.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has explained that his amendment would mandate that manufacturers and importers of smartphones and tablets ensure their devices satisfy a CSAM requirement to prevent the creation, viewing, and sharing of such material.
The question, however, clearly arises as to whether this would undermine encryption or privacy. We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in his revised Amendment 239A, does indeed include a duty of privacy in his regulations. In my view, the thing to avoid is the chance that a technological fix of this kind could involve some degree of surveillance. I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that, at first sight, the technology looks extremely promising, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, but, before taking this further, we need to be absolutely sure about the robustness of this technology and its impact on privacy.
By requiring software to be preloaded at the system level, we would move away from the model of parental controls and platform responsibility, and we would place the duty on the manufacturers who profit from these devices. Quite apart from that, we do, of course, also need to ensure that the platforms take action.
The Minister may promise further consultation, but we do not need much more consultation to know that the status quo is failing; we need to find a solution now rather than playing an endless game of digital catch-up. As other others have urged, I hope that the Government will take a look at this proposal urgently, closely and seriously.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses one of the gravest and most distressing areas of criminality: the sexual exploitation of children and the creation and circulation of child sexual abuse material. There will be no disagreement among noble Lords about the objective behind these amendments. The scale of this crime is deeply alarming and becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated. The question before us is not whether we act but how.
I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash. Once again, I entirely understand and support the underlying aim. The goal of ensuring that devices supplied in the UK have highly effective, tamper-proof system software capable of preventing the transmission or viewing of CSAM is a commendable one. Preventing abuse at source is always preferable to prosecuting it after the harm has occurred.
I recognise that Amendment 239A includes express provisions intended to safeguard user privacy, requiring that any such software must operate in a way that does not collect, retain, copy or transmit data outside the device, nor determine the identity of the user. It also provides for affirmative parliamentary approval of the regulations.
However, it is still hard to overlook the practical challenges that may arise from this amendment. Determined offenders frequently exploit encrypted platforms and modify operating systems, often using overseas-hosted services. A requirement limited to devices supplied for use in the UK could be circumvented by overseas purchases or software alterations. Even with privacy safeguards written into the regulation-making power, this amendment may still raise complex issues relating to encryption, cyber security, technical feasibility and enforcement. Mandating tamper-proof software across all relevant devices would represent a significant expansion of the regulatory framework established under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.
While I strongly support the objective of forestalling child sexual exploitation and disrupting the circulation of abuse material, I am not yet persuaded that this amendment provides a workable legislative solution. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are strengthening preventative technology and ensuring that industry plays a meaningful role in protecting children, while maintaining a framework that is technically feasible and legally robust.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for setting out his amendments. I know that he met last week with the Minister, my noble friend Lady Lloyd, and I hope that was a productive discussion. I was pleased to meet with him as well—I have lost track of the date, but it was some time in the last few months—when he graciously brought along representatives of companies that are developing the technology he talked about today. I found that meeting useful.
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s intention to protect children through this amendment, and I want to be clear, as I was on the previous amendment, that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and prevent the spread of CSAM online. I hope that my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, showed that this is a matter the Government are taking seriously. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images. We strongly agree that nudity detection on a device is an effective way in which this could be achieved.
Lord Nash (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and to the other Members who have spoken today. I am satisfied that the Government are seized of this issue. I do not think it will be difficult to satisfy them and Members of this House and the other place that the technology works, the privacy issues can be sorted and we can deal with all their concerns. On the basis of the commitment the Minister has made today, I will not be testing the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248B, 263 and 265. I have also added my name to Amendments 257 and 264, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, which I strongly support. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not able to be in his place today, but I share his concerns about protecting children from harm. These two amendments seek to fill the gap caused by Clause 84, which was raised in Committee, and I believe they are proportionate. The current clause does not cover a multitude of ways in which reports of abuse can be concealed, and it allows many who intentionally conceal to slip through the net.
Clause 84 is triggered only when the person acting to conceal abuse does so by blocking or deterring someone under the new duty from making a report, so the two amendments seek to strengthen what is currently there. It is broader than the current clause, which we believe currently means that it would be a two-tier system. I am not sure how we can justify an offence that would criminalise a teacher but not a religious leader.
Many of the amendments in my name were taken from my Private Member’s Bill on this, but I took some time to consider what should be a priority, and those are Amendments 246 and 248B. For clarity, I will not be seeking to divide on any others in my name in the group, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on Amendments 246 and 248B.
Like others, I have been working on this issue for a number of years. In 2015 the then Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, asked me to author a report on duty of care in sport. Mandatory reporting was high on the list of issues that needed to be resolved, the other being positions of trust, where the loophole has now partially been closed.
Coaches and volunteers have very positive relationships with young people. These amendments are not to overburden them but to offer protection. Individuals may be worried about reporting so they need more guidance, and a framework of law will do that. No one wants to get it wrong, and we have to be mindful that there may be some malicious reporting.
As a young athlete in my early 20s, I witnessed inappropriate behaviour by a coach—nothing that I could quite put my finger on. You could argue that it was another time when less was known, but we are now seeing a number of historic cases. When I was a young athlete, there was no framework, policy or procedure to be able to raise it. I did not quite have the words to express what I saw, I did not have evidence, I did not witness abuse and there was no direct disclosure, but what I was trying to explain might have triggered greater awareness of this behaviour. I did not know what I now know. Years later, that coach was charged with historic offences in the 1970s and sentenced to seven and a half years in jail.
When the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was announced, I expected much movement. In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults in England and Wales experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. IICSA concluded that child sexual abuse was endemic and permeated all sections of society, and it estimated that more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys have been sexually abused in the UK every year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse.
The IICSA report is quoted in the equality impact assessment saying that current arrangements are confusing, unfocused and ineffective. The Local Government Association estimates that only one in three children who are sexually abused by an adult tell someone. According to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it is estimated that 85% of child sexual abuse goes undetected and unreported. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse, and changes need to be made.
I do not believe that His Majesty’s Government’s proposals go far enough and may make the public think that the IICSA mandatory reporting recommendations are being acted on. I do not believe it will make enough of a difference. The key item in the equality impact assessment is table 1 in paragraph 31, on page 9. Given that the Children’s Commissioner for England estimated in 2015 that only one in eight cases of abuse comes to the attention of the authorities, an increase in reports of 0.3% would bring the proportion of unreported cases from 87.5% all the way down to 87.46%. An increase of 0.3% in the numbers of reports would bring the proportion of reported abuse up from 12.5% to 12.54%.
I will not attempt to pre-guess what the Minister might say, but I am imagining a response that it might stop adults wanting to work with children. That is why I looked at Amendment 246, which would make non-reporting a criminal offence. This was recommended by IICSA to provide for defences in situations where there is reasonable doubt concerning the grounds for suspicion. There are criminal sanctions in many countries—Australia, Croatia, Canada, France and most US states.
It has been a pleasure to work on this issue with the honourable Member for North West Cambridgeshire, Sam Carling MP, who wrote the brilliant Amendment 248B. He also has an adjournment debate tonight on this very topic, and I look forward to that. I thank him for venturing down to our end of the building to sit and listen to this debate. I think both of us would prefer a criminal offence, but I am trying to be pragmatic. The proposed new clause in Amendment 248B seeks to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences. Sam Carling has met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which all want to see His Majesty’s Government criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. He has also met a number of other organisations.
The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence of non-compliance are not enough. While not wanting sanctions that would lead to a criminal record, it very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines. Based on these conversations, Sam’s amendment, which I have tabled, describes how civil sanctions would work based on Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act.
The NSPCC said:
“The use of civil sanctions for failing to make a report under the mandatory duty is supported by the NSPCC. It is their belief that civil and professional sanctions strike the right balance between giving this duty the teeth it needs to ensure compliance, and also framing it as a tool meant to uplift and empower our child protection workforce and volunteers”.
The NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger.
Further, two of the IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday urging her to change course on these issues. They are concerned that the only sanction proposed for the failure to report child sexual abuse under the duty in this Bill is a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service. They said:
“This falls far below what was recommended. Many of the organisations which our report criticised for failing to safeguard children from abuse rely extensively on volunteers who are often not DBS checked or regulated … DBS referral is already a requirement for regulated activity providers when it comes to those believed to pose a risk to children, and it is a criminal offence to fail to do so. We are therefore calling on the Government to, at the very least, implement stronger civil sanctions for failure to comply with the duty”.
They reported no evidence of the “chilling effect” that would discourage people from wanting to work with children. It simply is not there. They go on to urge His Majesty’s Government to strengthen the duty in the Bill to better deliver on the promises they have repeatedly made to implement IICSA.
My final point is about Amendment 262, which is not in my name but in those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton. If they seek to divide the House, I would very strongly support their amendments as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for missing the beginning of her speech on Amendment 240. However, I have checked with the clerk and I believe it is in order that I speak to my amendments in this group.
Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments I made on these and similar amendments in Committee. I will describe what each of my four amendments does and pray in aid not only the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse but a letter, which I will quote from, that members of the board of IICSA wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday last. Having spent seven years hearing evidence about CSA and the reasons why it has been hidden, and having reported in 2022, they were very disappointed when this Bill was published, and even more disappointed when they heard the Minister’s rejection of the measures in these amendments in Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed my noble friend Lady Walmsley’s Amendments 246A, 248, 248A and 262 in this group. I will not repeat the points that she made in her important contribution, other than to say that it is very disappointing that this Government, and indeed the last Government, refused to implement the mandatory reporting recommendations from IICSA.
It is an unusual step for the board of an inquiry to write to the Home Secretary, as it did last Friday, to urge her to implement specific recommendations, but it did. My noble friend Lady Walmsley explained why this was important and why the Government’s worries are unfounded, given that the amendments from her and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, echo the mandatory reporting rules in other countries, including Australia, where it works. I hope that the Minister will have a change of heart.
I heard some ministerial tutting when my noble friend Lady Walmsley was speaking, but she, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the IICSA board all understand that these amendments cover proposals that are essential pillars to finding and stopping child sexual abuse. Without them, there is a real risk that what the Government are proposing will not work in practice.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing back her amendments, and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments in this group. I recall that this topic prompted one of the more robust debates that we had in Committee, and I am grateful for the chance to touch on the key points again.
This group touches on the issue of child sexual exploitation. While the previous groups focused on creating specific offences for crimes against children, these amendments consider the failure to report sexual offences when they occur. As was our position in Committee, we are broadly supportive of the principles behind the noble Baroness’s amendments. I entirely understand her concern that criminal sanctions work as both an impetus for, and as a punishment for not, reporting child sexual abuse, and that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not underpin the duty with an offence.
Similarly, I see the logic in removing Clause 77(6), which removes the duty if the individual in question believes that another person will make a notification, and of Amendment 263, which would remove the “best interests” defence. I accept that this may be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye, which would render the new provision rather meaningless, but I also accept that there needs to be some leeway in reporting duties. Perhaps the Minister can touch on this when he speaks to Amendment 266.
Regrettably, I cannot accept the argument behind Amendments 240 and 242. While I accept that the duty of care lies with the local authority, it is the police forces that are tasked with intervening and arresting those committing child sexual offences. There are undoubtedly cases where it would be necessary to contact police forces first, and I do not think that restricting reporting to simply the local authority is wise.
I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Polak’s amendments, particularly those to Clause 84. Amendment 257 underscores the importance of clear and delineated settings in which these new provisions would be applicable. However, although this is important, I do not think it should be exhaustive. CSA takes place in all walks of life, unfortunately, and confining reporting it to categories risks removing the duty in other places.
My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 264 goes past the current drafting of the Bill, which introduces an offence of preventing or deterring the reporting of child sexual abuse, and would create a new offence of intentionally concealing a child sexual offence. I support the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments and hope the Minister will be sympathetic.
I also support the intention of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We should be guided by evidence, which the IICSA report provided, and that is why the last Conservative Government accepted its findings—a policy we still champion.
On the Minister’s Amendment 266, guidance is the correct and obvious next step. There are many nuances involved in this new provision, as we have heard throughout this debate, and accompanying it with thorough guidance would allow for requirements to be more clearly outlined. That being said, I hope the Minister will now confirm that the guidance will address the concerns raised today, particularly around exceptions to reporting requirements—that would benefit from further guidance from the Secretary of State.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to those who tabled amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was absolutely right: there was ministerial tutting on this Front Bench when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that the Government are looking at “How little can we do?” I refer the noble Baroness, for her interest, to the document we produced on 9 April 2025, which I have just looked up online. It has 87 paragraphs of cross-government action, in response to the Alexis Jay report, that the Government will take on this. I refer her to Clauses 77 to 86 of the Bill, which bring forward amendments. I do not wish to make a party-political point about the previous Government, but there is a point to register here: the Alexis Jay report was produced in October 2022, and this Government have not just brought these clauses before the House but, on 9 April 2025, produced an 87-point response to the legislation. So it is not about how little can we do but about how much we can do from a standing start on 4 July 2024.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am very sorry that the Minister has taken offence at my comments. I accept that this Government have brought forward legislation and taken a number of actions, but I am very much influenced by the disappointment of the IICSA board members. As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, it is very unusual that such people should write in the terms that they have to the Home Secretary. It is in those particular sections of their report they are very disappointed, and so am I. But I am sorry if the Minister was upset and offended by my comments; I never intend that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. I am not upset or offended; I just want to put the record straight. We are trying to deal with this issue, having been in office for just under 20 months. This Bill was produced some time ago, and we put in it a response that meets most of the IICSA recommendations to date. We produced a report on 9 April last year setting out the direction of travel. I am not upset personally; I just want to put this on the record. The noble Baroness cannot say that it is about how little we can do when we are trying to do as much as we possibly can.
On the letter which was mentioned, it was sent on Friday and has gone to the Home Office. I have not seen it myself yet. The noble Baroness may have a copy, and I am sure she will pass it to me in due course. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is itching to give me the letter, but I say to both noble Baronesses that we will respond to it in due course—the Home Secretary will assess its contents.
Lord Mann (Lab)
The Minister gave a commitment earlier, I believe, to read the letter from IICSA. I have not seen the letter, although, unlike anyone from the Home Office, I was one of the two MPs who attended the inquiry. In fact, I represented people for 30 days at the inquiry, so if there are recommendations from those who spent many hundreds of days with the experts on the detail of the inquiry, can I take it that the Minister and his team will read and give consideration to the implications in relation to these or any similar amendments to the legislation that might come from the logic, the conclusions and even the specificity of what IICSA is proposing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I said to noble Lords who raised the issue, we will look at and respond to the letter from the IICSA members, but I have not seen it, I have not got it in front of me and I am not going to respond to it today, even if it is passed to me, because I have to have some collective discussion with colleagues about the points that are raised. I just say to my noble friend that what the Government have tried to do since 4 July 2025—again, I pray in aid the statement, if he has not looked at it, of 9 April 2025 —is to meet the objectives of IICSA as far as we can. We have met an awful lot of the objectives that have been set, and they are before the House in the legislation today.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
I apologise that the Minister has not seen the letter. If I had realised that he had not seen it, I would have made sure he did. I recognise that it is difficult for him to respond to a letter that he has not seen. Will the Minister make a commitment at the Dispatch Box that, if I do not move Amendment 248B, we will be able to have a discussion and I will be able to bring the amendment back at Third Reading, if we are not able to find a suitable route through?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I always try to be helpful, if I can. I do not want to have amendments at Third Reading, and therefore I cannot help the noble Baroness with that request. As I say, I have not seen the letter. It is in the ether of the Home Office system. It has arrived, so it will be acknowledged and responded to. But it was issued only on Friday, as the noble Baroness mentioned; to be fair to the Home Office, that is an issue that we will have to look at. Obviously, we will respond to that letter. I will make sure that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Grey-Thompson, have the response, if appropriate, because they have raised it today. I will check with IICSA that it is happy for me to do so—that is important.
The further amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Amendment 248A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also seek to supplement or remove the criminal offence of preventing a reporter carrying out their duty. Amendments 264 and 248A would provide for proposed thresholds that, again, I cannot accept. The proposed thresholds—when a person “suspects” abuse has taken place, even if that suspicion is poorly founded, the alleged offence never occurred or the relevant concealment actions had no actual effect—are far broader, and harder to justify or prosecute, than interference with a well-known statutory duty. The Government’s preferred model for this type of offence is narrowly targeted, purpose driven and clearly aligned.
On Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on protection for reporters, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 already provides a legal framework for protecting child abuse whistleblowers from dismissal, victimisation or other workplace detriments. Attempting to legislate against, for example, social shunning, reputational harm or informal exclusion would pose significant legal and practical problems.
This Government have progressed the recommendations on IICSA in a significant way since 4 July 2024 when we took office—the House may disagree; that is a matter for the House to take a view on. Beforehand, there was a significant gap of inactivity for a range of reasons that I will not talk about today. We have put potential measures in the Bill, and we have made, through a range of other measures to which I referred earlier, a significant amount of progress on these issues.
I accept that there may be issues that are still being pressed, but the progress that has been made is significant. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to withdraw her amendment and I invite the House to support the government amendments I introduced earlier.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was able to speak. She has worked extensively in this area for decades, and I have leant heavily on her expertise. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, makes the strongest point on the unusual nature of a board writing to the Home Secretary. As I previously said, I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to see that. On page 1 of the letter, paragraph 2 says:
“we are deeply concerned that the mandatory reporting duty, as currently drafted in the Crime and Policing Bill, does not fully reflect our recommendation. In particular, there is: a lack of appropriate sanction for failure to report; an insufficient definition of who should be a mandated reporter; and a narrow trigger for the duty that does not include reasonable suspicion and recognised indicators of abuse”.
I go with the opinion of Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank and, as much as this Government have moved things on, they have not moved things on far enough. While I am happy not to press my Amendments 240 to 246, when it is called I will seek to divide the House on Amendment 248B.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Penalty for failure to uphold duty to report suspected child sex offences(1) The Secretary of State may give a person who acts contrary to section 77 (duty to report suspected child sex offences) a notice requiring them to pay a penalty of a specified amount not exceeding the prescribed maximum.(2) The Secretary of State must issue, and from time to time revise and re-issue, a code of practice specifying factors to be considered by them in determining the amount of a penalty imposed under this section, as well as factors which they will use to assess if the issuance of a penalty would be in the public interest.(3) A penalty notice must—(a) state why the Secretary of State thinks the person is liable to the penalty,(b) state the amount of the penalty,(c) specify a date, at least 28 days after the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is given, before which the penalty must be paid,(d) specify how the penalty must be paid,(e) explain how the person may make an appeal against the penalty, and(f) explain how the Secretary of State may enforce the penalty.(4) Any person in receipt of a penalty notice under this section may appeal to the county court on the ground that they are not liable to the imposition of a penalty because—(a) they are not required to comply with the duty to report child sex offences under section 77,(b) a relevant exemption from that section applies,(c) a report under the duty was made and therefore the penalty was issued in error, or(d) the amount of the penalty is too high.(5) The court may—(a) allow the appeal and cancel the penalty,(b) allow the appeal and reduce the penalty, or(c) dismiss the appeal.(6) An appeal shall be a re-hearing of the Secretary of State's decision to impose a penalty, and shall be determined having regard to— (a) the code of practice under this section that has effect at the time of the appeal, and(b) any other matters which the court thinks relevant (which may include matters of which the Secretary of State was unaware).(7) An appeal must be brought within 28 days of the date the notice was received by the person upon whom it was issued.(8) A penalty under this section is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court. Where action is taken to recovery a penalty under this section, the penalty is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court.(9) Money paid to the Secretary of State by way of penalty must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that civil sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with the duty to report suspected child sex offences.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Levitt
“ScheduleSexual offences against children under 16: consequential amendmentsFirearms Act 1968 (c.27)
1 (1) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Firearms Act 1968 (offences to which section 17(2) applies) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (f), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) section 8A (rape of a child under 16);(fb) section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(fc) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused;”.Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17)
2 (1) Section 1(1A) of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (offences for purposes of section 1) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (e), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) an offence under section 8A or 8B of that Act;(eb) an offence under section 8C of that Act, where the activity involving penetration was caused;”.Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c.26)
3 (1) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (d), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (d) insert—“(da) section 8A or 8B (rape of a child under 16; assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(db) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused;”.Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)
4 (1) Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (early release of prisoners: excluded offences) is amended as follows.(2) In the entry for section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After the entry for section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 insert— “Section 8A (rape of a child under 16).Section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration).Section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused.”Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
5 In Schedule ZA1 to the Children Act 1989 (serious sexual offences for the purposes of section 10C), in paragraph 3 after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) section 8A (rape of a child under 16);(hb) section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(hc) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration);”.Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
6 (1) Section 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (offences to which bail restrictions apply) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (k), for “(3)(a) to (d)” substitute “(2)(a) to (d)”.(3) After paragraph (k) insert—“(ka) an offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16);(kb) an offence under section 8B of that Act (assault of a child under 16 by penetration);(kc) an offence under section 8C of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration), where the activity was caused;”.Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (c. 53)
7 In section 11(9) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (definition of “rape”), for “or 5” substitute “, 5 or 8A”.Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)
8 In section 32ZAB(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (specified offences for purposes of section 32ZAA), after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) an offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16);”.Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)
9 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In section 256AZBB(1) (specified offences for purposes of section 256AZBA), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) an offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16);”.(3) In Schedule 4 (qualifying offences for purposes of section 62), after paragraph 16 insert—“Rape of a child under 16
16A An offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Attempted rape of a child under 16
16B An offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Assault of a child under 16 by penetration
16C An offence under section 8B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration
16D An offence under section 8C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the activity was caused.” (4) In Schedule 5 (qualifying offences for purposes of Part 10) after paragraph 15 insert—“Rape of a child under 16
15A An offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Attempted rape of a child under 16
15B An offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence under section 8A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Assault of a child under 16 by penetration
15C An offence under section 8B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.Causing a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration
15D An offence under section 8C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the activity was caused.”(5) In Part 2 of Schedule 15 (specified sexual offences for purposes of sections 244ZA and 325) after paragraph 109 insert—“109A An offence under section 8A of that Act (rape of a child under 16).109B An offence under section 8B of that Act (assault of a child under 16 by penetration).109C An offence under section 8C of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration).”(6) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 34A (child sex offences for purposes of section 327A), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) sections 8A to 8C of that Act (rape and other offences against children under 16);”.Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c.12)
10 In section 116(8)(a) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (offences constituting child sexual exploitation), after the entry for sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 insert—“sections 8A to 8C (rape and other offences against children under 16);”.Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c.30)
11 In paragraph 33 of Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (sexual offences to which defence in section 45 does not apply), after the entry for section 8 insert—“section 8A (rape of child under 16)section 8B (assault of child under 16 by penetration)section 8C (causing or inciting child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration)”.Sentencing Act 2020 (c. 17)
12 (1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 14 (extended sentences: the earlier offence condition: offences), in the table in paragraph 9, after the entry for section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 insert—
“(ga) Section 8A (rape of a child under 16) |
(gb) Section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration) |
(gc) Section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration)”. |
“(ga) section 8A (rape of a child under 16) | The date on which section 8A comes into force |
(gb) section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration) | The date on which section 8B comes into force |
(gc) section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration) | The date on which section 8C comes into force” |
“(fa) Section 8A (rape of a child under 16) |
(fb) Section 8B (assault of a child under 16 by penetration) |
(fc) Section 8C (causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity involving penetration)”.” |
This new Schedule makes minor and consequential amendments in relation to my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16) inserted after clause 73.
Baroness Levitt
“(ia) sections 8A to 8C (rape and other offences against children under 16);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Sexual offences against children under 16), inserted after clause 73.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends paragraph 2(d) so that it does not include offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as only adults can be victims of those offences).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 8 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 14 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the definition of looking after a child on an individual basis, in paragraph 18 of Schedule 10, to cover supervised contact.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments extending paragraphs of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments extending paragraphs of Schedule 10 to cover supervised activities.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines “regular contact” for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 10.
Baroness Walmsley
“(6A) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed. (6B) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.(6C) A failure to comply with the duty under section 72(1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (6A) or subsection (6B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, in light of the unusual nature of the letter from two members of the board of IICSA to the Home Secretary, I intend to test the opinion of the House. I acknowledge that, when this Government came in, they said that they would agree to and try to implement all the recommendations of IICSA, and they have done a great deal, but I am afraid they have not done so on mandatory reporting. To show support for the amazing work done by the whole of the IICSA board, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the duty under section 77 to persons who engage in relevant activities.(2) Those persons must have regard to the guidance.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.(5) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to revised guidance, except that subsection (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that the revisions are not substantial.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the duty to report child sex abuse.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations changing the persons to whom a notification under clause 77 is to be given.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations adding further exceptions to the duty under clause 77.
“(c) Part 1 of Schedule 10 (child sex offences);(d) Part 2 of Schedule 10 (further relevant activities) so as to add or change an activity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations amending Part 2 of Schedule 10 so that it may only be used to add or change an activity (not remove one).
Baroness Levitt
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision which requires the courts to dismiss certain actions in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sex abuse if there would be substantial prejudice to the defendant and it would not be equitable for the action to proceed.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 270 makes a change to Clause 87. In making this change, the Government are responding to the concerns raised by some of your Lordships in Committee.
Clause 87 itself is vital; it removes the current three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in respect of the abuse committed against them and gives effect to a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. This is needed because many victims and survivors are not able to talk—or even think—about the abuse they suffered until many years afterwards, which is a direct consequence of the abuse itself.
Clause 87 inserts new Section 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980 because it is that Act that makes provision for the dismissal of actions which are outside the time limit for personal injury claims. Under new Section 11ZB(2), if an action is brought outside the usual three-year limitation period, for it to be dismissed the defendant must satisfy the court that a fair hearing cannot take place. Under the current drafting of new Section 11ZB(3), the action may also be dismissed if the defendant demonstrates that allowing the action to proceed would cause them substantial prejudice.
We have listened carefully to the testimony of victims and survivors, and reflected on the amendments debated in Committee, all of which raised concerns about the substantial prejudice test. We decided that they were right. The retention of Section 11ZB(2) alone both implements the relevant IICSA recommendation and ensures that those accused of child sexual abuse maintain their right to a fair hearing. I am therefore pleased to say that Amendment 270 removes new Section 11ZB(3) from Clause 87.
Many have spoken about this, and I pay tribute to them all, but I make special mention of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and Mr Stephen Bernard, who brought this to our attention swiftly. Mr Bernard spoke to me most movingly about his own experiences, and I thank him for this; he has played a big part in ensuring that the Government reached this decision. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, I am very proud that with Clause 87 this Government abolished the time limitations in historical Church child sexual abuse cases. Survivors such as my friend Stephen Bernard, whom my noble friend the Minister referenced, were concerned that the clause, as originally drafted, added a new substantial prejudice, especially for historical cases. This created uncertainty, delays and an extra hurdle for survivors.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for listening to the concerns of survivors such as Stephen, and for tabling Amendment 270. With the removal of lines 31 to 39, the IICSA recommendation has now been adopted in full, thus ensuring better access to justice for the survivors of historical sexual abuse. I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I supported the amendment in Committee, and I echo the thanks given by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to the Minister for listening. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who tabled the original amendment. This is a really important clarification, which will help victims and prevent injustices happening in the future.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for being a little late into the Chamber; things moved much more rapidly than I think any of us anticipated. I spoke about this issue at some length, I fear, at Second Reading, in setting out what I thought were the difficulties legally in this area. In Committee, I invited the Government to give their response to my various submissions, which were effectively that the law, as it existed, provided sufficient safeguards so that claimants could bring their claims much later than the three-year limitation period that applies to a personal injuries claim, provided that they satisfied the various criteria set out in Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
I agree with the Minister that the clause as originally drafted ran the risk of generating further litigation—and I declare my interest in having been involved in a great deal of this kind of litigation over the years. I thought that would be a mistake. I am glad the substantial prejudice provision has been removed from the clause, because it gives some welcome clarity and should minimise the risk of there being further unnecessary litigation in which the precise meaning of the provisions is probed inevitably by one side or another.
This is not quite where I would have liked the law to be, because I think the law is satisfactory as it is. However, I think that I, or anybody else concerned in this area, would differ with the general aim, which is to make sure that those who, for very good reasons, have delayed bringing claims are sufficiently protected by the law and can invite the courts to take into account their delay. The risk that I was concerned about, which was adverted to in the well-known case of A v Hoare, was the real risk that it would be impossible for there to a be a fair trial in certain circumstances because of the lapse of time. Perhaps witnesses have disappeared, documents have gone missing, and then there are all the other factors that can make it impossible for a fair trial to take place.
Although this is not quite the result I would have preferred, I think I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that the Government’s position will preserve those twin aims: to preserve a claimant’s right to bring claims, albeit late, if there is a good reason, but also to protect a defendant if, because of the lapse of time, it is impossible for there to be fair trial. I hope that she can reassure me that she thinks that this definition will preserve the observations made by the House of Lords in A v Hoare that there comes a time when it is simply too late to have a fair trial. A fair trial, of course, will concern a defendant who probably was not in any way responsible for the perpetration of any sexual abuse and, because of the operation of the doctrine of vicarious liability, was deemed to be responsible—such as a school or other institution—because I do not think anybody has any sympathy for the actual perpetrators, however late a claim may be brought.
It is my observation that it is not a wholly satisfactory situation, but I am grateful to the Government for at least removing some of the ambiguity that was in the original way that the clause was framed.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this is a significant amendment which my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, with the support of noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, originally tabled as a probing amendment in Committee. The removal of new Section 11ZB(3) from the Bill is important. If it had remained in the Bill, it would have weakened the removal of limitation periods for civil claims arising from child sexual abuse, correctly introduced by the proceeding provision new Section 11ZA. By removing subsection (3), it is fair to say we send a clear message that the law recognises the particular trauma and complexity that so often characterises historic cases of child sexual abuse.
In Committee, we moved the amendment on the grounds that new Section 11ZB added uncertainty for survivors. Noble Lords from across the House raised concerns then, and have mentioned them today as well, that an additional hurdle could undermine the purpose of the reform and create ambiguity for claimants. I am therefore very pleased that the Minister has had a change of heart. I am tempted to explore further the reasons behind that, but for the time being, I thank her for the change of heart.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House who welcomed this government amendment. On the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, sadly the courts are very used to dealing with non-recent cases of child sexual abuse and the issues of loss of evidence and loss of opportunity to present matters, and I am confident that the courts will be able to deal with that in a fair way. I am pleased to hear that there is overall support for the amendment. I thank again those who raised this with us in Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment creating a new offence of sharing semen-defaced images (see my amendment to Schedule 11, page 321, line 19).
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to be opening today’s debate on intimate image abuse. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that, over the course of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships’ House, I have had a number of extremely helpful conversations on the subjects of pornography, child sexual abuse images, misogyny and a lot of other subjects which, while often distasteful, are important in the fight against violence against women and girls. We will cover some of those issues in this group and others in subsequent groups. I want to say, in relation to all of them, how grateful I am to those Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken the time to speak to me and work with me.
In the context of this group, I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen, Lady Kidron, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Clement-Jones. A substantial part of my career as a lawyer has been spent in the fight against violence against women and children—not only girls—and I thought that I was pretty knowledgeable about it in the context of the criminal law, but I am more than happy to acknowledge that I have learned a great deal from those to whom I have spoken in the context of this Bill, and I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. On a number of occasions, I have changed my mind after speaking to them and I have no doubt that this is a better Bill as a result, and so I thank them.
As a result of what has been said in the debates and other conversations, the Government have tabled a collection of amendments that, taken together, create a package of further changes that strengthen the overall intimate image abuse regime already contained in the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree that they show that the Government are listening and acting.
I have already mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, but I also thank Professor Clare McGlynn; they have both worked hard to keep these issues at the top of the agenda. These amendments are also a tribute to the vital work of organisations such the Revenge Porn Helpline and Refuge and, of course, the victims and survivors themselves, who have taken the courageous and important step of reporting online abuse and raising awareness.
I have already said that I am proud of these amendments, but I am aware that, for some, they do not go far enough. I ask those who will speak to their amendments today to accept two things: that we are all on the same side about the harm that we are trying to prevent and that I am truly committed to trying to get this right. When I say that I cannot accede to something, there is a good reason for it, and I am not refusing to accept amendments for partisan reasons or simply out of stubbornness.
This landscape changes fast and usually not for the better, but there is a reason that we sometimes urge caution before creating new criminal offences and penalties. There can be real dangers in making piecemeal changes as soon as we are confronted by some new horrifying behaviour causing harm to so many victims. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that we do not legislate in haste and then come to regret it. If, in relation to some of these proposals, I ask that the Government are given time to gather more evidence and then consider the best way of going about preventing such behaviour, I ask your Lordships to accept that this comes from a good place—namely, wanting to make sure that any laws we pass capture the crimes we have in mind but do not have unanticipated consequences.
I turn to semen-defaced images. This is not a pleasant thing to discuss in polite society, but I need to make it clear what is meant by this, what the harm is and what we are doing in relation to it. What is meant by semen-defaced images are images of semen deposited on to another image, often a photograph and usually a photograph of a woman. It is disgraceful behaviour. It is designed to degrade and humiliate the woman in the picture, and we cannot tolerate this misogynistic behaviour in a civilised society. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, persuaded me that we should make this a criminal offence and so we have done so. That is why the Government are bringing forward Amendments 271, 278, 279, 290 and 292 today. Together, they introduce a new offence of sharing a semen-defaced image of another person without consent.
This is the first step in stamping out this type of behaviour for good, but it is not the end. We are determined to tackle violence against women and girls in all its forms, and we want to ensure that the criminal law gets ahead of emerging harms. That is why we have announced in the VAWG strategy that we are launching a call for evidence better to understand online misogynistic, image-based abuse and the extent to which there are new harms and behaviour that may not be fully captured by existing criminal offences.
The issue of screenshotting was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, at Second Reading and in Committee. Intimate images are personal and private. Consenting adults are of course free to share them and may do so in ways that are permanent or temporary. A person’s right to share their image temporarily in private must be respected, and if there is a violation of that right, it must be addressed. Government Amendments 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 291, 293, 294 and 295, taken together, make it a criminal offence non-consensually to take a screenshot of, or copy in any way, an intimate image that the victim has shared only temporarily. This offence sits alongside, and mirrors wherever relevant, the other intimate image offences, and it sends a clear message to those who engage in this non-consensual behaviour that it is unacceptable and will be punished.
I briefly turn to the subject of takedown. I know that Amendment 275, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, will be debated later today in a separate group, but I will take a moment to mention the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 19 February. We will bring forward government Amendments at Third Reading in response to Amendment 275 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to ensure that tech companies are legally required to have measures to take down reported non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours to ensure that victims get rapid protection. It is important to refer to this now to demonstrate the Government’s action in this space as a whole. Where we have been able to, we have moved. I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind as we progress through this debate.
I am also pleased to say that Amendments 296 and 456 designate new offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise creating and requesting purported deepfake, non-consensual intimate images as priority offences under the Online Safety Act. As many of your Lordships will know, this means that platforms will face the stronger duties that apply to the most serious illegal content. They will be required to assess specifically the risks of the service being used to facilitate this offence; to mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used to commit the offence; to take proactive steps to prevent users encountering such content; and to minimise the time that such content is present on their platform. There has been understandable public concern over the creation and dissemination of non-consensual sexual deepfakes on X, and the Government have been clear that no woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated. These amendments help put that principle into practice.
Finally, Amendment 455 makes a small minor and technical change in respect of the taking and installing offences in the Bill, and I can provide further details if any of your Lordships would like them. I beg to move.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 273, 274, 275, 276, 284 and 296A in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In doing so, I declare an interest as I have received pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image-based sexual abuse. I will also speak to government Amendments 278, 281 and 296. I want to place on record my support for Amendment 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
I thank the Minister for her determination to make progress on this issue. We have made huge strides since Committee, and I am very grateful. I also thank the survivors and campaigners who have fought for so long for these changes.
Amendment 273 seeks to ensure that in relation to abusers who are convicted of an intimate image abuse offence the court must,
“order the destruction of any content used to commit the offence on any device or data store containing”
it, and that prosecutors,
“lodge a deletion verification report within 28 days”.
While I acknowledge that the Government have updated the law to clarify that this content should be seen as being used to commit the offence under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020, this does not offer victims any guarantee of the total destruction of the content used to commit the crime.
One survivor, Daria, whose convicted abuser was allowed to keep the content of her, said, “The weapons with which he caused life-shattering harm remain in his arsenal. Despite the severity of the crimes, as reflected in the sentences handed down by the Crown Court, I remain at his mercy with regard to whether he chooses to violate me again in the same way”. Daria is not alone in her experience. Shanti Das, a journalist who undertook research on this and published in February 2025, found that of the 98 image-based abuse offences prosecuted in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales in the preceding six months, only three resulted in deprivation orders. It is quite simply appalling. Survivors of this abuse deserve better. On this amendment, I will test the opinion of the House.
Amendments 274 and 276 mandate the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to create a centralised statutory hash registry and mandate hash sharing. The Revenge Porn Helpline currently runs the voluntary register called StopNCII.org and has confirmed that it would be willing to run the centralised registry. The Revenge Porn Helpline does incredible work supporting victims of intimate image abuse and has a 90% success rate on the removal of content. However, 10% of the content is on non-compliant sites.
The amendment seeks to tackle non-compliance by allowing the Revenge Porn Helpline to co-ordinate with internet service providers to mandate the blocking of verified NCII content in cases of non-compliance, thus avoiding the long and bureaucratic process of obtaining business disruption measures under Ofcom that are of little comfort to victims whose image remains online. One victim, Jane, stated that,
“the platform’s slow and inconsistent enforcement left me feeling trapped in a relentless cycle, where the harm snowballed with every hour the abusive content stayed up. Constantly monitoring the internet, reporting the same material, and watching it reappear has taken a huge mental toll”.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 277, which would create a specific criminal offence of secretly filming someone without their consent for sexual gratification or in order to humiliate or distress them. In addition, it would make profiting from such footage a serious aggravating factor for sentencing, bringing clarity to a legal grey area and aligning the law with the reality of abuse in the digital age.
This amendment follows a BBC investigation which exposed the widespread practice of men covertly filming women on nights out and then monetising the footage on online platforms. The BBC identified over 65 channels across YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram posting this content. The material is being filmed in major cities worldwide, including London, and Manchester is a hotspot, with creators travelling from abroad specifically to capture surreptitious low-angle shots of fully closed women in dresses and skirts as they walk along the street. These are then uploaded as so-called “walking tours” or “nightlife content”. These posts have racked up more than 3 billion views in the last three years, with a single video generating up to £5,000 in revenue from ads and sponsorship.
Women and girls deserve to move freely in public without fearing that their bodies will be splashed across the internet without their consent. The problem is that existing voyeurism offences turn on narrow definitions of nudity and privacy. We welcome the Bill’s focus on non-consensual intimate image abuse and support the Government’s amendments and those tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen and Lady Bertin. However, these are confined to images of subjects in an intimate state. Fully clothed people generally fall outside this definition, even when filmed for sexual kicks.
Amendment 277 instead focuses on the degrading and predatory intent, which is where much of the harm lies. It centres on the victim’s humiliation and objectification, rather than on narrow definitions of body parts, clothing or location. It follows Law Commission advice to expand voyeurism legislation to non-private settings, based on intent. This amendment is carefully targeted at those with malign motivations.
In 2024, Greater Manchester Police made an arrest for this practice. However, no further action could be taken due to what the force described as “limitations in current legislation”. Harassment and stalking laws fail because they require a proven course of conduct. Abusers know that this behaviour is not currently captured by law and are exploiting this loophole. Without action, predators will continue to see this as a risk-free way of making easy money.
My honourable friend Wera Hobhouse MP has tabled a Private Member’s Bill on this issue. I echo her calls to compel platforms to remove such content. The Angiolini Inquiry recently warned that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are still not sufficiently prioritised. That is why I urge the Minister to give my amendment the serious consideration that it deserves. We need concrete action, not more rhetoric.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this group covers a range of human conduct, from the objectionable to the disgusting. I thank the Minister for tabling a series of amendments which will benefit women and society at large. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for all the work that she has done, which has led us to this position, and for the amendments that she has tabled. I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to her.
I will speak specifically to Amendment 273, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to which I have added my name. I understand that the noble Baroness may, if the Minister does not accept the amendment, wish to test the opinion of the House. This amendment simply seeks to impose a duty on a court to make a deprivation and deletion order where a person is convicted of an offence involving sharing or threatening to share intimate images without the consent of the victim.
The argument in favour of this amendment is very simple. It is necessary to give comfort to the victim who knows that the perpetrator has created or distributed the intimate images without consent. Unless there is a duty to destroy this content, the victim is inevitably going to remain extremely concerned that the content will remain in circulation and in existence.
That is the first argument. The second argument is that I can think of no justification whatever why the culprit should retain such intimate images when they have been convicted of being a wrongdoer in this respect. Those two points make this amendment unanswerable, and I strongly support it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group—the government amendments, those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the other amendment that was tabled. It was such an excellent speech, with such detail, that I do not want to go over the specifics, except to say that the noble Baroness is our leader and we will follow her through the Lobby.
I want to make one point, regarding the fantastic list of what is in the gap between what Ofcom can do and what Parliament can do. We should hesitate on that thought. Having looked a little this afternoon at the Government’s consultation, I see that there is almost nothing about what Ofcom cannot do, almost nothing about enforcement and, as I explained earlier, almost nothing about risk assessment. What happens beforehand, to prevent all this? What happens after it has all happened and we start to get enforcement? We cannot keep playing around in the middle. We have to go upstream, to the beginning, and we have to come to the end and get these things categorically dealt with in a way that interferes with business and makes it unacceptable to do it. With that, I will be supporting the noble Baroness.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge for the tenacity and expertise that she has brought to this issue. I acknowledge how far the Government have moved in response to her work and thank the Minister for her work and that of her department on this issue and willingness to listen. We now have a large number of government amendments to address concerns across take-down, screenshotting and semen issues. There has been huge progress. However, I support all my noble friend’s amendments and will speak very briefly to two of them.
Amendment 273 is, as we have heard, needed to ensure that those who perpetrate intimate image abuse are not allowed to keep the images. As it stands, it is extraordinary that perpetrators can leave court with intimate images of their victims still in their possession in some form. That cannot be allowed to continue. I hope that noble Lords from across the whole House will support my noble friend if we need a Division on this.
On the take-down service, I gently press the Government, as my noble friend has set out, on how their approach will deliver the protection for victims that her Amendments 274 and 276 would. The Prime Minister promised the public “one and done”, as we have heard: once an abusive image is identified, it should come down from all platforms permanently. That is the right promise. However, as my noble friend has set out, it is not clear that the Government’s proposal will deliver on that promise. Without a centralised comprehensive register, I do not see how it can be delivered. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this point.
The Government’s amendments reflect genuine and welcome progress on these issues. I very much hope that the Minister can take the final steps that are needed today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her tenacity and the way in which she has consistently spoken up for the victims.
I will speak briefly to Amendments 273 and 274. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his usual reassuringly expensive way, managed to pinpoint what this amendment is about. In effect, it would give courts an undertaking that they have a duty to see that the images that somebody has been convicted for taking and disseminating are destroyed. That seems unarguable. I hope that the Minister, with all her experience, can demonstrate why that should not be the case, because for almost everybody in the Chamber it seems to be a no-brainer.
In Amendment 274, we are revisiting some of the discussions that we had in Committee and on Report during the passage of the Online Safety Bill on the difficulty that victims have in being left to their own devices to deal with this, platform by platform, because each platform deals—or does not deal—with complaints in a different way. To have the indignity of having had something unmentionable done to you, which could happen on more than one platform, and then to have to individually pursue each platform and find that each platform has a different way of dealing with it and different hoops to go through, is piling injury upon insult.
We argued as well as we could during the passage of what became the Act that there should be much more thought given to the experience of victims as they try to confront what has happened to them and bring the organisations that have inflicted it on them, or enabled it, to book.
The way in which it has currently emerged from the Act and the way in which victims are still experiencing this huge variability and inconsistency is clearly an injustice, and I hope the Government will recognise that. Even if they are not ready and able to do something about it this evening, we would be most grateful for an undertaking that they will look at this very carefully and come back with something that the noble Baroness and the rest of us might find acceptable.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I find it hard to comprehend any reason why anybody on the Labour Benches could possibly contemplate not voting for these amendments. On Amendment 273, if the argument is, “Oh, leave it with us”, that is not convincing. The Labour Party has some problems with young women voters and problems with women voters; it has problems with all voters actually at the moment. There has to be more than “Leave it with us” as a response.
I say to male Labour Party members—I am speaking to the Labour Party, but I want to emphasise the point —that I have no intention of going back to my daughters and granddaughters without this, or something equivalent or better, going through. If the Labour Party thinks that it can stop that, it is a moment of some crisis.
That is not necessarily what I am hearing from the Minister’s opening remarks, but I have no intention of doing anything that would stop this, in this form or a better one, becoming law. I think I once met the Minister in her former life, but I have not had the pleasure of meeting her since she has been a Minister here. I found it refreshing that she had already made a number of—“concessions” is the wrong word—discussed and thought-through changes, having been prepared to listen. I thought that was refreshing; we are not hearing or seeing enough of Ministers who are prepared to do that. It is a weakness in all Governments in recent times, so it is very refreshing.
I hope to hear how we are going to accept these changes, because there is not a case to answer, in relation to Amendment 273, that this should be stopped. I am looking forward to a continuity of the very welcome approach, which will make my remarks totally redundant by showing that there is a new spirit emerging in how we work to get the best possible legislation that we can all be proud of.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will add just one small point, and in doing so congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, who I regard as a friend. It is a great thing that these amendments are not gender specific, by which I mean that men have also been targeted in this way. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that what she intends would cover people of both sexes if they are the victims of this horrible exposure.
We all know how difficult it is to change something that has been said, or an image. Therefore, anything in the law that helps us to take down things that are offensive or, as the noble Lord said, disgusting, is welcome. These things very often just lodge in the mind; that is why it is so psychologically damaging to think, “Somebody has seen this and now it is so difficult to take it down”. So I completely support these amendments.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I also completely support these amendments, noble Lords will be unsurprised to hear. I have just a couple of points, because so many have been made very well already. I can feel the exhaustion of victims, still, in all this. The idea that you have to chase around all the different websites and service providers, and take it on trust, is just not acceptable: no way.
The Government have to be really careful when they make big announcements that get a lot of coverage like “One and done” or “A nudification tech ban is done”, which we will come on to later, because that leaves victims with a false sense of hope because, if we discover that that is not the case, that is just not good.
But obviously I want to thank the Minister for listening; that was a powerful point that was made before. I certainly will be backing these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly—I hope as briefly as other noble Lords—to, first, thank the Government for the movement that they have made in tabling their amendments. Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady Doocey with her Amendment 277, which would extend the aspect of voyeurism. Thirdly, and in particular, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, nearly all of which I have co-signed, which address the devastating viral nature of non-consensual intimate image abuse, on which she has so effectively campaigned. Her amendments seek, I believe very effectively, to close the gaps that leave victims traumatised by the repeated uploading of their abuse.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, resisted the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for a statutory NCII hash register, arguing that it would lead to duplication of work already being done voluntarily by organisations such as the Revenge Porn Helpline and tech platforms. But voluntary compliance is not a systemic solution. CSAM is tackled systematically because it is mandated. NCII victims deserve the exact same proactive statutory infrastructure to prevent cross-posting and reuploads.
The Minister also resisted the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, which sought strict deletion orders, claiming that existing deprivation orders were sufficient. Yet research shows that only a tiny fraction of intimate image prosecutions result in deprivation orders, leaving abusers with copies of the images in their cloud accounts. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained exactly why we need the new orders very clearly.
In Committee, the Minister dismissed the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, which sought to tackle the degrading practice of semen images, claiming that the drafting was too broad and might inadvertently criminalise a woman fully clothed at a hen night posing with a novelty item. I very much welcome the change of heart by the Minister, the Home Office and the MoJ in that respect.
We are talking about the targeted sick degradation of women’s images online and the law must adapt to protect women from this rapidly growing form of abuse. I believe that when a conviction is secured, the court must have the power to order the destruction of images and the disclosure of passwords. Without this, the victim lives in perpetual fear of reupload.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has made a very strong case for her amendments, which make substantial improvements to the government proposals. I welcome the government proposals, but I believe they could go further.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an important and, at times, deeply sobering debate. I place on record my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lady Owen, who has been tireless in campaigning on these issues inside and outside this House. In Committee, noble Lords from across the House recognised not only the seriousness of the harm caused by non-consensual intimate images but the persistence and expertise she has brought to improving the law in this area. That work has already borne fruit in previous legislation, and it continues to shape the debate constructively here.
It is also pleasing to hear the Government agreeing with much of what my noble friend Lady Owen has said. The Prime Minister made absolutely no mention of her work when he announced the 48-hour takedown policy, and we all know that that success lies with her, so I am pleased the Minister has rectified that today. My noble friend has also highlighted an inconsistency in the Government’s position. If they are to enact the 48-hour takedown policy, they will need to establish a central hash register, given the gap between what Ofcom is able to do and what would be required to enact the Prime Minister’s announcement.
These proposals relating to hashing and the establishment of a statutory non-consensual intimate image register build on existing voluntary initiatives, including work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline. In Committee, there was recognition across the House that hashing technology has already proven effective in tackling child sexual abuse material and that extending similar mechanisms to adult victims of intimate image abuse merits serious consideration. But, more than that, they are essential to enacting the Government’s own recently announced policy.
The proposal to require deprivation and deletion orders following conviction is, surely, the logical conclusion of the existence of the offence. If it is an offence for these images to be made and shared, then a court should require their deletion.
The amendments concerning screenshotting, copying of temporarily shared images, and the creation or distribution of degrading material are also rooted in the lived experience of many individuals, particularly young women and girls. Technology has outpaced the assumptions underpinning older offences. As my noble friend has argued, consent given for a time-limited viewing is not consent to permanent capture, nor should the law allow perpetrators to evade liability through technical loopholes.
Finally, on Amendment 277, we are supportive of the proposed expansion of the voyeurism offence to include where a person records non-consensual images of a person with the intent of obtaining sexual gratification. It is appalling that people can film others without their knowledge and consent and use those images for their own nefarious purposes.
I also thank the Government for their welcome engagement with my noble friend on these matters. It has been clear, both in Committee and since the Ministers met with my noble friend and other stakeholders, that there has been constructive cross-party dialogue. This is reflected in the numerous amendments they have tabled in this group to similar effect. That spirit of collaboration is to be commended. These issues, which concern dignity, privacy, exploitation, and protection from abuse, should never be partisan. I am therefore grateful for what has been achieved up to this point.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the people-pleaser in me would love to be able to say, “Oh, go on then— I will accept them all and make everybody happy”, but I am afraid there are some good reasons why I cannot accept some of these amendments. I am going to try to respond to them all as briefly as possible, in the hope of explaining why the Government do not consider these amendments necessary in some cases, and do not consider it desirable for them to be done through the unwieldy mechanism of primary legislation in others.
I start with Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on deletion orders. I say at the outset that the Government of course recognise the harm caused by those who retain copies of intimate images, and we want to ensure that the legal framework protects victims. We agree that it is a no-brainer about the principle, but, for reasons I will come to in a moment, it is not as simple to enact as it might seem.
The noble Baroness has correctly identified that there is a difference between depriving offenders of devices that have been used, and actually getting rid of—deleting—the images themselves. If there is an issue about insufficient judges making deprivation orders for devices, then we must tackle that. This amendment is not the solution to that. Indeed, if she is right that judges are proving to be reluctant, there is a risk that, even if this deletion order provision came into force, they might be reluctant to do that as well. That is not the way to tackle judges not making the orders.
We must make sure that what we do is workable. Verified deletion is highly complex in practice. There are a number of challenges concerning, for example, images stored in the cloud. The noble Baroness’s amendment is very short on the practical measures that would be needed to make it effective, such as how the verification is to be carried out, what the penalty would be for an offender who refuses to comply with an order to provide the password, or what happens during the appeal period. For example, in the Crown Court, defendants have 28 days following conviction to lodge grounds for appeal. These are all significant drafting issues that present problems with the amendment as tabled by the noble Baroness, so we need to give this further thought.
As I said to the noble Baroness in Committee and during our recent meetings, we are already amending deprivation orders so that they can be applied to seize intimate images and any devices containing those images, regardless of whether the device was used in the offence itself.
One of the issues which concerns us is that only a fraction of the victims of intimate images go through the criminal justice system. Many victims do not want to go anywhere near a criminal court, so we want to look at the available remedies in the civil courts in order to ensure that these, too, will offer meaningful redress for victims.
But anything we do needs to be comprehensive and in a package that works well together, ensuring removal of these images as quickly as possible. That is why I am pleased to announce today that we intend to review the available court order protection for victims of intimate image abuse across civil and criminal courts. The review is going to include routes for deletion to ensure that it is fit for purpose, that it identifies necessary improvements and that it has attached to it all the consequential provisions that are needed to make sure that it is actually effective.
This is not an attempt by the Government to kick the can down the road. We want to get it right, and we want it to have material value. We do not want to create something that does not work so judges do not use it. But we do not think a court order available in the criminal court addresses this problem as a whole, and that is why we need to take time to think more comprehensively about a tailored solution, working for victims and for criminal justice partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, Professor McGlynn and I have discussed this, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment today in the light of that announcement.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The amendment, as she understands, imposes a duty on judges. Therefore, there is no question of a judge deciding not to use it. More substantially, I am very concerned about the delay that will result if the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, does not move her amendment. Surely, the proper way to deal with this is for the Government to accept the amendment, and, if they will not, for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to move it. If the Government wish, as they are perfectly entitled to, to add or to subtract, they can do so at Third Reading or, perhaps more realistically, in the other place. They will have plenty of time to do that; let us get on today and put this into law.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I will say two things in response to the noble Lord. The first is that the criminal courts tend not to be very keen on provisions that they regard as complex when they come at the end of a sentencing hearing. They tend to react by saying, “We’re going to leave this to be dealt with through some other mechanism because it’s too complicated. We can’t work out how to verify it”—the sorts of objections that occasionally are made in relation to, for example, very complicated compensation orders or confiscation orders. The second point is that there is, as I have already said, a real risk in piecemeal legislation that you bring in provisions for one court that then do not work in the read-across from the civil courts. On the civil courts, we cannot do that today.
We need to do this quickly, and we absolutely recognise this. After all, there is no point in saying that we take this stuff seriously and then saying that we are not going to do anything about getting rid of the images. It is illogical, apart from anything else, as well as perhaps not being very moral either. I ask the noble Baroness to accept the sincerity of what we say. That is as far as I can go today.
I turn now to Amendment 274, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I understand and agree with what she is trying to achieve. The only issue between us is whether this is the right way to do it. Ofcom has already consulted on additional safety measures for its illegal content codes of practice. These proposed measures explicitly include the use of perceptual hash-matching technology to detect and remove non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfakes.
To be deemed compliant with their Online Safety Act duties by following the codes, services would need to deploy this technology automatically to identify and remove such content, providing victims with reassurance that their images are being removed swiftly. Given the urgent need to strengthen protection in this area, Ofcom announced on 19 February that it is accelerating timelines and will publish its final decision on these proposals on the use of hash matching in May, with measures expected to come into effect by the summer.
We consider that the work of Ofcom meets the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The protection that she seeks will be delivered promptly and robustly through Ofcom’s forthcoming codes of practice. It is an area where unnecessarily imposing duties in statute, especially where work is already in progress, could have the adverse effect of restricting the flexibility of this work should it need to respond and change to the ever-changing online landscape in the future.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
The Prime Minister launched his strategy for tackling non-compliance by saying that it would be a “one and done” system. Does the Minister acknowledge that the Ofcom system is not a “one and done” system? It is dependent on a series of factors, including whether all service providers choose to adopt third-party hashing. If they choose to operate their own hash database where they do not share the hashes, it is not a “one and done” system. I would really like to tidy up the confusion here between whether the Prime Minister is right or what is being said here is correct.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right. The difference between us is what we understand by the system. The Government’s position is that the Ofcom system will achieve what the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve. That is the difference between the noble Baroness and me. I am not sure that I can go any further than that this evening.
I turn now to Amendment 276, once again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on the NCII register. The Government recognise the vital work undertaken by the Revenge Porn Helpline, including operating a database of existing hashes of non-consensual intimate images that are shared with participating companies to detect and remove the images online. We recognise the benefits that a register of verified NCII content would provide, including the important role that it could play in supporting victims in the removal of the content.
This is one of those instances where the issue between us is whether it is necessary or desirable to put it on a statutory footing. The Government’s position is that it is not a necessity for its success and needs very careful consideration, especially to ensure that an NCII register aligns with the process taken by the Internet Watch Foundation’s register for child sexual abuse imagery, which operates successfully and has never been on a statutory footing, and to avoid any unintended consequences. For this reason, I confirm that the Government are committing to undertake a preliminary evaluation to determine the operational needs and impact of establishing a successful central register for non-consensual intimate image abuse.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
I think it is important to clarify for the sake of the House that, with regard to the Internet Watch Foundation’s CSAM register, CSAM is illegal in and of itself. NCII—non-consensual intimate image—material is not illegal in and of itself. Therefore, a voluntary system will not work. It needs to be on a statutory footing.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not think anyone is suggesting that it should be voluntary. It is simply whether it should be established through primary legislation or regulation. I used the expression earlier about the unwieldiness of primary legislation. After all, one of the problems with legislating through primary legislation is that, if you get it wrong, you have to try to amend it or repeal it, whereas if you have regulations, particularly backed up by enforcement powers, it is a much nimbler way of going about things. That is the issue between us.
The evaluation will also assess critical considerations that are still outstanding, including the effect that such a registry has on intermediary liability and what is needed to establish robust verification procedures. The findings will be used to guide next steps to ensure that any options are sustainable and effective and work alongside existing regulation for platforms.
Turning again to semen-defaced images and Amendments 284 and 296A, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, as I said when opening this group, the Government agree with her that semen imagery is disgusting behaviour. That is exactly why we have brought forward our own amendments to criminalise the sharing of a semen-defaced image without consent. The inclusion of
“semen … on any part of their body”,
as in the noble Baroness’s amendment, is unnecessary, because such images would already fall within the scope of the intimate image offences. To answer her question directly, I can confirm that the example she gave will, and should, already be covered by the existing legislation. The noble Baroness asked whether we can, in effect, require the CPS to amend its guidance to make it clearer. The CPS is, of course, an independent organisation—constitutionally, importantly so—but we can certainly look at asking the CPS whether it would be prepared to do so.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am sure the whole House agrees with, in essence, what Amendment 273 says, but I also noted from my noble friend that it is much more complex than I had understood. I am sure that she is as frustrated as everyone else that these things take time, and I wonder whether she is able to give us any timeline. Sorry, I am an optimist, but this is an extremely important amendment. I will be supporting the Government, but it would be good to know if we are talking about months or whatever, because obviously we want to see this in statute as soon as possible.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not think I can quite express how unpopular I would be if I suddenly, on the hoof, came out with a time. All I can say is that we are committed to doing this quickly.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I emphasise that we have talked about drafting issues on Amendment 273. Obviously, I do not want to delay proceedings, but I remind the House that I first brought up forced deletion in September 2024, so the issue has been before the House now for about 17 months. It was in the Data (Use and Access) Bill in December 2024, when the Minister said, “There’s no problem here because it should be seen under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020”. This is not working, and the only answer really is to deal with the matter tonight.
Baroness Levitt
“Purported intimate image generators(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 66H insert— “66I Making or supplying purported intimate image generators(1) A person commits an offence if the person—(a) makes or adapts a thing, or(b) supplies or offers to supply a thing,for use as a generator of purported intimate images.(2) A “generator of purported intimate images” is a thing for creating, or facilitating the creation of, purported intimate images of a person.(3) A person makes, adapts, supplies, or offers to supply a thing for use as a generator of purported intimate images if a reasonable person (having regard to all the circumstances) would consider that they do so.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the thing being used for creating, or facilitating the creation of, purported intimate images of a person without the person’s consent.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine (or both).(6) Section 72(1) applies in relation to an act which, if done in England and Wales, would constitute an offence under this section as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.(7) In this section—“purported intimate image” of a person, and references to creating a purported intimate image of a person, have the same meaning as in section 66E;“thing” includes a program, information in electronic form and a service.66J Section 66I: further defences(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 66I to prove that the person did the act which constituted the offence for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 66I to prove that the person—(a) was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”), and(b) did the act which constituted the offence for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body.(3) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 66I to prove that the person—(a) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(b) did the act which constituted the offence for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions.(5) In subsection (4)—(a) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications; (b) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023.66K Section 66I: application to internet service providers(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 66I by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 66I by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on knowing of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 66I by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) when the information was provided the provider did not know that it was, or contained, a generator of purported intimate images, and(b) on knowing that the information was, or contained, a generator of purported intimate images, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) In this section—“generator of purported intimate images” has the same meaning as in section 66I;“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet; “user”, in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.66L Liability for offence under section 66I committed by bodies(1) This section applies where an offence under section 66I is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,the person (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this section—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means—(a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”(3) In section 79(5) (meaning of references to image of a person), for “and 66G” substitute “, 66G and 66I”.(4) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 (sexual offences for purposes of section 72), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) an offence under section 66I;”.(5) In Schedule 3 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2), after paragraph 33B insert—“33C An offence under section 66I of this Act (purported intimate image generators), if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause creates offences of making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply a generator of purported intimate images.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be opening this group with the introduction of government Amendments 272, 297, 449, 450 and 458. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for the insightful recommendations in her pornography review. I also thank her for meeting me on a number of occasions over the last few months, and for the cordial and constructive tone of those meetings.
There is very little between the Government and the noble Baroness in our objectives. We recognise that her intention is to prevent the deeply unpleasant and damaging effect of what happens in both the online and offline worlds, including the effects upon our children. I hope and believe she also recognises that I am sincere when I say that we want to achieve the same thing. Where possible, the Government have tried to deliver on the issues that she has raised, and I thank her for the time she has taken to talk them through with us. I know that she has some concerns with regard to certain aspects of these amendments, to which I will respond later, but first I will speak to the government amendments.
I start with nudification apps. Together, Amendments 272 and 449 introduce a new offence that will ban the making, adapting, supplying or offer to supply of a tool or service for use as a generator of intimate images. The offence will give effect to our violence against women and girls strategy commitment to ban nudification tools. The offence will capture intimate image generators in all their unpleasant forms, including, but not limited to, apps, software, websites, AI models and bots. To be captured by the criminal offence, the tool must be made or supplied for the use of generating purported intimate images, irrespective of whether that is a primary purpose. The nudification tool ban will be the first of its kind in the world, and it will target the developers and suppliers who profit from the profound distress and victimisation of others. We will work with international partners and fora to tackle this issue.
The Government are committed to tackling the scourge of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and will continue to act to ensure that artificial intelligence cannot be misused to generate this abusive content. In addition to banning image generators, we have announced that we will table an amendment to the Bill to allow the Government to bring additional chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act and require them to protect their users from illegal content, including non-consensual intimate images. We will also work with international partners and fora to tackle this issue. Once the offence is in force, the Online Safety Act will impose requirements on social media and search services to have processes and systems in place to remove illegal content that supplies or offers to supply nudification tools, and this will significantly limit their accessibility to users in the UK.
I turn to another unpleasant topic: incest. It is with some pride that I bring forward Amendments 297, 450 and 458. Together, these amendments criminalise the possession or publication of pornographic images that portray sexual activity between family members, otherwise known unattractively as incest porn. In doing so, we give effect to one of the key recommendations of the Independent Review of Pornography by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I know that she will soon speak to a cluster of her own amendments on this issue but, before she does, I place on record my sincere thanks to her for the vital role that she has played in bringing forward this important change.
We know there are concerns that the proliferation of incest-themed pornography can contribute to extremely harmful attitudes, particularly where it risks normalising child sexual abuse. The government amendment recognises those concerns. We are also pleased to announce that the new offence will be listed as a priority offence under the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to take proactive and proportionate steps to stop this harmful material appearing online.
The offence as it stands will not capture pornography depicting relationships between step-relatives. This is a controversial topic, but such relationships are not illegal in real life. To be clear, though, any pornography involving real children, whether a step element is present or not, is already criminalised under the Protection of Children Act 1978. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 298, 297A to 297D, 281A, 300 and 300A in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in particular, who has worked on this issue for so many years, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names to this set of amendments.
One thing is clear from the past few weeks: the status quo that has allowed abuse, misogyny, paedophilia and the exploitation of women and girls to flourish cannot continue. The recent release of the Epstein files, which were porn-drenched, should be our moment of reckoning, a moment that forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, complicity and the systems that allow abuse to thrive in plain sight.
One of those systems is the modern online pornography industry. This House knows my steadfast commitment to bringing effective regulation to that sector, and I believe that this group of amendments will bring about this much-needed reset. It is a sector that has been driven to abusive extremes by powerful, profit-driven algorithms, too often monetising sexual violence and degradation. Categories such as “barely legal” may claim legality because performers are over 18, but the aesthetic is deliberate: youth, vulnerability and childhood. They are a fig leaf for the sexualisation of minors. Exploitation and trafficking are rife. Sexual abuse material remains far too easy to find on these sites, and many survivors tell us that what is filmed as content is in reality recorded abuse. This cannot continue.
Amendment 298, when tabled, had the intention of closing the gaping disparity between offline and online regulation. If content cannot be legally sold in a shop or on a DVD, it should not be freely available online. For decades, physical distribution has had classification, compliance and enforcement; online, self-regulation still dominates. This amendment sets out in clear terms the material that must not be distributed online. This is based on the BBFC’s guidelines and therefore mirrors what is illegal and prohibited offline, bringing parity across regimes. It also provides for an independent auditing body working alongside Ofcom—I would suggest the BBFC but I am not being specific on that—to carry out spot checks and audits of pornography so that content that would never meet the criteria for physical distribution is detected and removed, not simply noticed and ignored.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I want to be supportive of the Government, but I also urge them to listen really closely to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has said today, particularly in light of the Jeffrey Epstein files, as she mentioned. Pornography pervaded the Epstein files. This is a scandal that has shocked us all. It has come to this House. It has affected the upper echelons of society. I just want to read a message that one of Jeffrey Epstein’s friends sent to him in the Epstein files. He said:
“Porn has taken over and the guys just want in the bedroom what they’ve seen in porn”.
This is a moment for the Government to be very brave. This is not a moment to be socially conservative. It is better for the Government to be right at the vanguard on this. We often ask the exam question: how can we prove that porn is affecting real life? That time is here and now; we have seen it through the Epstein files.
I want to leave your Lordships with this. On 20 January 2017, Jeffrey Epstein was Skype-messaging with a young girl still in school. He sent her instructions to watch Pornhub. He said:
“It will be very odd at first, but think of it like a school project … Don’t be shy, watch your reactions with no judgment”.
We are seeing pornography being used in real time to groom young women and young men, and I really hope that the Government will listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. Over the last eight years or more, every time that we have debated the harmful pornography issues that are in these amendments, I think, “Why is it taking so long for change?”, and I am an optimist. I never give up, so I keep on believing change is a-coming and good will prevail.
The murder of Sarah Everard and the recent revelations contained in the Epstein files, as we have just heard, expose graphically just how much online pornography has not only influenced violent sexual behaviour towards women and girls but caused massive long-term harm to the victims subjected to it. This is why these amendments are crucial to the well-being of women and girls, and men and boys, as well as very young children, to protect them from violence and harm—from having their minds distorted and, in many cases, having their childhood taken away from them.
For years now, Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as vice-president—and CEASE have called for online pornography to be regulated to the same standards as offline. Content involving strangulation, incest and adults dressed as children, as well as that involving trafficking and torture, is rightly illegal offline—yet these images and videos remain widely accessible online. This inconsistency is indefensible and must be stopped, so it is a relief that the Government are now moving on this issue to put a stop to it. Hallelujah! Thank goodness. This change has been worth waiting for. It is common sense. Why should children be exposed to harmful online material which is rightly illegal offline? The harm of violent online pornography is not abstract or without consequence. Men who watch violent online pornography are more likely to be violent towards women and girls, as well as sexually harming children, so the sooner action is taken to make the offline and online worlds compatible, the better for our children’s well-being and mental health.
I support all of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and have to congratulate her on her tenacity and her commitment to making a difference. I will speak on Amendment 300, because it seeks to ensure that platforms undertake age-consent checks for performers. This is a critical amendment in protecting women and girls. User-generated content dominates pornography platforms, yet this content is often uploaded with little or no verification. It is great that this amendment would ensure that every individual featured in all content is an adult and has given consent but, crucially, that women are given the right to withdraw their consent at any time and have the content removed.
I also support Amendment 281A, which seeks to ban nudification apps. The Government must be commended for their actions in making it an offence to create deepfake images, but there is an outstanding issue of so-called nudification apps, as we have heard. These AI power tools are being used to create non-consensual sexual images targeting women and girls, and even very young children. The Internet Watch Foundation reported a 380% increase in AI-generated child exploitation imagery, so we must stop every loophole to make sure that that is not possible. If we do not act now, technology will continue to outpace regulation, leaving victims unprotected.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. It has been a very grim afternoon, I have to say, repeatedly hearing some of the most horrendous things that can happen to women and children. I say to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect and who spoke passionately—a word normally associated with me—that this is still too little, too late and too long across a number of these issues. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, is relatively new in the House, but we have been debating these things for eight years and I remember having this exact discussion during the Online Safety Bill. We have to just move on. We cannot keep on saying that it moves quickly and then allowing ourselves to move this slowly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, made a really strong case that online porn affects real life. It is real-life violence and there is this unbelievably vast overlap with child sexual abuse. It is that mess that we have to see as one and, in that sense, the noble Baroness made the case for all of her amendments. I want to quickly mention government Amendment 272, which establishes an offence if a person makes or adapts, or
“supplies or offers to supply a thing, for use as a generator of … intimate images”.
What has happened to that amendment is exactly the same as what happened to the child sexual abuse amendment that has the same form. It deals with intentionality and says: “If you absolutely intend to do this, it will be illegal. But if it happens in general, on any old piece of software that somebody hasn’t bothered to train properly or put protections in, then you’re not caught”. I believe that is what the noble Baroness has in her broader amendment about software.
I really want to make the point that there seems to be a reluctance to catch general- purpose technology in these issues of child abuse, violence against women, intimate image abuse and pornography, and I hope that the Government are listening. We cannot avoid general-purpose technology if that is what is spreading, creating and making this situation available across communities. It is in that space that so many children first see porn. It is in that space that so many women are abused and that so much child sexual abuse is present.
I urge the Minister to think about the breadth and not just the intentionality, because in my view it does not really matter whether it is accidental on the part of the company. I finish by saying that I had the privilege of meeting Yoshua Bengio last week, who is absolutely central to the development of AI and neural networks, and so on. He said, and I paraphrase: show me the incentive and I will show you the design.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, partly as a male of the species, since we are largely responsible for the situation we are describing. We are behind these business models, we are the sex that is making all the money out of it, and, in most cases, we are the abusers. It behoves us to acknowledge that and speak up about it.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. As a mother of young children, she has, on our behalf, subsumed herself for over two years in a world that most of us can barely imagine. That must have been an extraordinarily unpleasant and difficult experience. I pay tribute to her for doing it, because I am not sure many of us would have taken that on or lasted the course.
With that in mind, given the time and thought that she has given to this, the number of experts she has spoken to, the number of international parameters and comparators she has taken into account in looking at this, and the detailed way in which she has analysed the business models that underline this highly profitable business, it behoves all of us, and particularly the Government, to listen very carefully. The amendments that she has brought forth are not something that she dreamed up overnight; they are based on her detailed and painful knowledge of exactly how this business operates. She is identifying some gaps in the laudable approach the Government are taking to try to do something about this.
With my business experience hat on, I say that a major fault that businesses make is overpromising and underdelivering. His Majesty’s Government are in grave danger of doing exactly that in many of these areas to do with violence against women and girls. It is wonderful to have the headlines and to say, “We are taking this seriously and we are doing something about it”, but the devil is in the detail, and the detail is effective implementation. To effectively implement, you have to understand the business model, and, as people have said previously, you have to be prepared to disrupt it.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, more than 40 years ago, Parliament ensured that pornographic material that was deemed too degrading, too explicit or too dangerous could not be distributed. Parliament never changed its mind, but technology overtook the law, which is why we now have the absurd situation where content is illegal when viewed on a DVD but legal and freely available on the internet. That is why we desperately need Amendment 298 to deliver online/offline parity. I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Bertin, her team and all the other noble Lords in this House who have, as we have heard, campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years.
Moving on to my noble friend’s other amendments, I support all of them, but I will speak briefly to three of them. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle incest pornography but, without including stepfamily relationships, this new amendment will have little to no impact on the actual content available. The videos will be the same; they will merely be retitled. My noble friend has already explained the popularity and violence of the “barely legal” teen pornography content. Other countries have already legislated to prevent this type of material proliferating. Amendment 300A would ensure that we did the same.
Finally, Amendment 300 is about preventing exploitation and abuse. The porn industry makes money from violence against girls and women. It is an industry that we know profits from human trafficking. This is not an industry that we can trust to do the right things. So I strongly support this amendment, and I very much hope that my noble friend will test the opinion of the House on this and all her other amendments if Ministers are not able to move further.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Russell said about the remarkable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for all her efforts today to explain the Government’s position, and for the amendments that she has brought forward on behalf of the Government.
Amendment 298 is very important because it seeks to regulate online harmful content, and I very much support the principle. However, I will raise an important quibble. Amendment 298 defines what is meant by “harmful material” by reference to a number of very specific matters that I think we would all agree should not be online, such as material that
“promotes or encourages sexual activity that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act”,
or any sexual act that is
“non-consensual, or … appears to be non-consensual”
or
“threatens a person’s life … or is likely to result … in serious injury to a person”,
et cetera.
I have no difficulty with that: I entirely agree with it. However, I am concerned that, in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 298, “harmful material” also includes that which
“would be an offence under … the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Obscene Publications Act 1964”.
I am concerned that that would be a very unwise way for us to regulate online content. The reason is that that Act is notoriously vague and uncertain. It depends on jury assessments of what would “deprave and corrupt” a person. It does not seem appropriate or necessary to include that element of harmful conduct when the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, lists, in perfectly sensible and acceptable ways, the specific types of content that ought not to be online and that should be prohibited.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as with the last group, we on these Benches support the Government’s amendments, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her tireless work on the Independent Pornography Review and subsequently. We on these Benches fully support her amendments to ban step-incest pornography and content that mimics child sexual abuse, to implement age verification for those featured on porn sites and AI nudification apps and to establish vital parity between online and offline pornography regulation.
I will be extremely brief. Amendment 298 in particular would create parity between offline and online regulation. Offline content that would not be classified by the BBFC should not be legal online. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, rightly proposes a monitoring role for the BBFC to support Ofcom’s enforcement and I very much hope that the Government will concede on this. If the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are taken on board, the Government can easily alter that amendment at ping-pong.
I have also signed Amendment 281A. The Government’s nudification amendments are clearly too narrow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has described, by limiting scope to UK products, they ignore the global nature of this harm. We must go further to capture possession and use of any software designed to produce these non-consensual images. I very much hope that we will be able to avoid votes on the four amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward, and that the Government will take them on board.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, the many amendments in this group all concern the regulation of online pornography. It is notable that many of the amendments have been signed by noble Lords from parties across the political spectrum, showing a very firm desire in your Lordships’ House to regulate harmful online pornography. I again thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for the extensive work that she has carried out in this area and I echo what has been said by several noble Lords this evening in support of her long-standing commitment to this cause. I also thank other noble Lords who have not only spoken this evening but been involved in efforts elsewhere to make the online pornography space safer for children and adults.
I will focus briefly on some of my noble friends’ amendments. Amendment 281A, as we have heard, would create an offence for the possession of software that can produce nude images of another individual. These Benches are fully supportive of this amendment. It goes a significant way in ensuring that women and girls are protected.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government of course sympathise with the intention behind all these amendments. They raise important but tricky issues. I am pleased that they have received such an extensive airing this evening, and I apologise in advance for the fact that this speech is a bit longer than some of the others, but some of these are complicated. I know that some of what I will say will not be what some of your Lordships may wish to hear. I remind the House that the Government have moved on some of the important issues raised, and I assure your Lordships that we have no intention of stopping here. But there are some areas that need further consideration and others where we have genuine operational concerns.
We are committed to continuing to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I and my fellow Ministers in the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have immensely valued her time and expertise in our meetings with her. It is because of this direct engagement that we have brought forward some of the amendments today. They are entirely to her credit, and I hope we can continue the discussions.
On nudification apps, we have sympathy with the underlying objective of Amendment 281A, but we do not believe that it is necessary for two reasons. First, the aim of Amendment 281A is already captured by the recently commenced Section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which bans individuals from using nudification tools to create intimate images without consent. Section 66B of the 2003 Act bans anyone from sharing such images once they have been created.
Secondly, nudification tools are commonly accessed online—for example, via a website, an AI model or a chatbot. A person using a tool will not necessarily possess or have downloaded the relevant software or model. That means that Amendment 281A would risk creating an unworkable discrepancy between very similar tools being accessed via different means. For example, it might capture a tool if it was downloaded as code by a user but not if it was accessed as a website. For this reason, we have focused the government amendment on banning the creation and the supply of such tools, rather than just the software. The Government are confident that the combined effect of the new offence in government Amendment 272, along with regulation via the Online Safety Act and existing criminal offences banning individuals from creating and sharing intimate images without consent, is an effective package in tackling this egregious harm in all its forms.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I promise not to interrupt the Minister too much, but what about the point that it will not extend beyond UK apps?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
This is always the problem with criminal offences, which is why, on occasions, the Government have said that we want to urge caution before creating criminal offences when things that can be dealt with through regulation have a much wider reach. One drawback of criminal offences is that they typically apply only where prosecutors are able to establish UK jurisdiction. To provide some extraterritorial effect, we have ensured that Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act applies to this offence, which will enable prosecutors to target overseas offending by UK nationals, bodies and associations. But the regulations—
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I accept that and, let us face it, this is the wrong Bill for this piece of legislation— I am prepared to accept that. I know that this is a criminal Bill, but surely the Government and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have to accept—and make the point on the Floor of this House—that they will therefore re-open the Online Safety Act and bring regulation in to support the very good amendments that they are putting in at this point, or my Amendment 281A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
These are exactly the conversations that we wish to carry on having, on how to best go about this to make sure that we achieve the aim that we are all trying to get to: getting rid of these horrible things. I would like to continue the conversation with the noble Baroness in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, stressed that there was undue emphasis on intention and states of mind. Again, this is the problem with criminal offences: we do not create criminal offences where people who have done something accidentally end up being criminalised. That is why, on occasions, we say that regulation may be a better tool. The noble Baroness is looking outraged.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
No, I dare not tackle the noble Baroness on legal matters—what we do and do not do in the law—but, if you accidentally poison children’s food, you do not get a free pass. There are all sorts of places and spaces that have to—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
We will continue this, but with the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, the fact is that all criminal offences, pretty much, apart from those that are strict liability offences, which are pretty unpopular in the criminal law—[Interruption.] We will discuss this later, but take it from me that it is very rare to criminalise something that is done accidentally.
I turn now to incest. As I said earlier today, the Government have tabled a cluster of amendments that seek to go further than Amendment 299 by criminalising the possession and publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity between both adult and child family members. The reason for doing that is that it makes it more straightforward for law enforcement and regulators to tackle the harmful content, as pornography that portrays a family relationship will be criminalised and the prosecutor does not need to have to prove that the person concerned is under 18 or is a child. It can be very difficult to prove that the person is actually a child. We therefore consider government Amendment 297 to more robustly address the harm that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, seeks to address.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s Amendments 297AA, 297B, 297C and 297D. Although I understand why she wishes to extend the Government’s amendment to a wider range of relationships, it is important that your Lordships understand that such an extension would criminalise sexual relationships that are lawful between adults in real life. With her Amendment 298, the noble Baroness has specifically sought to include that. It would go further than offline regulation, where some portrayals of step-relative relationships are classified, provided they are not in any way abusive in nature.
In addition, this change proposed by the noble Baroness’s amendment would significantly increase the complexity of the offence. For example, if the pornographic image depicted sex between step-siblings, operational partners would then also have to consider whether the persons live or have lived together, or whether one person is or has been regularly involved in caring for the other. It would be challenging for the police and the CPS to determine and ultimately prosecute. The intention behind the Government’s amendments is to make it as straightforward as possible to enforce and prosecute. That said, although I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, I urge her not to press her amendment.
Turning now to parity, I put on record that the Government accept the principle at the heart of Amendment 298 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. There is a clear and urgent need for greater parity between the treatment of harmful pornography online and offline. This Government, who have prioritised tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, will show the leadership necessary to deliver it. We have, with thanks to the noble Baroness, already taken steps in the Bill to criminalise some of the most egregious forms of content that are currently mainstream online. The strangulation pornography offence added in Committee and the further changes we are bringing forward today on incest pornography have been added because of the noble Baroness. These matters are now prohibited under offline regulation.
Acknowledging that the changing online world brings new challenges that must be tackled to address emerging harms, we will also be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography to assess its effectiveness. We will ensure that our online regulatory framework keeps pace with these changes to the criminal law. Delivery of parity in regulatory treatment has already started. Once enforced, these offences will become priority offences under the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to have proportionate systems and processes in place to prevent UK users encountering this content. This should stop this abhorrent content circulating unchecked on online platforms, where right now it is being recommended to unwitting users.
While these measures mark a significant step forward in protecting individuals online, we acknowledge that they do not address the totality of the complex question on parity. The current offline regime relies on checks on individual pieces of content, which can consider wider context and nuance in a way that does not easily translate to the scale and speed of online content. For this reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, but because we completely agree with the need for greater parity, the Government are committing our joint pornography team, which was announced as part of the VAWG strategy, to produce a delivery plan within six months of Royal Assent.
Crucially, the delivery plan will set out how, not whether, the Government can most effectively close the gap. This will include consideration of how a new approach can address other potentially harmful content, such as pornography portraying step-incest relationships or adults role-playing as children. The delivery plan will thoroughly test which approach will be most effective by testing audit and reporting functions and considering how this can be done at scale to achieve the desired impact. The plan will also consider how and which regulatory frameworks can best address the issue, noting the interactions with the BBFC’s existing remit and that of Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, and how to ensure that there is effective enforcement in any future system. It will examine the case for tools, including fines and business disruption measures. We will keep up the pace. I can commit to including clear timelines for implementation in the plan, and we will keep them as short as possible, factoring in the possible need for legislation, subject to parliamentary timing. I know that my fellow Ministers will welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, joining us as we conduct this work.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I want to say thank you. The Minister has just made a very big announcement and I thank her, because she has acknowledged parity, and I hope that she will therefore be using regulation to make sure that we absolutely do create that level playing field. I just want to acknowledge that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I turn to Amendment 300. While we accept the intended aim of this amendment, we cannot accept the proposed approach. The part of the amendment relating to the withdrawal of consent and its application to professional entertainment contracts has a number of practical implications. Where content is produced legally, as with the wider film industry, the rules and regulations governing its use are usually a commercial matter to be agreed between the performer and the production company, taking into account the intellectual property framework. I add that much of the content captured by this proposed offence is already illegal. The creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material and sharing an intimate image without consent are already criminal offences.
The law is also crystal clear about the distribution of indecent images of children. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under 18. That said, as I said earlier this evening, we accept that there is harmful material, including content that is non-consensual and displays child sexual abuse, that remains online, and that is not good enough. So, while we cannot support the amendment today, we are keen once again to work with the noble Baroness further to consider existing best practice in the area and, where there are gaps, how these can be filled. The outcome of the work on parity to which we have committed today will also influence consideration of how this amendment could be regulated.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
Law enforcement is already duty bound to investigate any material that may contain a child, so I do not believe that the amendment would suddenly create a whole load of legal activity that could stop the protection of children. I just do not accept that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The concern expressed by law enforcement is that it would divert resources from what they are doing at the moment. We will consider this issue as part of our rapid work on parity, and we will also consider the issue as part of our broader work on reviewing the criminal law. I do not underestimate the importance of all these matters. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for the length of time it has taken me to deal with them. My hope is that your Lordships will take the commitments that I have made and the government amendments that I have tabled as a sign of the Government’s genuine intention. Take it from me: we will go further, but we must get these issues right. In the meantime, with every respect, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
“Duty to make deprivation and deletion orders (non-consensual intimate images)Where a person is convicted of an offence involving sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent, as described by sections 66A and 66H of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (intimate images), the court must—(a) order the destruction of any content used to commit the offence on any device or data store containing such images;(b) order the defendant to disclose any password, key or authenticator necessary to access accounts or devices containing such images;(c) order verified deletion of such images from all locations, including cloud services;(d) direct the prosecutor to lodge a deletion verification report within 28 days.”
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, we cannot allow victims to continue to suffer long after their abusers walk free. It is time we resolve this issue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Hashing(1) No later than 12 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the generation and lawful sharing of hashes of intimate images shared without consent in contravention of section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2023 (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film), for the purpose of preventing re-upload , subject to safeguards.(2) The Secretary of State must make the regulations in cooperation with industry standard initiatives (such as StopNCII).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment works in conjunction with others in the name of Baroness Owen regarding a mandatory removal period or de-indexing period of 48 hours for non-consensual intimate images and the establishment of a statutory Non-Consensual Intimate Image Register. This allows the Revenge Porn Helpline (who would be the preferred register holders) to share the verified hashes to internet infrastructure providers to ensure content is removed and blocked in cases where removal is not possible.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, every day this content remains online is another day women have to live in fear of it been viewed, downloaded or reshared. This is a vote to tackle non-compliant websites and allow victims to reclaim their lives. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our Armed Forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s attacks, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations, which have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out a drone heading towards a coalition base in Iraq housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant service men and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
However, it is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which sets this out very clearly. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red Sea; it has facilitated Russia’s barbarism in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for all those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Foreign Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The FCDO phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs and others to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the UK, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement. As someone who has spent many years studying the history of that region, I have the profoundest respect for the history and culture of Iran, which over millennia has been one of the greatest pillars of world civilisation. Since the Islamist takeover in 1979, its extraordinary people have suffered horrendously—for the last 37 years under the pitiless hand of the late unlamented dictator Khamenei. The Statement implies that for our greatest ally, the United States, to act against this abhorrent regime was unlawful. It conspicuously offers no support for the strikes and says repeatedly that we will do nothing like them. Can the Lord Privy Seal please set out the Government’s legal position on the US action? It is simply not enough for them to say that this is for the US to explain. Frankly, that is a cop-out. She has the leading expert sitting alongside her.
Can she also say why our bases could not be used to protect US and Israeli citizens when they were under attack but can be used now when other nations are attacked? Is this an example of what they call two-tier international law? Did the savage slaughter of thousands of unarmed youngsters crying for freedom a few weeks ago not tell us anything about the brutality of this regime? Was that mass murder not unlawful? Did the fact that this regime has conducted multiple plots on British soil not sway the Government? Did the fact that the Iranian regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism not tell the Government anything? Was mass terror paid for by Iran for decades not unlawful? Had the Government not noticed that the declared objective of the regime was to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state? Did they not hear Khamenei praising the massacre of innocent Jews on that dreadful 7 October? Was that in accordance with international law?
Were we simply to watch and let this regime acquire nuclear weapons and the missiles to target them on Britain? Was an attempt to stop that by the USA unlawful? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the shadow Attorney-General, has said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed”.
The Statement calls for negotiation, and of course that is the ideal. But the Khamenei regime faked negotiation, reneged on what was negotiated, played for time to develop nuclear weapons, and even now repudiates a negotiated course. Sometimes in human affairs there comes a deciding moment when we are called on to take a choice on where we stand. Opinions may legitimately differ, but the choice has to be made. Last week was such a time, and history will record that when our US ally asked us for help, this Government chose to say no.
Our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by the US. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that we on this side also stand with the US and Israel for taking necessary action to defend themselves and nations across the world from a regime steeped in blood and terror for decades. Where were we when our American allies called last week? We did not just pass by on the other side; we stood in their way and said they could not use the bases. They have noticed.
We welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness has told us today, that the Government have changed their mind on the use of our bases, albeit after far too long. But can she explain to the House how we will know whether each US combat mission is, as the Statement puts it, in line with a
“specific and limited defensive purpose”?
Can she set out to us how in practice this will be determined, mission by mission, and by whom?
The reckless and indiscriminate attacks by Iran on its neighbours in the last days did not reveal but simply confirmed the regime’s well-laid aggressive plans and intent. As the noble Baroness has said, the thoughts of the whole House will be with our brave service men and women, and those of other allied nations, many under attack by Iran, who are now engaged in action. Like the noble Baroness, we salute them and we think of their families.
I also thank the Government for setting out in some detail the actions they are taking to support and protect the hundreds of thousands of our citizens caught in areas under Iranian attack. Many people in the House will have family or friends in the Gulf. I certainly do, and I know at first hand of their current anxiety. Will the noble Baroness keep the House informed of the development of any contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens?
On another issue, does the noble Baroness accept that, in the light of clear evidence of the world strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and in the context of a major conflict in the Middle East, the Bill proposing the naive deal to surrender the Chagos Islands cannot proceed? From this Dispatch Box I have often—and noble Lords opposite will know this—praised the role of the Prime Minister on the international stage. I have spoken here highly of his record on and support of Ukraine. So it was sad to hear this morning the President of the United States feeling he had to be so critical of the Prime Minister on both the strikes over the weekend and the Chagos deal.
This is indeed a time of trial. Our allies and the wider world will judge of what we are made, and we must be decisive, resolute and implacable in the face of this barbarous terror regime.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. The statements from the President today have not added clarity. The Government are right not to have allowed the use of UK assets for offensive use. The US and Israeli Governments’ actions have put UK lives at risk, including our personnel.
Ayatollah Khamenei headed a homicidal regime which brutalised its own people, denied basic human rights and was deeply destabilising from the Gulf through to central Africa and Sudan. But changes of regimes are for the people of that country, not for the interests of another simply because that other has military prowess.
In June 2025, after the bombing of Iran by the US and IDF forces, we were told that that bombing was successful. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that
“our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons”.
IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir said that
“we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years”.
Special envoy from the US Steve Witkoff said then that
“reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve our objective is just completely preposterous”,
but this week he said that:
“They are probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material, and that’s really dangerous”.
We have been told that threats were imminent, and they were not.
The victims of the war are already clear, from the terrible scenes—now being investigated by the United States’ CENTCOM—of the bombing of a girls’ school to the civilians in Lebanon and beyond. There is every chance that the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable. Will the Leader state that His Majesty’s Government stress that protection of civilians in conflict is mandated in international humanitarian law and is not discretional?
These are the early days of this action. We are yet to know the full consequences, and they are hard to predict. They are even harder to predict since what our Government consider our closest ally—which, incidentally, was criticising us yesterday—is led by an untrustworthy President. He could halt the attacks when he wishes, because the objectives have not been outlined, and he could claim a mission accomplished as he defines it himself. He has said enough since the weekend to suggest that he would blame the Iranian population themselves if they did not rise up to topple a military regime—rising up in streets they are fearful of being in because they are being bombed.
There is also no clear endgame. We do not know whether the United States wants a democratically appointed Government, as the protesters do, or a more amenable revolutionary ideological Government and a managed transition to a more acceptable dictator. United States Senator Cotton said yesterday that he hoped that those who could become the leaders of Iran will be “auditioning to be the next Delcy Rodriguez”—that it is fine to be a dictator but one amenable to the United States. This is not what the civilian protesters want either. They are likely to be let down twice.
The regime could topple after a tipping point; if there is no internal security, then we will see some form of “Libyafication”, which does not necessarily bring stability to the region, or there could be an internal factional struggle, with internal strife, for which civilians will pay the penalty. The Iranian regime is one of an immense deep state with enormous state capture, which I have previously described as homicidal but not suicidal. We do not know how long it would take to exhaust its missile and drone stockpiles and the ability to replenish them. On the one hand, it is okay to be jingoistic, but we also have to be clear-eyed that there is not necessarily a clear endgame to what has been started. That is not necessarily in our interests or that of our Gulf allies.
There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas or economic relationships in the hub in the Gulf. We know that, the longer this continues, the increased likelihood there is of economic costs to the United Kingdom. Of the people impacted, businesses, individuals and tourists are likely to be disproportionately affected. With insurance cover now likely to be disrupted in shipping and tourism, can the Leader state what contingencies we have in place given the likelihood of sharp increases in insurance in shipping as well as the cost to our own personnel and our own citizens within the Gulf? Can the Leader give more indications of what a contingency might be for the evacuation of British nationals in the area?
New leadership in Hamas and Hezbollah—not eradication—and now in Iran, adds to greater unpredictability within the region and is likely to perpetuate greater economic instability. That said, I agree with the Statement; there is no justification for any instances of increased antisemitism or Islamophobia in Britain as a result of this. I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on ensuring that all parts of our society have the right levels of reassurance and protection.
Finally, I wish to speak about something that was not referenced in the Statement and that is going on while this conflict is apparent. In the West Bank in Palestine, we see continuing violence and growing concerns over what may be an active annexation. At this time of tension with regard to Iran, what representations are His Majesty’s Government making to the Israeli Government that annexation of the West Bank is contrary to UK policy? It is right that we have recognised the Palestinian state, but there must be a Palestine to recognise.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting set of questions, as their views were diametrically opposed. But one thing the whole House unites around is abhorrence of the Iranian regime. I do not think there is any dissent on our view on that.
I was slightly puzzled by the comments by the noble Lord, Lord True. I think he has probably taken his lead from his leader in the House of Commons. Let me be clear: there were two separate decisions made in this regard, and we have always said that we will comply with international law.
On our second decision, we were asked to allow our bases to be used for defensive support, and we agreed to do so. The noble Lord’s comments seemed to say that, whatever the Americans decide and ask for, we should accede to their requests. We have to take a more measured approach than that, for two reasons. First, we have to act at all times in what is in the national interest of this country. Secondly, if we are to ask British troops to go into action, they need to be assured that there is a clear legal mandate for them to do so. To do anything else would be an irresponsible attitude.
The noble Lord talked about what happened over the last 14 years. I do not recall his party in any of those 14 years say that it supported military action against the regime. The request was made and we declined to take part in offensive action that is not in our remit but agreed to take defensive action when British citizens are under threat, and when requested to by allies in the region, because of the nature of the retaliation from the Iranian Government. That is completely clear and a rational, sensible approach to take in the national interest of our country.
The noble Lord asked whether we will keep the House informed of any measures regarding evacuation. Yes, of course. I managed to get further information today about the number of British nationals who have already registered their presence. The work of the Foreign Office in keeping in contact with them and giving advice is of the utmost importance.
What is clear is that the action we are taking is to protect British nationals. I do not know whether this expression has been used before: it is important that we do not just attack the arrows but the archers. That is why the focus is on those launch sites where missiles can be launched on to our friendly countries and British nationals. We are acting to protect them.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a number of questions. Most of his questions are for the American Government to answer rather than me. It is not the policy of this Government to take action for regime change, as he said. The American Government said that; we have not said that.
On the wider points that the noble Lord made, yes, the obligation to protect civilians is mandated. We cannot opt out of that obligation; it is not discretionary. Of course, it is always the case that civilians are killed and injured during military action, and we have seen that happen already. We have seen that American soldiers have been killed, and military from other countries. We saw the Kuwaiti flights today; the American soldiers were injured but they have survived, I understand. That is not discretionary.
The noble Lord asked about economic instability. That is something that the Treasury will keep under review at all times. Obviously, it is a priority.
The noble Lord talked about antisemitism and Islamophobia in this country. He will have heard in the Statement some of the measures that are being taken, but there is a duty on us all—as I said before, it is a responsibility of every Member of this House—to act in that regard and call it out whenever and wherever it happens. Undoubtedly there are concerns among the Jewish community, as we have heard.
The noble Lord asked about Palestine, and he will be aware of the recognition of Palestine. Whenever there is a serious incident in one part of the world, that does not absolve us of our responsibilities in other areas. There are numerous areas of conflict or tension. We should take care how we respond in a way that is in the national interest, protects British citizens and abides by international law.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now have 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. In order that we can get as many noble Lords in as possible, I remind noble Lords that their contributions should be questions, not speeches.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned international law. I suggest to her—and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place—that no rational international law could prohibit the United States and Israel from taking pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons when it is the avowed policy of that state to use such weapons to annihilate another sovereign state, Israel. It cannot be rational to say to the United States and Israel, “You must wait until Iran has developed such weapons and is about to use them”, because then it will be too late to take action against Iran.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
How the United States and Israel act when they feel under threat is a matter for them. The noble Lord, Lord True, tuts, but I suggest that he calms down a bit; I think it is a bit rude to be tutting from a sedentary position. That is a matter for the United States and for Israel, while of course we will always answer for and defend our actions and act within international law in this country’s interests.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, many people went to Israel to celebrate tonight the festival of Purim, which is the story of Queen Esther saving the Jewish people in Persia, somewhat ironically, instead of which they are in bomb shelters awaiting missiles to attack. They are ashamed and embarrassed, as are many people, of the actions of the Prime Minister in prevaricating, delaying and dithering, and then supporting half-heartedly, as the noble Baroness has said herself, attacks against the evil regime of Iran that has perpetrated attacks in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained. In opposition, Labour called for the IRGC to be proscribed. They have been in office for I do not know how long, but nothing has happened. The reason given for not proscribing the IRGC was because we needed an embassy in Tehran. What is the excuse now?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There are two points that I will raise with the noble Lord. First, I completely, utterly and totally reject his characterisation of the decision that has been taken. There were two separate decisions. If he thinks it is acceptable to say to British soldiers and our military, “You can go into action without a clear international legal basis to do so”, he is mistaken. We are quite clear on that, and I am confident in the decisions taken by the Prime Minister on my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General’s advice.
Secondly, on the IRGC, I was talking to my noble friend Lord Coaker about this earlier, because he remembers discussing this issue when the party opposite voted against proscribing the IRGC—although the noble Lord did not; I think he was the only Member on his side to vote with us.
The noble Lord will know that we do not comment on ongoing discussions or what is under consideration, but perhaps there is something I can say that will help him. He will be aware of Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of Jonathan Hall’s stand-alone report last year, where he made the point that existing counterterrorism legislation, when applied to state threats, is not as fit for purpose as it should be, and that creates challenges. He has made recommendations, and we are committed to implementing all of them. If the noble Lord would like more information on that, I can supply it; I think he was unaware of it. That takes us a step forward, not particularly regarding the IRGC but in how we respond to state threats in dealing with issues such as proscription. I will be reporting back to the House on that issue in due course.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I also thank her, and through her the Government, for the intelligence brief I had this afternoon on the current situation. Clearly, President Trump and now His Majesty’s Opposition seem to have forgotten Secretary of State Colin Powell’s rule about the china shop—once you break it, you own it. It is not clear from what has been said publicly that there is any way forward or strategy on what is going to happen in Iran. As a former Defence Minister, I know the detailed legal constraints that are taken into consideration when the strikes take place. Are there those same legal constraints around the use of the bases which we are allowing the Americans to use?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, the answer would be that all the decisions taken are around self-defence and the protection of our allies. It is a defensive mechanism, not an offensive decision that was taken.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, some of those who wanted a more robust legal position by the Government point to Tony Blair’s speech and doctrine of a quarter of a century ago about the responsibility to intervene against oppressive regimes—that was applied in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans. Given Iran’s record of terror and aggression, which the Prime Minister talks about in the Statement, I wonder whether the Government think that anything remains of Tony Blair’s doctrine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness is talking about two slightly different things. If I recall correctly, that speech was made before Tony Blair was Prime Minister. He also spoke about humanitarian intervention, which was not military intervention, if I have understood correctly.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I can be the only Member of this House who has close family members living and working in the Gulf region who find themselves in possible physical jeopardy at this time. I want to probe the Leader on the legal justification for the Government’s initial decisions. Those of us who have been lawyers know that international law is not a precise science capable of delivering an absolutely authoritative conclusion. Is it not significant that the Prime Ministers in Australia and Canada—who are both from the centre-left, like her own Government, and both of whom operate in a similar legal system to ours—have decided that this was not an objection to supporting what the US and Israeli Governments did?
Is there not a real-world reality here, which is that to protect the very large numbers of British citizens who are now in physical jeopardy—and it must have been understood that there would be a retaliation by Iran—the best way would have been to ensure that the initial strikes were the most effective possible, in what the noble Baroness rightly says is the key objective, in taking out the offensive weapons, drones, and missiles and stopping them being launched at all? If the Government had opened the way for our bases to be used to support this, there would have been better protection available for those who now find themselves in danger.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, my Lords, I pray in aid with some pride that I am not a lawyer—I know that there are many in your Lordships’ House—but I thought the whole point of the law was that it was quite precise in many cases, and that is why we have certain decisions. The noble Lord asked about Australia and Canada. My understanding is that neither Australia nor Canada have been asked for any military support. They have spoken in support but have not been asked to provide military support, so there are two great differences there. The reality is that what we saw in the retaliation from Iran was reckless and indiscriminatory. Therefore, the basis on which the Prime Minister has made the decision to allow UK bases to be used, within international law, is that it is in self-defence and in support of our allies. It is the nature of the response that we saw from Iran on countries that were not involved at all and had not expected it. That is the basis for the self-defence reason in taking the action that we have.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, in the other place this afternoon the Prime Minister referenced “the mistakes of Iraq”. Do the Government accept that while it can be credibly argued that deposing Saddam Hussein’s regime ushered in the environment for Islamist terror to be exported across the region and to the West, in this instance we have a country—an Iranian regime—which is the chief exporter already of Islamist terrorism around the world? It would therefore be a false lesson to learn that you can make the world safer by, in effect, keeping this regime as a credible negotiating partner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord talks about the lessons of Iraq; I think the lessons of Iraq that he learned are perhaps different from those that I did, and certainly, from those the Prime Minister is making his judgment on. The Prime Minister has been clear on the legal basis for his judgment and the purpose of the action that is being taken. It is very much the case that we want to take out those launchpads from which missiles are being launched on to allies of this country, putting British lives at risk, and that is the basis of it.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, some of your Lordships will know of my personal interest in this topic, having experienced at first hand something of the brutality of the Iranian regime. While I certainly would not lament the end of that regime, I share the concern of those who express it that this war is neither legal nor necessary, and that peace is best secured by returning to the negotiating table—which incidentally seemed to be showing some signs of working. Does the noble Baroness agree that while the Islamic republic will certainly have been weakened by these strikes, the regime’s survival instinct is not to be underestimated? Does she agree that while Iranians must decide their own future, western Governments should be cautious about asking protesters to further degrade that regime’s capacity by protesting on the streets, when we know that the Iranian security service will likely use that as a pretext for intensified repression? A bloody descent into a Syrian-style civil war is in no one’s interest and is surely best avoided.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as we sit in this House, and we feel safe and secure, our thoughts must be with those across the region, but particularly in Iran, who will be fearing what comes next and what their lives are going to be in the weeks to come. It is not for us to urge anyone to fight back, but I think there will be a natural reaction from people who have been protesting. The right reverend Prelate is right to speak of caution: if we look at how many protesters in Iran have been killed—murdered by the security forces—we realise how dangerous this has become for them. I appreciate that there are lessons to be learned from what happened in the past, and I agree with her on the survival instinct of the regime, but it is the right action to take to try to remove the weaponry they have to wreak havoc on others, including their own people.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her wisdom and the Statement that she has repeated. Among the many important questions that this conflict raises is the prospect of a two-state solution. In a Statement about the Middle East, it is important to look at all the core elements of this debate. One part of the two-state solution must be the building of an effective Palestinian state that has the rule of law. The Government’s recognition of Palestine was a major step forward, and I congratulate Ministers on that work. I also draw attention to the active support that the Government are giving, and indeed the previous Government gave, to the building of a future Palestinian state through the Palestinian Authority. This is work that I am personally involved in. Can my noble friend reassure me that the importance of building a Palestinian state is not diminished by the conflict going on around this area? Indeed, it may be more important than it has ever been.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend makes a similar point to that made earlier: conflict in one part of the world should not distract us from seeking to resolve conflict in another part of the world. It is very difficult when you look at the various hotspots around the world at the moment. I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend has done on this over many years. He is absolutely right. Even when it seems difficult, holding out hope for a two-state solution, with a viable Palestine and a safe and secure Israel, is so important. The whole area needs that safety and security. The conflict in Iran obviously has wider implications across the region, but just because we are involved in, and are trying to resolve, one issue, that does not mean that we can ignore the many other issues that bring conflict to the world.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in late 2024, the UK announced that it was joining, as a third party, the US-Bahrain Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement, happily shortened to C-SIPA. This treaty is aimed at contributing to a fully integrated regional security architecture, and we duly signed and ratified it. How do our obligations to this treaty reflect on what goes forward, particularly as this organisation was aimed at maintaining open seaways from Bahrain through to the Strait of Hormuz? What is the role of this treaty going forward, and how do the Government view our legal obligations to it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer on that treaty, but I can say that Bahrain is one of the countries that has been under attack and that it has approached us for help and support. We will continue to regard it as an ally and work with it. I can take up the issue of the treaty in due course. The noble Lord asks whether I will write to him. If I have the information, I will, but I want to ensure that we work with Bahrain at the moment to do what we can to protect its security and safety.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next and then from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Leader referred to a “clear legal mandate” that would be needed by our troops if they were to act in the defensive way in which the Government have said that they may be able to do. I looked at the summary of the Government’s legal advice, which was rather restricted to
“acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate”.
Does the Leader think that that is a “clear legal mandate” that can be given by officers to troops whom we ask to go into dangerous situations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that is a summary of the UK’s legal position. The Prime Minister will have looked at all the legal advice that he received. The noble Lord knows that we do not publish all the legal advice, but the information that the Prime Minister had will have given him confidence that there was a clear legal mandate for us to make the decision that we have to support America and Israel in their defensive role of protecting British citizens and safety in the region.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I also have people in Dubai who cannot get out, but I want to concentrate purely on the effects on domestic policy. One thing that is certain about what has happened is that it has made our streets that little bit less safe for Jews. We have seen a wave of antisemitism take over the community. That antisemitism has largely been funded and activated by Iran and the revolutionary guard. We know and understand that the Government will do their best to protect British Jews, but that is not enough, because we are largely creating a society in which a British Jew cannot get married, go to school or go to a community event without having a guard outside. We need not just to talk about implementing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism but to implement it. It needs to be implemented by everyone in government and in power in this country.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw last week the delegation of parents of children affected by antisemitism. I was struck by one woman who said very clearly—I hope the noble Baroness will agree with this—that British Jews do not want extra security; they want to feel secure. Will the Government commit to making British Jews secure?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think everybody would say that we want not security but to feel safe, which is a basic human right for anybody in this country. The degree of antisemitism we have seen on the streets of the UK has been shocking and distressing, but those in the Jewish community have felt it in their soul because it is their very essence that is being attacked. I am sure the noble Lord is not questioning—I do not think anyone can question—the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensure that safety for British Jews. I am not sure what the noble Lord’s question was at the end. Do I agree with the lady who said she wants to feel safe? Yes, of course I do, and we will do everything in our power to help with that.
It is the responsibility of everybody in this House and across the country to support those efforts. Whenever we see antisemitism, if we fail to call it out we are colluding in it. I urge everybody to be very conscious of that and to think about what we all can do to make this a safer place for all British Jews.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:41 - Division on Amendment 281A - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 281A agreed.
21:56 - Division on Amendment 297AA (to Amendment 297) - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 297AA agreed.
22:08 - Division on Amendment 300 - Ayes: 143 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 300 agreed.
22:19 - Division on Amendment 300A - Ayes: 142 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 300A agreed.
“Content removal reporting and enforcement(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for—(a) the way in which offences under section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film) can be reported to the relevant internet service as defined in section 228 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (internet service), and (b) the mechanism by which content created as a result of offences under that section must be removed by the relevant internet service.(2) The regulations must include—(a) a mandatory removal period or de-indexing period, as the case may be, for content that the reporting party reasonably believes to be in breach of section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of 48 hours,(b) a requirement that the reporting process must be clear and accessible, and guidance on what constitutes clear and accessible reporting,(c) sanctions for malicious reporting,(d) sanctions for internet services for the failure to remove duplicates of offending material,(e) a review period after the initial 48 hours for assessing suspected offending content, and(f) a statement of which internet services are within scope of this section, produced after consultation with the Revenge Porn Helpline and other relevant stakeholders.”
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 275 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I apologise to the House for the last-minute degrouping of this amendment. It is a vital amendment and I wanted to ensure that it could be brought back at Third Reading.
The amendment mandates the Secretary of State to create a mechanism whereby sites have to have clear and accessible reporting systems for content that a person believes breaches Section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act on the sharing of non-consensual intimate images. Vitally, it mandates internet services to remove or de-index this content within 48 hours. Critically, it includes sanctions for internet services to remove duplicates.
Last year I was contacted by Christina Trevanion, host of “Bargain Hunt”. Christina spoke to me about the ongoing trauma she faced trying to remove non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes of herself from the internet. She is one of many brave survivors of intimate image abuse who spoke out and inspired my 48-hour take-down amendment. She said, “It’s too late for me, but I do not want my daughters to grow up in a world where posting a photograph of themselves online puts them at risk”.
The amendment was based on the precedent set in the USA with the TAKE IT DOWN Act, itself inspired by the incredible advocacy of a young woman called Elliston and her mum, Anna. Anna described to me the unending trauma her daughter suffered knowing that, for the rest of her life, those pictures could be there. Anna’s biggest priority was getting those images taken down from the internet. For victims such as Christina and Elliston, every day that goes by is another day when they live in constant fear that their content will be viewed, downloaded or reshared in an ongoing cycle of revictimisation. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to work with me on this amendment. I think the Minister knows how passionate I am about this.
I am very pleased that the Government have committed to bring back their own amendment at Third Reading; we will get the exact details in a second. I am very keen to secure an undertaking that we can return to this issue at Third Reading. If for any reason the Government do not follow through and bring an amendment back in time for Third Reading, I reserve the right to bring back my Amendment 275, covering all the elements I have raised on this important issue. I am very grateful to the Minister for her collaboration and determination to work together on this. I know she is committed to getting it right. I ask her to confirm that the Government will provide an undertaking to bring back amendments at Third Reading to address the 48-hour take-down requirement for intimate images. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her amendment, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the Act being passed, to make provisions for the way in which offences of sharing intimate images are reported and the mechanisms by which content is removed by the relevant internet service. I understand that the Government have given my noble friend an undertaking for Third Reading, and I am pleased that they have done so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to put on record that this Government completely accept and agree with the intention that underlies this amendment. That is why, as I said earlier, the Government will introduce a legal duty for tech platforms to take down reported non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours, to ensure that victims get rapid protection. This change, which will be brought forward at Third Reading, will create a strong, enforceable foundation for getting harmful material removed from online circulation, so that victims are no longer left chasing platforms for action. To support swift and effective action to remove this material by internet infrastructure providers, we will also explore any barriers to blocking and how this can be addressed. This will help ensure that rogue sites operating outside the scope of the Online Safety Act will be targeted. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see this change brought about quickly, but as the Government intend to bring forward amendments to this effect at Third Reading, I hope she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
Can the Minister confirm to the House that not only will the Government be bringing forward amendments but if I am not satisfied with them, I may bring back my own?
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
May I just check that that is an undertaking? We have a nod. Thank you. I am very pleased that we will return to this issue at Third Reading, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Register of intimate images shared without consent(1) No later than 12 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a statutory Non-Consensual Intimate Image Register for the purpose of preventing access to and dissemination of material shared online in contravention of section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film) (“NCII material”).(2) The Register must contain hashes of verified NCII material.(3) The Secretary of State must appoint a regulator for the Register to be responsible for oversight, enforcement, and coordination with internet service providers and online platforms.(4) Providers designated by the appointed regulator must use the Register to prevent the re-upload or distribution of NCII material.(5) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on governance, accuracy, proportionality, and privacy safeguards.(6) 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
For the purposes of this amendment, the Revenge Porn Helpline is the preferred body to manage the register. The service currently runs a voluntary hashing register and has indicated that they would be able to operate it. The register would be the authoritative source for platforms, search engines, and ISPs to block, delist and prevent access to NCII content.
Baroness Levitt
“1A After section 66A insert—“66AA Sharing semen-defaced image(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally shares a semen-defaced image of another person (B),(b) B does not consent to the sharing of the semen-defaced image, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(2) A “semen-defaced image” of a person (B) is—(a) a photograph or film which—(i) shows, or appears to show, B, and(ii) has, or appears to have, semen on it or in its immediate vicinity, or(b) a photograph or film of a photograph or film within paragraph (a). (3) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.(4) “Film” means a moving image.(5) References to a photograph or film also include—(a) an image, whether made or altered by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film,(b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and(c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a).(6) A person “shares” a semen-defaced image if the person, by any means, gives or shows it to another person or makes it available to another person.(7) But a provider of an internet service by means of which a semen-defaced image is shared is not to be regarded as a person who shares it.(8) For the purposes of subsection (1)—(a) “consent” to the sharing of a semen-defaced image includes general consent covering the particular act of sharing as well as specific consent to the particular act of sharing, and(b) whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for sharing the semen-defaced image.(10) A person (A) who shares a semen-defaced image of another person (B) does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if—(a) the semen-defaced image had, or A reasonably believes that it had, been previously publicly shared, and(b) B had, or A reasonably believes that A had, consented to the previous sharing.(11) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of sharing a photograph or film of a person where the image has, or appears to have, semen on it or in its immediate vicinity, without the person’s consent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at Schedule 11, page 321, line 19.
Baroness Levitt
“66AD Creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) another person (B)— (i) shares with A a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, B in an intimate state, and(ii) does so in such a way that A can view the photograph or film for a limited time, but cannot send it to another person,(b) A intentionally creates a copy of the photograph or film that A can view at other times,(c) A knows that the photograph or film is shared with A by B,(d) B does not consent to the creation of the copy, and(e) A does not reasonably believe that B consents to the creation of the copy.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii)—(a) the cases in which A can view the photograph or film for a limited time include the case where A can view it for as long as B allows A to do so;(b) sending the photograph or film to another person does not include showing it to another person.(3) References in this section to creating a copy of a photograph or a film include —(a) creating a copy of part of a photograph or film, or(b) creating a copy of a photograph or film with modifications,where the copy shows, or appears to show, B in the intimate state in which B is shown, or appears to be shown, in the photograph or film.(4) Subsection (1) is subject to section 66AE (exemptions).(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the copy.(6) Section 76 applies to an offence under this section.(7) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).66AE Creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily: exemptions(1) A person (A) does not commit an offence under section 66AD(1) in relation to a photograph or film shared with A if—(a) the photograph or film was, or A reasonably believes that it was, taken or recorded in a place to which the public or a section of the public had or were permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise),(b) the person the photograph or film shows, or appears to show, in an intimate state (B) had no reasonable expectation of privacy from such a photograph or film being taken or recorded, and(c) B was, or A reasonably believes that B was, in the intimate state voluntarily.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), whether a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy from a photograph or film being taken or recorded is to be determined by reference to the circumstances that A reasonably believes to have existed at the time the photograph or film was taken or recorded.(3) A person (A) does not commit an offence under section 66AD(1) in relation to a photograph or film shared with A if—(a) the photograph or film had, or A reasonably believes that the photograph or film had, been previously publicly shared, and(b) B had, or A reasonably believes that B had, consented to the previous sharing.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of creating a copy of a photograph or film showing, or appearing to show, a person in an intimate state, that has been shared with the person creating the copy only temporarily.
Baroness Bertin
“66AD Possession of software to create or amend a digitally produced sexually explicit photograph or film(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A intentionally possesses, obtains or stores software whose primary purpose is to create or alter a digitally produced photograph or film which shows another person (B) in an intimate state.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for possessing, obtaining or storing software whose primary purpose is to create or amend digital images of a person in an intimate state.(3) A person (A) commits an offence if A possesses, obtains or stores software with the intention to create or alter a digitally produced photograph or film which shows another person (B) in an intimate state.(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for intending to create or amend digital images of a person in an intimate state.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).(6) Where A is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may require A to delete—(a) the software used in the commission of an offence this section;(b) any copies of a photograph or film they have taken under this section, including physical copies and those held on any device, cloud-based programme, or digital or messaging platform they control.(7) A person can only commit an offence under this section if they are aged 18 or over.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create offences to possess software which can produce nude images of another individual.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I want to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Levitt
“(2A) In subsection (3), at the end insert “, or as a person with whom it is shared”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the provider of an internet service by means of which a photograph or film is shared is not regarded as a person with whom it is shared for the purposes of the offence in section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of photograph or film in section 66D(4B) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Baroness Levitt
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of consent in section 66D(10) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to the new sections inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
Baroness Levitt
“(za) section 66AA;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the time limit for prosecuting the offence in new section 66AA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 321, line 19).
“(ba) section 66AD;” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment extends the time limit for prosecuting the offence in new section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at Schedule 11, page 325, line 18.
“An offence under section 66AD(1) (creating copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily) | The defendant intentionally creating a copy of the photograph or film in question.” |
This amendment is consequential on new section 66AD(6) of the Sexual Offences Act inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13.
“Section 66AD | Copy of a photograph or film to which the offence relates” |
This amendment enables a deprivation order under section 177DA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to be made in respect of a copy the creation of which is an offence under new section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
“Section 66AD | Copy of a photograph or film to which the offence relates” |
This amendment enables a deprivation order under section 154A of the Sentencing Code to be made in respect of a copy the creation of which is an offence under new section 66AD of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (inserted by my amendment to Schedule 11, page 324, line 13).
Baroness Levitt
“Online Safety Act 2023 (c. 50)
23 In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 28A (Sexual Offences Act 2003), at the end insert—“(c) section 66E (creating purported intimate image of adult);(d) section 66F (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds offences to Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023, requiring service providers to take action to identify and minimise users’ exposure to content created or requested in the commission of those offences and to mitigate the risk of services being used to commit those offences.
Baroness Levitt
“Pornographic images of sex between relatives(1) After section 67D of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert—“67E Possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives(1) It is an offence for a person (P) to be in possession of an image if—(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63,(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) sexually penetrating—(i) the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of A’s body or anything else, or(ii) B’s mouth with A’s penis,(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that A and B were real, and(d) a reasonable person—(i) looking at the image, and(ii) taking into account any sound or information associated with the image,would think that A and B were related, or pretending to be related, in a way mentioned in subsection (2).(2) That is to say, A being related to B as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.(3) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).(4) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.(5) For the purpose of subsection (1)(d)—(a) the reference to sound or information associated with the image is—(i) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (1), to sound, or information, associated with the image that is in P’s possession, and(ii) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (3), to sound, or information, associated with the image that the person in subsection (3) publishes with the image, and(b) A and B are not to be taken as pretending to be related if it is fanciful that they are actually related in the way pretended.(6) In subsection (2)—“(a) “parent” includes an adoptive parent;“(b) “child” includes an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002;“(c) “uncle” means the brother of a person’s parent, and “aunt” has a corresponding meaning;“(d) “nephew” means the child of a person’s brother or sister, and “niece” has a corresponding meaning.(7) For the purpose of this section—“(a) “image” has the same meaning as in section 63;(b) penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal;“(c) “vagina” includes vulva; (d) references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).(8) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply to excluded images, within the meaning of section 64.(9) Nothing in—(a) section 47 of the Adoption Act 1976 (which disapplies the status provisions in section 39 of that Act for the purposes of this section in relation to adoptions before 30 December 2005), or(b) section 74 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (which disapplies the status provisions in section 67 of that Act for those purposes in relation to adoptions on or after that date),is to be read as preventing the application of section 39 of the Adoption Act 1976 or section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for the purposes of subsection (6)(a) or (b).(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.67F Defences to offence under section 67E(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67E(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).(2) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67E(1);(c) that the person—(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time;(d) that—(i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or B mentioned in section 67E(1)(b),(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and(iii) the person is not related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(2).(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67E(3), it is a defence for a person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4).(4) The matters are—(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for publishing the image concerned to the persons to whom they published it;(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67E(1);(c) that—(i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or B mentioned in section 67E(1)(b),(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person,(iii) the person is not related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(2), and(iv) the person only published the image to person B or A (as the case may be).(5) In this section, “non-consensual harm” has the same meaning as in section 66. 67G Penalties for offences under section 67E(1) A person who commits an offence under section 67E(1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(2) A person who commits an offence under section 67E(3) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).”(2) In section 68 of that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), after “67A” (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert “and 67E”.(3) In Schedule 14 to that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), in paragraphs 3(1), 4(2) and 5(1) after “67A” (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert “or 67E”.(4) In section 47(1) of the Adoption Act 1976, for “or sections 64 and 65 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sex with an adult relative)” substitute “sections 64 and 65 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sex with an adult relative), or section 67E of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives)”.(5) In section 74(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002—(a) omit the “or” after paragraph (a);(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, or(c) section 67E of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives).”(6) In Schedule 34A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (child sex offences for the purposes of section 327A), after paragraph 13ZA (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert—“13ZB An offence under section 67E of that Act (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives).”(7) In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 29, after paragraph (b) (inserted by section 90 of this Act) insert “;(c) section 67E (possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence to possess or publish pornographic images of sex between relatives (that is to say, incest).
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
Amendment 297A, as an amendment to Amendment 297, is replaced by manuscript Amendment 297AA tabled today, which clarifies where it amends Amendment 297.
Baroness Bertin
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I intend to test the opinion of the House. It is not acceptable that step-incest is still currently available in pornography, and we should absolutely outlaw it. The Sexual Offences Act means that it is completely illegal in nearly all step-relations, and it should be outlawed, so I will divide the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin
“Pornographic content: duty to verify age(1) A person commits an offence if they publish or allow or facilitate the publishing of pornographic content online where it has not been verified that—(a) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has given their consent for the content in which they feature to be published or made available by the service,(b) every individual featuring in pornographic content on the platform has been verified as an adult, and that age verification was completed before the content was created and before it was published on the service, and(c) every individual featured in pornographic content on the platform, that had already been published on the service on the day on which this Act was passed, is an adult.(2) It is irrelevant under subsection (1)(a) whether the individual featured in pornographic material has previously given their consent to the relevant content being published if they have subsequently withdrawn that consent in writing, either directly or via an appointed legal representative, to—(a) the platform, or(b) the relevant regulator where a contact address was not provided by the platform to receive external communications.(3) If withdrawal of consent under subsection (2) has been communicated in writing to an address issued by the platform or to the relevant public body, the relevant material must be removed by the platform within 24 hours of the communication being sent.(4) An individual guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(5) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of where the offence takes place.(6) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if any part of the offence takes place in the United Kingdom.(7) The platform on which material that violates the provisions in this section is published can be fined up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.(8) The Secretary of State must appoint one or more public bodies to monitor and enforce compliance by online platforms with this section, with the relevant public body—(a) granted powers to impose business disruption measures on non-compliant online platforms, including but not limited to service restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an ancillary service, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service); and access restriction (imposing requirements on one or more persons who provide an access facility, whether from within or outside the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulated service);(b) required to act in accordance with regulations relating to monitoring and enforcement of this section issued by the Secretary of State, including but not limited to providing the Secretary of State with a plan for monitoring and enforcement of the provisions in this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, and publishing annual updates on enforcement activity relating to this section.(9) A relevant public body has a duty to act under subsection (8)(a) if it is satisfied an offence has taken place under this section even in the absence of a prosecution or if it is notified by an individual that consent has been withdrawn by that individual under subsection (2).(10) Internet services hosting pornographic content must make and keep a written record outlining their compliance with the provisions of this section, and such a record must be summarised in a publicly available statement alongside the publishing requirements in section 81(4) and (5) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (duties about regulated provider pornographic content).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes it a requirement for pornography websites to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their site, and enable withdrawal of consent at any time.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
Age and consent checks on porn companies are the very minimum standards that we should be putting on these organisations, which cannot be self-regulated and need to have this regulation put on them. It is the very basic thing that we should be asking of them. I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Bertin
“Amendment of Protection of Children Act 1978(1) The Protection of Children Act 1978 is amended as follow. (2) In section 1(1)(a) (indecent photographs of children) after “child” insert “or a person who appears to be or is implied to be a child”.(3) In section 7 (interpretation), after subsection (9) insert—“(10) When determining under section 1 whether an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph is of a person who appears to be or is implied to be a child, reference may be had to—(a) how the image is or was described (whether the description is part of the image itself or otherwise);(b) any sounds accompanying the image;(c) where the image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images—(i) any sounds accompanying the series of images,(ii) the context provided by that narrative;(d) the overall context in which the image appears, including but not limited to, the setting, the conduct and appearance of the depicted person or persons, and any other relevant factors.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a series of amendments to the Protection of Children Act 1978 to extend the offence of making an indecent photograph of a child to cases where the child depicted is an adult.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
We must outlaw content that mimics child sexual abuse. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
“Sexual activity with an animal(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) For section 69 (intercourse with an animal) substitute—“69 Sexual activity with an animal(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person intentionally touches an animal (whether living or dead),(b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is touched, and(c) the touching is sexual.(2) For the purposes of this section, touching is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that—(a) because of its nature it may be sexual, and(b) because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.” (3) In section 78 (meaning of “sexual”), after “66D” insert“, 69”.(4) In section 79 (Part 1: general interpretation) omit subsection (10).(5) In paragraphs 35 and 92 of Schedule 3 (sexual offences that make offender subject to notification requirements), for “intercourse” substitute “sexual activity”.(6) In the following provisions, for “intercourse” substitute “sexual activity”—(a) paragraph 151 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003;(b) paragraph 38(az) of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the existing offence of intercourse with an animal with a wider offence of sexual activity with an animal.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, we have dealt with some unattractive topics already this evening, and we are about to embark on another one. Government Amendments 301, 302, 451 and 465 in my name deal with the unpalatable but very serious question of animal sexual abuse.
These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in both Houses. I am grateful to many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Blencathra and Lord Pannick, and Danny Chambers MP, all of whom argued persuasively that the current offence does not reflect the full range of abhorrent behaviour that we believe should be prohibited. I pay particular tribute to David Martin and Paula Boyden from the Links Group, who met me and provided the Government with further evidence.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 390 in my name, to which my noble friend Lord Blencathra has added his own. He is an exceptional champion of animal welfare and it is an honour, as always, to have his support.
First, I shall speak to government Amendment 301. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. As she said, we had a good debate on this subject in Committee—also quite late at night, if I recall. The Government clearly listened carefully to the arguments and to the strength of feeling in the House and have acted on that. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me—along with my colleagues from across the sector, especially, as she said, David Martin and Paula Boyden, to whom I pay tribute for their tireless work and insight—to discuss these issues in some depth, and to her officials who have worked on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has also been extremely supportive and helpful.
I welcome the Government’s amendment, which goes a long way to dealing with the issues I highlighted in Committee and supported. This is a really important step forward, both in terms of animal welfare and in recognising the link between animal sexual abuse—ASA—and domestic abuse and violence. There are one or two matters on which I would just like briefly to press the Minister.
First, it is disappointing that there are no powers of disqualification for individuals convicted of ASA or specific powers to deprive the offender of any animals they own at the time of their conviction. The best way to protect animals is to ensure that those inclined to commit such despicable crimes are banned from owning them or having access to them. The Minister may argue that this would follow on from a sexual harm prevention order but, as I understand it, such orders are available only if the court imposes a custodial sentence of two years or more, and the vast majority of these cases will not meet that threshold.
There may be other mechanisms through which a perpetrator could be deprived of the ownership of the animal they abused, but that will require the courts to remember to do this, and that cannot always be taken for granted. The best way to ensure that is to have something on the face of this legislation but, perhaps, if that is not possible, the Minister could kindly make clear the Government’s intentions in this area, for future reference.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that there is a discrepancy between the maximum sentence for physical animal abuse, which is five years, and for ASA, which will be set at two years. This could be said to convey the message that animal sexual abuse is less of a crime than physical animal abuse. I am absolutely sure that that is not what the Government intend, so again perhaps the Minister could just clarify the reasons for the discrepancy.
Thirdly, the amendment does not deal comprehensively with the issues around the possession and sharing of animal pornography, and here too there are no powers of disqualification or deprivation for imagery offences involving ASA.
These are technical points, but they are none the less very important and I would be very grateful if we could get the Minister’s views on the record. Ideally, there may be some way of sorting them out at Third Reading and the Minister and her officials would have my strong support in doing so. Having said all that, I am not going to make the perfect the enemy of the best. This amendment is real progress in dealing with this vile crime of animal sexual abuse and I am very grateful to the Government.
I turn to my Amendment 390, on a linked subject, which seeks to create notification requirements for people convicted of animal cruelty. It is analogous in many ways to the requirements relating to the sex offenders register. As we discussed in Committee, there is a real and frightening link between cruelty towards animals and violence towards a partner. As domestic abuse charities have consistently made clear, those who maim or kill animals often go on to become involved in incidents of domestic violence and, in the worst cases, murder.
One of the early warning signs of an abusive partner is the way they treat pets, which is why it is one of the questions on the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking and harassment—risk assessment routinely used by police across the UK to determine a victim’s risk of further harm. The evidence is as overwhelming and alarming as it is painful to read. Pets are often the first to be abused and harmed as perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to coerce, control or punish. Research undertaken by Refuge4Pets, which does wonderful work in this area in association with Dogs Trust, found that almost nine in 10 households which experienced domestic abuse said that their animals were also abused by the perpetrator. In 49% of cases, animals, appallingly and tragically, are killed by the abuser. A study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that animal abusers are five times as likely also to harm humans. Unsurprisingly, 70% of people who have committed animal abuse also have criminal records for violence, property or drugs offences, or disorderly behaviour.
Beyond these statistics, horrific though they are on their own, is the very real human face of the victims, one of whom was a lady called Holly Bramley. Holly was murdered at the age of just 26 by her husband, Nicholas Metson, in 2023. The following year, Metson was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life in prison. Before she was so tragically robbed of her life, Holly was subjected to horrendous abuse by Metson, who had also been reported to the police for repeated extreme cruelty to her beloved pets. That was a red flag for the tragic events that followed, if only anyone had known about it.
Holly’s courageous mother, Annette Bramley, is now campaigning for a new nationwide protection register to identify those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals in a bid to stop this sort of tragedy ever happening again. As Annette has said:
“Had there been a register with his name on there that we could have looked at, perhaps Holly might be here today”.
This campaign for what is dubbed Holly’s law is already backed by a petition with 50,000 signatures on it. The Member for South Holland and The Deepings in the other place, Sir John Hayes, has been a strong campaigner for action. I pay tribute to the tenacious work that he has been doing in gathering support from across the political spectrum for something to be done.
I know that the Government recognise the link between animal abuse, particularly of pets, and domestic violence. I therefore very much hope that, despite what the Minister has said, they will see the strength of this amendment, which would provide a vital resource for both individuals like Holly and their families, who may be in danger, and for law enforcement. It is a simple change that could help thousands of potential victims and ensure that no more families like Holly’s tragically have to suffer the same anguish because vital signs are missed.
I hear what the Minister has said, and I take her points on board. I hope that she might think again about this at some point. I am not going to take this any further forward this evening. If she is unable to do so as part of this Bill, maybe we could look at it again with regard to measures that come out of the Government’s animal welfare strategy in due course. I am very grateful to the Government for the action that has been taken.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we should at least be grateful that we are dealing with this matter well after the dinner break. I support my noble friend’s amendment. I also support government Amendment 301. It is a big improvement on the current law, but I am very disappointed that it omits some of the essential features of the proposed new clause in the original Amendment 316 that my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood had advocated for.
The Minister is a very talented lawyer, an excellent addition to this House and a nice person to boot. Her amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is also incredibly able and almost as nice as the Minister. So I am being brave, or rather suicidal, when I say that these two lawyers have missed some of the crucial points in Amendment 301, as opposed to the proposed new clause in my noble friend’s original amendment. It seems that the government amendment is punishing people only for the perversion of the crime itself and not for the cruelty to the animal concerned.
Rather than continuing to say “the proposed new clause in the original amendment from my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood”, I will simply refer to it as Amendment 316, which was its number in the Marshalled List in Committee. Amendment 316 would have not only criminalised sexual activity with animals but treated the conduct as an animal welfare matter. It would have given courts express powers to remove animals from offenders, direct their disposal, rehoming or destruction, and make disqualification orders tied to the Animal Welfare Act.
Government Amendment 301 criminalises sexual activity and touching but does not include those explicit welfare remedies or the statutory link to the Animal Welfare Act. Amendment 316 had a built-in mechanism for disqualification orders for owning, keeping, dealing in or transporting animals, and would have required those orders to be treated
“as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006”.
Government Amendment 301 contains no parallel disqualification provisions, so an offender convicted under that amendment will not automatically be subject to the same statutory animal control prohibitions unless other legislation applies. Later in my remarks I shall come to the Animal Welfare Act and say why it is not adequate to deal with this problem.
Amendment 316 would have expressly allowed courts to make offenders subject to notification requirements and tied in amendments to the Sexual Offences Act and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act for images. Government Amendment 301 changes the wording elsewhere, replacing “intercourse” with “sexual activity”, but the core text does not set out the same notification on image-related court powers.
Amendment 316 explicitly amended the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to add images of sexual activity with animals and attach the same animal welfare disqualification remedies to convictions for those image offences. Amendment 301 does not include those parallel amendments.
We now come to the crux of the matter: the penalties. Amendment 316 carried higher maximum custodial sentences—up to five years on indictment—and therefore signals a higher statutory seriousness and sentencing range than Amendment 301, which is up to just two years on indictment. However, when we look at sexual activity with a corpse in government Amendment 302, we see that the maximum penalty will be raised to seven years, if I am right.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is another X-rated group of amendments. I added my name to government Amendment 301, on sexual activity with an animal, and I spoke on this subject in Committee. The prohibition of sex with animals has a long history—it was proscribed in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 23—and it is high time that the statute book comprehensively addressed this subject. The predecessor section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 fails to do that. I am pleased that the Minister, whom I thank, listened very carefully to the debate. She has listened to all those who made representations, and the Government have brought forward an amendment that—while it is no doubt less than perfect, for the reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Black, indicated—is a very considerable step forward. I am grateful to the Government and support Amendment 301.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendment on sexual activity with an animal. The original amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Black, shone a fierce but necessary light on the grim intersection of animal abuse, child exploitation and online coercion, and it is because of that work that we are now debating a meaningful change to the law. What matters now is that the law recognises the overlap between animal sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation and wider patterns of coercive control, and that we respond with tools that are fit for purpose in 2026.
The Government’s amendment to Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act replaces the narrow offence of “intercourse with an animal” with a broader offence of
“sexual activity with an animal”,
defined by intentional or sexual touching, whether the animal is living or dead. It also ensures that such conduct engages the notification regime in Schedule 3, so that those convicted can be managed as sexual offenders. That is a significant and very welcome step. However, there remain gaps that need to be addressed. The terminology widely used in policing and safeguarding is “animal sexual abuse” because it captures a spectrum of exploitative acts, including material that is filmed, traded online or used to groom children. These are not marginal cases; they go to the heart of how abusers terrorise children and partners, including by targeting family pets.
Amendment 390 from the noble Lord, Lord Black, would introduce notification and offender management requirements for a defined list of serious animal cruelty offences, placing those convicted on a register. That would apply to those who cause unnecessary suffering, arrange animal fights, possess extreme pornographic images of animals, damage protected animals or intentionally engage in sexual activity with an animal, as well as those who cause, coerce or permit another person, including a child, to do so, or who use an animal for sexual gratification. These are not technical tweaks. Notification and active offender management recognise the strong links between serious animal cruelty and the risk of harm both to animals and to people, especially children, who may be targeted with these horrific images or forced to participate in their creation.
A similar system to the sex offenders register would allow the police and probation service to monitor such offenders and retain the information needed to manage the risk they pose over time. I freely acknowledge the progress already made, but without the robust notification and management framework envisaged in Amendment 390 we will still be asking front-line agencies to deal with extremely dangerous offenders with one hand tied behind their back. The cost of getting this wrong is borne not only by animals but by the children and adults who are terrorised, coerced or groomed through this abuse. While I welcome the Government’s amendment as an important milestone, I urge the Minister to go further and to match the full ambition of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Black, on notification and offender management.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments in this group and I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood to the Minister for her remarks and for listening and acting on the concerns raised in Committee. I acknowledge the work of my noble friends Lord Black and Lord Blencathra, who are tireless champions of animal welfare and have worked effectively with the Government on the Bill.
We welcome the introduction of Amendment 301 and its consequential amendments, which build on the debate in Committee and update the offence of “intercourse with an animal” with a wider provision that covers all sexual activity, as we have heard. This area of law has long needed updating, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, and I am glad that the Government are doing it now. My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood raised a couple of concerns that were worth highlighting. He said that to deprive an individual of animals that they own after they have been convicted is a logical next step. If the primary goal is to promote the welfare of animals, as I believe it is, it seems to me that the best way to achieve that would be to ensure that those who have been convicted are prevented from owning or having access to animals.
Similarly, he spoke about the discrepancy in sentences and that does not seem to make complete sense, as it stands. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.
My noble friend also mentioned the possession and sharing of animal pornography. I am sure that there is not much appetite for further discussion of pornography today, but this is an important issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could commit to considering measures to curbing animal pornography in the future.
Finally, these Benches wholly support the intention behind the amendment in the names of my noble friends. In the interest of brevity, I will not repeat the statistics or arguments raised by my noble friend Lord Black in his speech, but the evidence base is clear and irrefutable. It seems there is a causal link between animal abuse and domestic abuse and sexual violence. As he highlighted, pets are often used to coerce and control victims of domestic abuse. There seems to be institutional knowledge within relevant authorities that this is happening and yet we lack the safeguards to address it. My noble friend also mentioned the tragic case of Holly Bramley.
The cost/benefit of this measure is hard to argue against. The child sex offender register, a current practice that uses the same principle, costs just £1.92 million per year. I suggest that we would be in similar sums for this. I understand that the Minister may not be able to offer her support to this measure at this point, but I hope that it is something that the Government will return to in the future.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Blencathra, Lord Pannick and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for welcoming the Government amendments today and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for the flattering remarks that he made which were very welcome after a long day in your Lordships’ House. I am pleased to hear that the amendments have this support and, once again, I thank those who raised this with us in Committee.
This new offence is focused solely on strengthening the criminal offence relating to sexual abuse of animals, given the scope of this Bill. To establish this offence, the new offence that the Government are bringing today, the prosecution does not have to prove that the animal actually suffered, because this was sometimes an obstacle to prosecutions in the past. This was something that we were persuaded of during the meetings with the noble Lord and those who came with him. Where the conduct has caused the animal to suffer, the defendant can be charged with an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for which orders such as removing the animal from the offender’s ownership, rehoming or destroying the animal, or disqualifying the offender from keeping animals are available. It is not either or—they can both be charged at the same time. It is quite common with criminal behaviour.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The Minister says that the accused could be charged. Charged and prosecuted by whom?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Although the RSPCA conventionally prosecutes, there is nothing to stop the Crown Prosecution Service from prosecuting. If you had conduct that fell within both, you would not have two separate prosecutors bringing two separate sets of proceedings; it would be the Crown Prosecution Service for both. However, I understand the concerns. I am committing to continuing to engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders on this issue. We will keep it under consideration.
As far as animal pornography is concerned—obviously a great worry to everybody—the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 already criminalises possession of pornographic images depicting extreme acts, which includes intercourse or oral sex with an animal, whether living or dead. We do not believe that further legislation is necessary.
Turning to the question of sentence, the current offence of intercourse with an animal carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment, which we will retain for the new offence. We do not have evidence at the moment that this is insufficient to enable the courts to deal appropriately with offending of this nature, but we know that, when animal suffering occurs, there are higher penalties available under the animal cruelty legislation, which—as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—provides sentences of up to five years’ imprisonment. Once again, we will engage with parliamentarians and key stakeholders as to how the existing animal cruelty offences operate alongside the new offence. With that in mind, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Black, to withdraw—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am sorry for holding the House back this late at night. The Minister says that there is nothing to stop the CPS prosecuting for animal cruelty if it is prosecuting a case of sex with an animal and discovers cruelty. In that case, will she guarantee that the CPS will issue guidance to all its prosecutors that, where a prosecutor is prosecuting for animal sexual abuse and discovers animal cruelty, he or she will automatically prosecute it and not wait for the RPSCA to do it God knows when?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The difficulty is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as a matter of constitutional convention, is independent of the Government and does not take well to being told what to do by them. However, we can raise this with it and ask whether it will look at it again. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates the wording of a reference to the offence of sexual activity with a corpse in paragraph 92 of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
“Restriction on applying for gender recognition certificateAny offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may not obtain a gender recognition certificate.”
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 307 in my name. I spoke to it in Committee and have brought it back because it is an important issue. The amendment would simply ban any convicted sex offender from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I remind your Lordships that a gender recognition certificate would enable this individual to legally change their gender from male to female. That means they can live legally as a woman and access women’s and single-sex spaces.
When we debated this before, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, responded to my remarks and I thank him very much for his letter to me. I have tabled a number of Written Questions on this issue. I will make a couple of points about why this amendment is still needed and why I am not satisfied with the Government’s assurances.
In my discussions with the Government, they have rightly highlighted their tightening up of the requirements and safeguards to protect the public when people are changing their name. That may be the case with a gender recognition certificate. If somebody is changing their gender, they may wish to change their name—not necessarily, but it could happen. The Government are tightening up those requirements, putting in enhanced notification requirements, restricting changes to identity documents and bringing in closer requirements for police supervision. All those things are good, but it still requires the sex offender to notify the police of any changes to their personal information. It happens after the event; it is not a blanket ban. The onus is on the criminal to go to the police and say, “I have changed my name”. This is a convicted sex offender, so many would say that it stands to reason that there is a low level of trust in them anyway. To me, it is not a satisfactory answer.
The other objection the Government mentioned when I was bringing this forward and tabling Questions was that the scale of the problem is very small. That may be true, but the numbers are as follows. Almost 10,000 gender recognition certificates have been issued since 2004. Last year alone, 1,169 were granted. Nobody is saying that every single person who has been granted a gender recognition certificate is a sex offender or criminal—not at all—but the issue is that we do not know whether any of them are. There may be individuals within that population who are convicted sex offenders. I say that this is possible because, as the Government have confirmed, a criminal conviction is not disclosed in the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. Apparently, the panel assesses risk and looks at a number of factors regarding that individual, but a criminal conviction is not part of that process.
I found that very strange, and various members of the public who have written to me have also found it rather strange. The argument that this is a small number of people is not adequate to reassure the public that we would not have somebody who has been convicted of a horrific crime—sex with a child, rape, paedophilia—go on to potentially obtain a gender recognition certificate. What possible reason could that individual have for changing their gender? There would be only one reason: they want to access more vulnerable people and commit horrendous crimes.
To me, it seems a matter of common sense that you could make the process of applying for this certificate something that has a step somebody must go through to say “I am not a convicted sex offender”, or the panel should require that evidence in its deliberations to ensure that somebody who has been convicted of rape or sexual offences of a serious nature should not be permitted to change their gender. The Government say that these issues are judged on case-by-case basis, but they do not keep the information that would really inform those decisions. The questions I have tabled to the Government show that applicants are not required to provide details of criminal convictions, and only 6% of those applications are refused for any reason. So it does look like a reasonably permissive process that people are able to get through quite easily.
If a person has successfully changed their gender and name, the onus is on them to go to the police. This is a system that is full of loopholes. It is not satisfactory to say “Well, it’s only a small number of individuals”, because even one person being able to do that is too many.
I will very briefly come back to the absolutely horrendous case I mentioned before. A perpetrator called Ryan Haley sexually abused a girl who was only 13 years old; she had to go to court and watch him on trial for sexual abuse, where he insisted that everyone call him Natalie Wolf and said he was celebrating his body and his choice. What about the body of the young girl who was abused under horrific circumstances? Why should he get to stand up and be treated as a woman when he committed disgraceful acts on a 13 year-old girl? That is the reason for my amendment, and I look forward to the Government’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for outlining her reasons behind Amendment 307. However, I approach this from a somewhat different perspective. I do not sit behind the fact that there is a very low number of transgender people who are convicted of sex offences; I turn it around and look through the other end of the telescope. This is why I found the Government’s updated guidance called Crime and Policing Bill: Management of Offenders Factsheet extremely helpful.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, referred to names. The factsheet very clearly says that sex offenders may not make name changes without the permission of the police; if they do not have permission, they are committing an offence. They also have to notify the police of any contact with children. In the past, that has meant that, whenever they spend 12 hours or more in a household where children are present, they have to notify the police of the address, the date on which they are going to stay and when residence began.
The changes will remove the time threshold and the responsibility not only on the offender but of those involved in monitoring the offender, whether it is the police or probation, meaning that any contact with children in the future will be monitored. Further, if they are away from a previously notified address, that is an offence, as the other items are under the Sexual Offences Act, if they do not notify authorities. The police will be watching for people who are on the sexual offences register to make sure that they comply, and I suspect they and probation would be very concerned if there were gaps in appearances and would chase them.
Is the Minister satisfied that the public would be safe from any sex offender on the register who is caught by the terms of this factsheet—which is a very good practical document for police, probation and others—whether they are transgender or not?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly. As was the case in Committee, we wholly support the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment. It would serve to prevent those who commit a sexual offence obtaining a gender recognition certificate and is a necessary step that would stop criminals retroactively exploiting gender recognition laws. Our view is that we should not put inmates at risk by placing other criminals of a different sex in prison with them, for instance. I have direct experience of this in Scotland, where a few years ago there was the celebrated case of Isla Bryson, who was a double rapist initially housed in the female prison estate having decided to transition while standing trial, and I would not want to see those mistakes repeated in the rest of the UK. I hope that the Minister can offer his support for this amendment and I look forward to hearing his reply.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for setting out Amendment 307. As she knows, we have discussed this in Committee, we have corresponded and I am grateful for her acknowledgement of that. Amendment 307 seeks to prevent anyone with a conviction for an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 being eligible to obtain a gender recognition certificate.
As I said in Committee, individuals with sexual offence convictions are already subject to a comprehensive set of post-conviction measures, including the notification requirements, sexual harm prevention orders and oversight through multi-agency public protection arrangements. These ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present and not their gender. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, obviously we believe that the measures in place are supportive and preventive and will manage offenders. We can never guarantee that offenders do not reoffend, but there is very close supervision and oversight through those multi-agency protection arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned the number of gender recognition certificates issued and the potentially small number of people with a gender recognition certificate who commit an offence. Most of those who have one are living their lives legally, honestly and decently and will not come within the remit of this legislation. Given the strength of the post-conviction risk management systems that I have just mentioned, together with the very small number of gender recognition certificates issued each year, the Government do not consider a statutory prohibition of this kind to be necessary. To return to the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the notification regime exists to support risk management, and we remain unconvinced that a blanket restriction on access to a gender recognition certificate will provide any meaningful additional protection.
Where a registered sex offender seeks to change their name following a change in gender—which goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, with the Scottish example that he gave—whether or not a gender recognition certificate is involved, in England and Wales, the measures as outlined in Clause 98 will apply.
I think that the measures in Clause 98—I know she has read them—are quite important. The notification requirements state:
“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.
The measures are there to ensure that reasonable, practical steps are taken. The clause provides the recognition that we are putting in place, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned: a registered offender must notify a new name to the police before a name change is put in place. In the small number of cases where somebody wishes to have a gender recognition certificate involved in a name change, Clause 98 covers the points clearly. It becomes clear that requiring offenders to notify the police of the acquisition of a gender recognition certificate will aid the police in the risk management of sex offenders. The Government can exercise existing regulation-making powers to introduce such a requirement.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments. Just to be very clear and direct, it would be one less individual for the MAPPA arrangements to worry about, because that individual would not have changed their gender. They would still be living in their previous gender and there would be a very straightforward process there. There would be no risk of loopholes and that person falling outside the MAPPA arrangements.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I again draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 98, which says:
“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.
Again, criminal or not, if people wish to identify in the way in which they identify, I think they are entitled to be allowed to do so. I give way again.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for intervening at this time of night. Surely the key point is that, once someone has been convicted of a sex offence, being on the register, either indefinitely or for a particular period, is the trigger for the monitoring of that offender. Whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not is almost irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to the noble Baroness, and I absolutely accept that, but all the monitoring of that individual will happen regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I said this in my opening remarks, but I will repeat myself to enforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: the arrangements in place ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. That is the key point that I put to the noble Baroness. The gender issue is covered by Clause 98. The management of risk is covered whatever their gender happens to be at any time. People still have the right to change their gender and identify as they feel right, according to their own circumstances.
I say again to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people who apply for a gender recognition certificate are not going to be sex offenders. They are going to be ordinary people walking round the streets and living in communities and never even thinking of being sex offenders. I do not wish to tarnish those individuals who have a full right to live their life as they choose, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I will not detain the House. I have heard what the Minister said and I am unsatisfied, but I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Katz
“(b) in subsection (1), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (2), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, following consideration of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Committee, the Government have brought forward amendments to the stalking provisions in Part 6.
Amendments 308 to 313, 314 and 315 explicitly provide for the civil standard of proof to apply when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement to an order in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This includes when the courts are deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order. This will promote consistency and improve clarity in understanding of the standard of proof applicable in cases of stalking protection orders.
In addition, I am very happy to accept Amendment 316 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will convert the power conferred on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about stalking into a duty to do so. This will align the provision on guidance in the Stalking Protection Act 2019 with that in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, promoting consistency in the legislative provisions which aim to tackle violence against women and girls.
My noble friend Lady Royall also has Amendment 313A in this group. I will respond to it once she and other noble Lords have contributed to the debate, but in the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 313A, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment in Committee. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the domestic abuse protection orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders, and it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims.
I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting me, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support.
Amendment 313A is very similar to the one I moved in Committee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices—SPNs—to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate, since it would criminalise the breach of a police-issued notice without court oversight. I have therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for DAPOs.
Why is this amendment necessary? Because, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super-complaint and its report on experiences of the CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one, given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place.
In response to the super-complaint, HMICFRS highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the Government to use the DAPN framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the DAPN, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection in stalking cases.
The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of the stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they are likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.
It is both right and logical that SPNs should be enabled and put in place following a similar approach to DAPNs. They would offer immediate police-applied protection in stalking cases and set a timeframe for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that, at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser, so steps must be taken to bring this into line.
The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This case opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, vexatious complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved house to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different OICs and different teams from the outset, which has caused considerable delay—to the detriment of the client. An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there has been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force.
The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP but, as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025. Multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025, but this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months the force had not secured an SPO. At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force’s legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time that has elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it has required a magistrate’s application to secure a bail extension.
This and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection notices. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for setting out the details of her amendment, which I signed. I will not repeat any of the things that she said. I completely endorse them. I thank the Government for their amendments. Moving from the criminal level of proof to a civil standard of proof is important. We have been arguing for this for some time, so I am very grateful that the Government have taken this on board.
My Amendment 316 is another attempt to draw parallels between all the protections for victims of domestic abuse and those of stalking. It felt an odd decision that a Secretary of State might be able to report but not have to report on conditions. So I am very grateful that the Minister has signed my amendment. I look forward to seeing the statutory reports in due course.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, as a preliminary point, when we debated this part of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower made the point that the Government are not taking a strong enough line on sentencing for those convicted of stalking offences. That remains the case. I hope that Ministers will heed that warning. Violence against women and girls is unacceptable. We can all agree that and we must have a zero-tolerance approach. Strengthening stalking protection orders is just one step, but we need to take a tougher approach on sentencing and enforcement.
Amendment 313A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is a reasonable proposal which Ministers should consider. It sets out the structure of the SPN procedure. The noble Baroness also spoke to existing flaws in the current SPO system. I have a couple of questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could consider. Do the Government feel that the existing stalking protection order system is dealing with orders sufficiently quickly? What steps are Ministers taking to speed up the process when issues arise?
Given the hour, I do not intend to detain the House further. We accept the government amendments in this group on the civil standard of proof, which respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. They have the effect of clarifying the position on the standard of proof used when imposing SPOs. Clarity of the law and its application are essential parts of any just legal system and we welcome them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. As my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon set out, Amendment 313A would introduce a stalking protection notice, which could be imposed by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. I am grateful to my noble friend for continuing to raise the operational issues impacting how well stalking protection orders work in practice and the differences between existing protective order frameworks for addressing violence against women and girls.
I am also grateful to my noble friend, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for meeting with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, to discuss their amendment. I understand and sympathise with the intention of noble Lords to address this issue. In our violence against women and girls strategy, published in December, we committed to launch stalking protection order intensification sites into select police force areas. These will aim to drive up the use of stalking protection orders and provide opportunities to test innovative approaches to enforcing conditions and monitoring breaches which could be adopted nationwide.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I have just had a look to see whether I can find any data on the number of stalking protection orders issued to those under 18, and the answer is that they are not disaggregated. The Minister is drawing this great distinction about those aged between 10 and 17. We have just had a debate on another matter where we think there is a very small number involved. It would be useful to know if we could have some help from the Minister on the likelihood of numbers.
Lord Katz (Lab)
It may not entirely surprise the noble Baroness that I do not have that data or the awareness of what we can do with the data to hand, but I am certainly happy to undertake to write to her with as much detail as we can summon.
I hope that my noble friend will be content not to move her Amendment 313A and, with other noble Lords, will support the government amendments in this group.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
“(i) in paragraph (a), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement in a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
“364I Stalking protection notices and streamlined process for stalking protection orders(1) A senior police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above may issue a stalking protection notice (“SPN”) where they have reasonable grounds to believe that—(a) the defendant has carried out behaviour associated with stalking as described in this Act,(b) the defendant is aged 18 or over, and(c) it is necessary to issue a notice to protect another person from the risk of stalking.(2) A stalking protection notice may—(a) prohibit the defendant from engaging in conduct which amounts to stalking, or from contacting or attempting to contact another person (“the protected person”) in a manner associated with stalking behaviour,(b) include a direction for a defendant to attend a magistrate’s court within 72 hours for an application for a Stalking Protection Order, and(c) remain in force until that hearing takes place.(3) A stalking protection notice must—(a) state the grounds on which it is made,(b) set out the terms of the notice, and(c) inform the Defendant of the date, time and location of the court hearing.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the response from my noble friend the Minister. I did not really understand the point about age, so I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I look forward to reading Hansard and to receiving a letter likewise.
It is great to know that there is an internal review taking place, and of course we look forward to Richard Wright’s review. I note that the Government have said that they will respond to the review within four months, so we look forward to a response before the summer. With that, I am happy not to press my amendment.
“(ii) after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;(c) in subsection (3), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement, is the civil standard.
“(aa) in subsection (3)(a), after “satisfied” insert “on the balance of probabilities”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the standard of proof which applies when a court is deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order is the civil standard.
Baroness Brinton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the issuance of stalking guidance by the Secretary of State, mirroring the provisions for guidance within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for signing my amendment, and I am grateful that the Ministers said they would accept my amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Addington
“Consultation on guidance for serious self-harm offences(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance regarding the application of sections 115 and 116 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm). (2) Before issuing or revising any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult extensively with the following persons and organisations—(a) representatives of self-harm support charities and organisations;(b) mental health professionals, including those providing trauma-informed care and support;(c) legal experts, including prosecutors and defence practitioners, regarding the application of the specific intent requirement;(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The guidance issued under this section must—(a) clearly differentiate between conduct falling within the criminal offence under section 102 (which requires specific intention to encourage or assist serious self-harm) and legitimate, supportive, or therapeutic activity;(b) include instruction for law enforcement and relevant agencies on identifying and engaging with vulnerable individuals in a trauma-informed manner.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of any guidance issued or revised under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the serious self-harm sections of this Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I join the Bill, at this late stage, very much as the understudy. I am afraid my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones could not be with us any longer, but the hour is late and I do not think anybody can accuse him of not putting in a shift. He gave me brief notes, and I will try to précis them further.
This is inspired by charities feeling that the advice they give out may be caught by the Bill. Of course, this will not be the intention of government, but the cock-up theory of history is one I have always found very appealing. If it can go wrong, it probably will, unless you put something in place.
I believe my noble friend was waiting for a letter from the noble Baroness the Minister; I am not policing his inbox so I do not know what has happened there, but if we can get some clarity from the Dispatch Box that steps will be made so that there is no confusion and this very important work can take place, then the noble Baroness, if she is replying to this, will be doing us all a favour in making sure that help can be given to people who desperately need it. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I had written “I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones”, which I crossed out, and then “the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey”, which I also crossed out. I will now say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this amendment and for the careful way in which he outlined the basis for it.
We support the intention behind Clauses 115 and 116. These are serious offences, designed to capture those who deliberately encourage or assist serious self-harm. Precisely because the subject matter is so grave and so bound up with vulnerability, it is essential that the law is applied with clarity and care.
The amendment’s focus on consultation and guidance is pragmatic and proportionate, because policy in this area must be rooted in the lived experience of mental health professionals and legal practitioners, so guidance that distinguishes criminal intent from legitimate activity will be vital to avoid unintended consequences. For those reasons, we lend our support to the principle behind this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I too had a speech that started off thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I too crossed that out and wrote in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I also now thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving this amendment.
I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is not in his place now, for meeting me to discuss his amendment. I think I was able to persuade him and to reassure him that guidance on the application of Clauses 115 and 116 is not necessary. I also wrote to him—I know I cleared the letter, and it may even have been the day before yesterday; I think I have just received a message saying that it may not have been sent until this afternoon, but it has definitely gone. We have placed a copy in the House Library. The letter was written with the intention that it could be sent to the various charities so that they could see exactly what I was saying.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I discussed, the existing offence that these amendments seek to broaden, which is under Section 184 of the Online Safety Act, is already in active use by the CPS and law enforcement. We are not aware of any cases involving therapeutic support where prosecutors have struggled to determine whether a prosecution was appropriate. The CPS guidance is clear about the requirement of intention, which must be present to meet the threshold of the offence, and the CPS legal guidance will be updated to reflect the widened scope of the offence, which now covers conduct both online and in person.
The offence also contains two important safeguards. First, the defendant must intend to encourage or assist the serious self-harm. Secondly, their act must be capable of doing so. These safeguards ensure that vulnerable individuals and those providing mental health support are not also inadvertently captured.
I should make it clear that it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to target either vulnerable people or the therapeutic services that support them. The Government believe the offence as it operates now and as it will be expanded in the Bill is proportionate and targets only the most serious and culpable offending. I hope that the noble Lord is content with these reassurances and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving that assurance. Having it repeated again at the Dispatch Box makes it easier for people to feel secure about this. That, along with the letter, which I am sure is a work of great wisdom, will add to the fact that we will have a defence in place, just in case there are misunderstandings. With that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.