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
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I am glad that the hon. Member and I have had the chance to discuss this issue on a number of occasions, and, more importantly, that we had the chance to do so with his constituent Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, who served our country and campaigned on behalf of other veterans. I know that she has sadly passed away since our meeting, so I wish to put on the record my condolences to her family—not least to her son Les, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) has been in touch in recent days. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) is aware, exactly because of the service of our armed forces, £10 per week of any armed forces compensation scheme award is disregarded when calculating pension credit entitlement.
Josh Babarinde
The Minister will remember that Pauline was a veteran who was awarded military compensation for injuries sustained in her service, but that led to her pension credit being cut from £77 a week to £10 a week, because military compensation is considered income by the Department for Work and Pensions. I have introduced Pauline’s law—the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill—to ask the DWP to correct that injustice and disregard military compensation in those calculations. Will the Minister work with me, and with Pauline’s sons, Les and Simon Haffenden, to conduct a review into the merits of disregarding that income in order to protect our veterans in future?
Torsten Bell
I recognise the powerful arguments that the hon. Member and Pauline made in our meeting. Our position today reflects the balance between recognising service injuries and being consistent across the welfare system. Pension credit is a means-tested benefit, the goal of which is to top up pensioners’ income to a guaranteed minimum level, so in order to ensure consistency, most forms of income—including those he refers to—are taken into account. However, as I said, there is a partial disregard in order to recognise veterans’ service, and the value of lump-sum payments received in respect of personal injury are fully disregarded.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Headline unemployment is below its average rate under the previous Government, and inactivity is falling as more people actively seek work. Some 381,000 more people have moved into work over the past year. However, there is a long-term challenge in youth unemployment, which we are responding to through the youth guarantee, more youth apprenticeship starts and other measures.
John Cooper
Youth unemployment is, in fact, spiking at nearly 5.3%, which is heartbreaking, particularly for young people who cannot get that all-important first job. The Government like to pretend that they are a cork in a storm-tossed sea and unable to do anything about this, but they could reconsider employer national insurance contributions and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025, which is driving up youth unemployment.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member will be aware of the national insurance tax break under which no employer national insurance contributions are payable for workers under 21, unless they earn more than £50,000, which not too many workers under the age of 21 do.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister answered a question about unemployment by giving data about employment, so let us focus on unemployment numbers. By how much has general unemployment increased since July 2024?
Pat McFadden
I did talk about unemployment. As I said, the unemployment figures are lower, on average, than when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. We are, of course, doing everything we can to help people into work, which is why I referred to the measures that we are taking, including the youth guarantee and increased apprenticeship starts. That is a much more active approach than the one carried out by the previous Government, who saw rising numbers of young people not in education, employment or training but did precisely nothing about it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Government loaded costs on to employers while the benefits bill let rip. What on earth did they think would happen?
Pat McFadden
As I said, no employer national insurance contributions are payable for workers under the age of 21, and we believe that workers should be decently paid for the work they do. We are responding to the particular challenge of youth unemployment, which I acknowledge is there, and was there when the Conservative party was in power, with active measures such as the youth guarantee and more youth apprenticeship starts. I remind the House that youth apprenticeship starts fell by 40% while the Conservatives were in power.
Alison Griffiths
I recently launched my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton business club. Many who joined are independent hospitality and leisure businesses, and their No.1 concern is how difficult it is to take on new staff under this Government. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the Treasury’s new jobs tax, and the Government’s new employment regulations, on job creation in coastal constituencies such as mine? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to mitigate those effects?
Pat McFadden
I congratulate the business club—such organisations play a valuable role in our constituencies. The hon. Lady asks what measures we are taking, and I am grateful to the Chancellor for the extra funding made available in the Budget for the youth guarantee. That will gives hundreds of thousands more training and work experience places to young people and, importantly, will provide funding for the long-term youth unemployed to gain six months’ work, paid at the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week, so that young people get used to the discipline and duty of turning up, doing a job, and experiencing the sense of pride and purpose that comes with having a job.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Net migration has fallen to the lowest level since 2021, which will have a significant impact on our labour market and economy if we do not train and support unemployed people in the UK into jobs in key sectors. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to target back-to-work programmes, especially those for young people who are not in work, education or training, to fill skills shortages in crucial areas such as health and social care?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. The fact that net migration is falling to lower levels than we have seen for some time gives added urgency to a question that has often been posed: why do we not do more to train our own workers? That is precisely why I am prioritising youth apprenticeship starts, which fell by 40% under the previous Government. We must arrest that decline and ensure that we respond to the new situation of falling levels of net migration by training more of our own young people.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State outline what exactly the youth guarantee means for young people in my constituency of Mansfield?
Pat McFadden
What it will mean for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and many others, is intensive work coach training, and the chance of training or work experience. If that does not get them into a job, ultimately it will mean a subsidised job, where they get six months of work experience, paid at the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week. The last thing we want is people leaving education and going on to a life on benefits.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that the level of young people not in education, employment or training in Harlow has gone down, due to the hard work of Harlow College, working in partnership with local schools such as Passmores Academy and Burnt Mill Academy, which I visited this morning. Businesses and the local chamber of commerce are telling me that the No.1 challenge for getting young people into employment is the skills they have upon leaving school. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Department for Education to ensure that we have a curriculum that incorporates the skills that employers so desperately need?
Pat McFadden
I am relieved to hear that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is dropping in Harlow. The number of such people rose by a quarter of a million in the last few years of the Conservative party’s time in government, and they did absolutely nothing about it. Bringing skills into the Department for Work and Pensions gives us the chance to bring skills policy and labour market policy closer together, to help young people get that vital chance of a first job.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
When this Government came into office, unemployment stood at 4.2%. After a brutal 18 months of job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth policies, it now stands at 5.2%, with young people bearing the brunt—1 million of them are not in employment, education or training. We Conservatives believe in being in work and off welfare, and that is the best path to eradicating poverty. Will the Secretary of State break with the mistakes of all previous Labour Governments and commit that unemployment will be lower at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start?
Pat McFadden
I believe this may be the first time that the hon. Member has appeared at the Dispatch Box in his capacity as shadow Minister—if I am wrong about that, I am sorry; but if I am right, I welcome him to his position. He asks about the forecast for the future. It was published alongside the spring statement a couple of weeks ago, and in it the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast employment to rise in every year of the forecast period.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Politics is all about choices. Last week, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box with a choice: she could have chosen to reverse the jobs tax that is costing thousands of jobs for young people up and down the United Kingdom. Why she did she not make that choice?
Pat McFadden
Whatever Department I am in, I hear the same question from the Liberal Democrats. They support all the extra spending that is funded by revenue-raising measures, but they oppose all the revenue-raising measures themselves. If the hon. Gentleman wants NHS waiting lists to fall and if he calls for more spending every week, then he has to support the revenue-raising measures that make that possible.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Universal credit is primarily reserved for people settled in the UK. With regard to trends, overall the proportion of universal credit claimants in this country who are foreign nationals has fallen from 17% in January 2025 to 15.5% in the latest statistics from January 2026.
John Lamont
According to the Government’s own figures, most foreign nationals who are claiming universal credit are not in work. The Government do not seem to want to do anything to bring that figure down, so will the Minister tell us how much this is costing the UK taxpayer?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the proportion of foreign nationals claiming universal credit who are in work is one third higher than the proportion for people who are British or Irish claiming—[Interruption.] If he prefers to put the figures into the context that he has just suggested from a sedentary position, the figure is 10% lower in terms of people who are not in work. It is often difficult to extrapolate a specific number because universal credit figures, such as these, are calculated on a per household basis rather than on an individual basis. If I am able to provide the specific number, I will follow up with him in writing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system by foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and there is a consultation under way to move that point from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship. However, if it is the Conservatives’ position to suggest that somebody who has worked here for decades, contributed to the system and made a positive contribution to this country should have absolutely no access to support, we have a fundamentally different point of view.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The statistics for the second half of 2024 show the scale of the situation that we inherited from the previous Government. The number of young people not in education, employment or training had increased by around 300,000 since 2021, but, unlike the last Government, we are doing something about that. Over three years, the Government will invest some £1.5 billion to improve opportunities for young people through both the youth guarantee and more youth apprenticeships. We are expanding the number of youth hubs to more areas of the country, and we aim to add about 50,000 more starts through the change to youth apprenticeships. That is in stark contrast to the situation we inherited.
Mr Rand
I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to Wiseup Networks, an organisation, based in my constituency, that enables employers across Manchester and London to provide young people with work experience and mentoring opportunities for those with social and economic barriers to work, including young people with special educational needs. Those opportunities lead to job offers, increased confidence and new career options for the participants. Given this Government’s commitment to social mobility and ensuring that young people are earning or learning, will the Secretary of State meet me and Wiseup Networks to discuss how we can support its vital work?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the valuable work of Wiseup Networks. He is absolutely right; work experience and mentoring can play a very important role in helping young people to find work. Confidence can be an issue for young people, so building that up is really important. I am happy to arrange a meeting between him and a Minister from this team.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am delighted that the Secretary of State is planning to visit the David Nieper Academy in Alfreton later this year. The school recently achieved zero NEETs at age 18 for the second year running by working closely with local industry and teaching employability skills. Local initiatives such as that should be complemented by national programmes. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on the results of the Wakefield pathfinder, which is seeking to trial a new, locally led approach to jobseeker support? Given our success in Alfreton, can he confirm whether Amber Valley could be considered as a location for the next pathfinder?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the excellent work of the David Nieper Academy in achieving NEET zero, and I congratulate it on doing so. She mentions the career service pathfinder in Wakefield, which was launched in April 2025. We are testing more personalised employment support, and evaluation is under way to understand how this approach works. It is right that we approach these matters with flexibility and innovation, and do not always do what we have always done.
Josh Dean
A young person with undiagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is more likely not to be in education, employment or training. That is driven by a lack of recognition, treatment and tailored support. The expert-led NHS ADHD taskforce estimates that the cost to the UK economy of unsupported ADHD is £17 billion each year, but, with the right support, young people with ADHD can thrive. Will the Secretary of State set out how the Department is working across Government, including through the Milburn review, to ensure that young people with ADHD can access the support they need to thrive in work and reach their potential?
Pat McFadden
I know that my hon. Friend has spoken movingly about his own experience with ADHD. I assure him that Alan Milburn, a former Health Secretary who is carrying out this report for us, is in regular contact with the chair and secretariat of the independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, which is being carried out by the Department of Health and Social Care. More broadly, we should support young people, try to increase their confidence and ensure they do not conclude that a diagnosis means that they cannot work, because that should not be the conclusion reached. Many people who do have a diagnosis can go on to have very productive working lives.
Anneliese Midgley
Last week I met with Knowsley chamber of commerce, and we all welcomed the Government’s youth guarantee. Some 55,000 placements is a great start, but no scheme starts are currently planned in Knowsley, where the likelihood of young people not being in employment, education or training is higher than average. Will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the scheme and meet me and Knowsley chamber of commerce to discuss how we can get more young people into good jobs in Knowsley?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully of how unemployment in her constituency has scarred generations. I assure her that the youth guarantee will become nationwide by the end of the year. We have to break the cycle of intergenerational unemployment that she has spoken about, and I share her desire to be more ambitious in that area. I am very happy to keep up a dialogue with her and to meet with her, or to have a fellow Minister in the team do so.
Alex McIntyre
Gloucestershire Gateway Trust does vital work in my constituency, helping those not in employment, education or training back into work. It runs the Bridging the Gap programme, which provides an employability skills course and a guaranteed interview at the country’s best motorway services, Gloucester services. It also ran the Going the Extra Mile project, which supported over 2,000 local residents who were furthest from employment. It is exactly the kind of organisation we need to work with to tackle the challenges we face, but the GEM project was stopped under the previous Government due to a lack of funding. Can the Secretary of State visit my constituency to see the work that Gloucestershire Gateway Trust is doing, and to discuss how we can work with community and voluntary organisations to tackle these challenges from the ground up?
Pat McFadden
I suspect we could be here for some time talking about what the best service station in the country is, but I have to say that Rugby services, between London and Wolverhampton, has taken things to another level. Gloucestershire Gateway Trust has helped create over 400 jobs for local residents. It continues to provide invaluable support, and I am very happy to take the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at some point—diary permitting, as they say.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Might the Secretary of State perhaps come up to Long Riston in my constituency and go to Oasis services, where I went on Friday? It faces a fivefold increase in its business rates, as well as the impact of the more than £4,000 increase in the cost of hiring a young person. Some people may welcome this national youth guarantee from the Government, but does it not remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of what Ronald Reagan said about the left? If something is moving, they tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and when it stops moving, they subsidise it.
Pat McFadden
The truth is that the Conservatives presided over a huge post-covid rise in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, and they did precisely nothing about it. They also presided over a huge rise in the number of young people going on to sickness and disability benefits and did precisely nothing about it. They have discovered a thirst for change only after leaving office—they have no credibility and no plan on this issue. In contrast, we are responding through the youth guarantee, through changes to the apprenticeship system, and by giving young people more hope that the Government will help give them a chance in life.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
A recent report from Adzuna, a large job search agency, shows youth unemployment at an 11-year high and vacancies plummeting. Jobseekers urgently need the new “jobcentre in your pocket” digital service. Given that current timeframes suggest that it will not be ready until 2028, will the Secretary of State assure us that all options are on the table to accelerate delivery—including leveraging the private sector and technology—so that we can support jobseekers now, rather than years down the line?
Pat McFadden
We do want to support jobseekers now. As I said, there is a long-term challenge with youth unemployment, which we are responding to through the measures I have outlined. If we can be more ambitious than those measures in the future, we very much will.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Centre for Social Justice found that as of the end of last year, 707,000 young people with a university degree were out of work and on benefits. That statistic comes at the same time that employers in my constituency, from the furniture makers in Princes Risborough to the rocket scientists and space sector in Westcott, are saying that they do not want graduates any more—they want apprentices. What is the Secretary of State doing in conjunction with the Department for Education to better signpost young people into pathways for learning and education that will actually help them get a job further down the line?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman will find that graduate unemployment is an international issue. If we want more non-higher education skills, he should support our plans to stop the decline that we saw in youth apprenticeship starts when his party was in power and to direct more money to youth apprenticeship starts. That is precisely what we will do.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
MYTIME Young Carers in Dorset works to identify and support young people with caring responsibilities, as without information on their whereabouts, it is hard to target them for initiatives. In a recent national youth voice survey, one in three young carers aged 16 to 18 reported that they were not in education, employment or training. That is eight times the rate of the rest of their peers. What steps is the Department taking to level the playing field for young carers alongside their peers, so that they can fulfil their potential?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady makes a good point. When we look at the total number of NEETs, within that is what we might regard as standard unemployment cases, a lot of health, sickness and disability cases and a significant number of young carers. One of the things we are doing is expanding childcare support through free breakfast clubs and extending the number of free hours so that we can support young parents to get into work after they have had a child.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited Ventrolla, a specialist heritage window manufacturer in my constituency. It was concerned by the recent announcements of apprenticeship reform and the impact that will have on its apprentices. It has signed a cross-party and cross-organisation letter from industry leaders and experts to the Prime Minister about the sector’s concerns about the changes to apprenticeships. They think those changes will undermine the Government’s ambition to generate economic growth. What conversations are Ministers having with businesses such as Ventrolla to ensure that these changes do not adversely impact the sector and rob young people of these opportunities and apprenticeships?
Pat McFadden
We have a lot of dialogue with businesses about the nature of the growth and skills levy and how it is used. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are making a choice to prioritise young people. It is precisely because the previous Government did not prioritise young people that we saw a 40% decline in apprenticeship starts. I do not think that is an argument for the status quo; it is an argument for change. That is the slogan upon which we were elected, and it is change to the system that we will bring.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
When the Secretary of State and I last met like this, he lauded the roll-out of youth hubs and the introduction of the youth guarantee as the solution to tackling the scale of young people not in education, employment or training. Since then, however, apprenticeship figures have been updated. The latest figures show that apprenticeship vacancies and adverts have significantly decreased since the Labour Government took office. If we compare the latest figures from this academic year with the same period in 2024-25, apprenticeship adverts have fallen by 27% and the number of vacancies has fallen by 22%. How can the Secretary of State make the promise of a youth guarantee with this alarming reduction in the number of available apprenticeships?
Pat McFadden
Precisely because we are tilting the funding more towards youth apprenticeship starts, we will arrest the decline that happened when the hon. Lady’s party were in power. Change needs to come to the system if we want to do that, and I believe it is the right choice. The effect on young people who come off education and go on to benefits can be lifelong, so it is right that we prioritise them in the system.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The right hon. Alan Milburn is making progress on his report. He brings valuable experience as a former Secretary of State for Health and former chair of the Government’s Social Mobility Commission. He is engaging with stakeholders across the country to increase the understanding of what has driven the increase in NEETs in recent years, and his interim report is due later in the spring.
Adam Thompson
With almost 8% of 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training, Derbyshire is the worst county in the east midlands for NEET. In New Stanton Park in Ilkeston, on the former site of a once-famous ironworks, major investments are bringing good manufacturing jobs back to Erewash. Will the Secretary of State share the work he is doing to ensure that apprenticeships are available to disadvantaged young people so that they can thrive, instead of being left behind?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend brings valuable experience to this matter, including his experience of teaching engineering apprentices at the University of Nottingham. We are committed to ensuring that disadvantaged young people have access to high-quality apprenticeships and can benefit from the new jobs being created in places such as Erewash as a result of the changes in how the growth and skills levy is used—as I have explained in response to earlier questions—and the extension of youth hubs in the region to give young people who may not be claiming benefit or undertaking an apprenticeship the chance of finding that vital first job.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Sophia, whom I spoke to in my constituency office in Winchester this morning, is one of many recent graduates—often with really good degrees from really good universities—who have been applying for hundreds of jobs and not even receiving replies. Has the Department carried out an assessment of the impact of artificial intelligence, in all its forms, on graduate employment prospects over the next few years? What work has been done with universities and institutions that offer apprenticeships to ensure that young people are graduating with the right set of skills to be able to work in this era of artificial intelligence?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member has posed a very good and important question, and the issue of graduate unemployment is by no means confined to the UK. In the United States, for example, a similar debate about graduate unemployment is taking place. The truth is that structural developments are happening in the labour market. Technology is undergoing a big shift, and I think that all Governments must ask themselves how to help young people through this transition. The one thing that we cannot do is abandon them to it: we have to train people, and we have to ensure that the UK is best placed to take advantage of this big technological shift.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
Under the last Government an additional 900,000 children became part of the child poverty statistics, but as a result of our Child Poverty Strategy, published in December, 550,000 will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the current Parliament—the largest number ever in a single Parliament. The removal of the two-child limit from April, for instance, could benefit about 4,710 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Kirith Entwistle
I am proud that this Labour Government will lift more than 4,500 children in my constituency out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit, but what further measures are the Government implementing to tackle child poverty and support families in my constituency?
Dame Diana Johnson
Reducing child poverty is a moral imperative for us all, and for this Government in particular. We know that growing up in poverty damages children’s health, education and future employment prospects. We have just been discussing the number of NEETs, and many of those children could become NEETs, so child poverty is bad for the UK’s economic prosperity as well. We had not just been waiting for the strategy in December; we had already introduced the extension of free school meals eligibility, tripled access to breakfast clubs and supported the holiday activities and food programme, and we have put £1 billion into the reforming crisis and resilience fund.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 a year over the current Parliament. That reflects the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for the duration of the Parliament. Payments of both the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.8% in a few weeks’ time, boosting pensioners’ incomes by up to £575 a year.
Peter Prinsley
I declare an interest, in that I receive a state pension. [Hon. Members: “No! No way!”] We welcome the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, but some pensioners in my constituency continue to live in poverty and isolation, and are in need of food banks. What specific measures can the Government take to reduce social isolation and tackle poverty in this group of people?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—and for the shocking news of his age. He is absolutely right to highlight both these issues. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government, but it has risen more recently. That is why it is so important that, as well as increasing the state pension, we have put in place the biggest-ever take-up campaign for pension credit and focused on the cost of essentials—most importantly, energy, where new measures will come into place in the next few weeks.
My hon. Friend is also right to focus not just on poverty, but on isolation. I am sure that all Members of the House, when we are out knocking on doors at the weekend, meet some younger, but also some older, constituents who are too isolated. They might not be happy to see the Member who comes to knock on their door, but they might be. Whatever people think about politicians knocking on their doors, we all have organisations and charities in our constituencies—such as Age Cymru in Wales and, I am sure, many in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that do important work in tackling isolation among all our communities.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I declare a similar interest to that of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I read this weekend that if we grapple with the increase in pensions and benefits, we might be able to afford 15 new frigates. It is easy for Opposition Members to attack in-work benefits; it is more difficult to question the state pension. Has the Minister seen the paper from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says we should consider moving to a smoothed earnings link for state pensions, which would ensure that they never fall in real terms but, in the long term, always rise with earnings? He will not give me an answer now, but perhaps he can write to me about how we are going to buttress the long-term sustainability of the state pension.
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Member is right to recognise the challenge. We have around 12 million pensioners at the moment, but that will rise to 18 million over the next 50 years. Our view is that having the triple lock drive above-inflation increases, on average, among pensioners is the right thing to do for this Parliament. That is why we set it out in our manifesto, and that is what is driving the increases in the state pension. When it comes to affording the cost of frigates, I merely point him to the fact that defence spending under this Government is higher in every year than it was in a single year under the Conservative party.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Helping millions of people ensure financial security in their retirement is a cornerstone of the Minister’s Department, but in the Government’s first 18 months, they have disincentivised pension savings by introducing inheritance tax on pensions, removing pensions from their lifetime ISA reforms, forcing pension trustees into mandation and, most recently, introducing a cap on salary sacrifice savings incentives. Through their actions, this Government are pushing people to be more reliant on the state pension, rather than encouraging people to take control of their own financial future. Which will be the next Government U-turn: cancelling mandation, or abandoning salary sacrifice caps?
Torsten Bell
That was just a bit sad, because the U-turn that we are seeing is from the hon. Member, who declined to vote against the Pensions Schemes Bill at Second Reading and on Report. I will quote him back to himself. He told me that “the Minister”—that is me—
“will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”
[Interruption.] Wait a second. He then got even more excited—back in his reasonable days, before he had been leant on by the “looney tunes” who will wander off to Reform—and told us that
“we broadly support the measures in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722-723.]
The U-turn has been done by the hon. Member, who has let himself down.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Health and Safety Executive is working to ensure that employers know their duties under COSHH—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2022, as amended. Those regulations require a risk assessment and the prevention of, or adequate control of, exposure of employees to hazardous medicinal products.
Luke Akehurst
Will the Minister consider developing a clear statutory definition of “hazardous medicinal products” and subsequently mandate the development, publication and ongoing maintenance of a comprehensive UK list of hazardous medicinal products?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend make an interesting suggestion, and I know there has been some campaigning around this issue. The Health and Safety Executive has not seen evidence that the current arrangements are inadequate. They appear to be robust and well established, and they seem to be doing the job that is needed. If there is evidence of a problem to which my hon. Friend is able to draw attention, the HSE will certainly look at that very seriously. For now, though, the focus is on making sure that NHS trusts and others know their obligations under the current regulations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I do not know whether he had a chance to see in the paper last week some figures for poisonings of those over 50 years of age on a number of occasions, although whether those were the unexpected effects of medicinal products or arose from lifestyle is not yet known. As a result of the uncertainty and the rising number of such poisonings, will the Minister look into this issue and come back to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), me and the House on whether there is a connection? I think there may well be one.
Sir Stephen Timms
I do not think I have seen the report the hon. Gentleman refers to. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of a problem with the current arrangements. There may be some pointers in the information he referred to, and if there are, I would be keen to have a look at them.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The Scottish unemployment rate is 3.8%, and overall economic inactivity in Scotland is higher than in the UK as a whole. However, I am pleased to say that Scotland has had the biggest increase in funding since devolution began. It will benefit from major defence contracts, including the £10 billion contract to build five new frigates for the Norwegian navy, and from the trade deals we have negotiated over the past year, which will be of particular benefit to Scotland’s whisky and food industries.
Kirsty Blackman
One in three—or more than one in three—people in my constituency are employed directly or indirectly or in induced jobs in the offshore energies industries. Given the continuation of the tax system for oil and gas, investment in that industry has reduced. Is the Secretary of State confident that the Government’s measure of the number of jobs lost, particularly in the oil and gas industry, is truly accurate, given that people are generally not signing on for universal credit but rather doing things such as moving to Dubai and Doha?
Pat McFadden
That is of course a hugely important industry for the UK. The hon. Member will be aware that a transition is taking place, but oil and gas will be part of the mix for a long time to come. The Chancellor met those in the industry last week, and I assure the hon. Member and her constituents that the industry’s importance is recognised and hugely valued by the Government.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Last year, the SNP Government in Holyrood funded nearly 9,000 fewer apprenticeships than colleges and industry asked for, robbing thousands of Scots of opportunities and starving businesses of skilled workers. Meanwhile, youth unemployment in Scotland is rising; more than one in eight young people in Scotland are unemployed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the solutions to that problem is electing a new Government in Holyrood in May, under Anas Sarwar of the Labour party?
Pat McFadden
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s final point. I think Anas Sarwar would make an excellent First Minister, and I look forward to supporting him in the campaign to come. The youth guarantee, to which I have referred, extends to Scotland. We want young people in Scotland to have as many opportunities and as good opportunities as young people anywhere else in the UK, and in particular not to fall into the pattern of leaving education and going on to a life on benefits.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The hon. Lady’s hon. Friend, the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) raised this important concern in a Westminster Hall debate last week. A backlog of reassessments for the work capability assessment did build up during 2024. I am pleased to say that that backlog will have been almost entirely cleared by the end of this month.
Manuela Perteghella
Research from Scope found that, in 2025, only 7% of work capability assessments carried out were reassessments for existing claimants, compared with 19% the previous year. One of my constituents has experienced a significant deterioration in their health and urgently requires reassessment to determine whether they should now receive the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. What further urgent actions will the Minister take to reduce waiting times and ensure that disabled people are not left without financial support?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Lady is right to raise this matter. She is also right that the Department prioritises initial assessments, so that people without any support at all get it as soon as possible. Reassessments are then carried out when there is capacity. As I said, the backlog that built up towards the end of 2024 will have been almost entirely cleared by the end of this month. If there is still a problem in the case of her constituent, I would be grateful if she dropped me a line.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Since the last Work and Pensions questions, we have had Apprenticeships Week, when I visited Cammell Laird shipyard in Birkenhead and London Underground’s Acton Works in west London. I attended the youth guarantee jobs fair in Blackpool, which connected over 3,000 local people with 90 employers; had a roundtable with business at which, for example, Make UK reported 50,000 vacancies in the engineering and manufacturing sectors; and we extended the Connect to Work programme to give employment support to more than 75,000 more people with disabilities or long-term sickness—people far too often in the past simply signed off and written off.
Sarah Dyke
Skills bootcamps in Somerset give businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton the opportunity to collaborate with training providers. This helps to address persistent skills shortages. However, changes to funding allocations could see Somerset lose nearly 70% of its funding. Will the Minister urgently review the skills bootcamp funding methodology? Without it, an important pathway for residents to gain valuable skills and to support economic prosperity in Somerset will be compromised.
Pat McFadden
I appreciate the value of skills bootcamps. They can play an important role in the mix of policies we are talking about today. I hear the representations the hon. Lady has made for more funding. All I would say to her and her party is that if we have more funding, I hope they support whatever revenue-raising measures that have to be put in place for it.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is why we need to ensure that jobcentres have really good engagement with local employers, including manufacturers. She will be pleased to know that there will be an employer roundtable at the Manufacturing Centre in West Bromwich on 17 March, with Sandwell college and manufacturing employers. There will also be an employer breakfast on 29 April, again at Sandwell college, about jobcentres and what they can offer, particularly around SWAPS—sector-based work academy programmes—and manufacturing SWAPS, which are so important.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are no doubt familiar with the dramatic principle of Chekhov’s gun: if there is a gun on the wall in the first act, it will be fired by the final scene. Ministers say that the mandation power in the Pension Schemes Bill is merely a backstop that they do not intend to use, but once they have a power in law like a gun on the wall, how long will that intention last? Will the Secretary of State make a commitment to the House that the mandation gun will never be fired at the expense of UK pension savers?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that the industry itself set out in the Mansion House accord that it thinks there needs to be change in the pattern of investment in our largest defined contribution schemes. It says that because it is in the interests of savers, and that is why the previous hon. Member for Hexham, the longest-lasting Conservative Pensions Minister, labelled it a good thing. All the Pension Schemes Bill does is put in place the mechanism to make sure that change, which the industry has said is in the interest of members, actually happens.
Helen Whately
Given that the savings of millions of people are at stake, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not rise to answer this important question. The Pensions Minister needs to stop conflating the voluntary Mansion House agreement with changing the law to give Government the power to direct pension fund investments. The two are not the same. Both the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK are urging the Government to drop the mandation power from the Bill. The Pensions Minister has a tendency to think he always knows best, but he is not always right; apparently, the Ed stone was his idea. Let us not have people’s retirements savings suffer the same fate as the quest of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) to become Prime Minister. The Government should not be giving themselves control over how people’s retirement savings are invested, but that is what mandation does. I am against it, the pensions sector is against it, and savers are against it. Will he listen and change tack?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady is going to be absolutely furious when she finds out what those on the Opposition Front Bench did when the Pensions Schemes Bill came through this House. There is all this sound and fury now, but, when it came to choosing whether to vote against the very power she now says is incredibly dangerous, she went for a snooze on both Second and Third Reading. She is going to be even angrier when she finds out what her right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) have called for, which is the mandation of pensions schemes in the UK to invest—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members and Ministers that this is topical questions—we should have short questions and short answers.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson
With the Minister for Skills now working jointly across the DFE and DWP, we have very clear collaboration. We have already launched eight youth guarantee trailblazers, which are testing innovative approaches to localised support for young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, including targeted SEND support. We also have the Milburn review into young people and work and how better to support them.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Last week, Citizens Advice shared a report into Access to Work which confirmed many things that we know from our own postbags relating to disturbing delays in the system on both processing applications and reimbursement. Will the Minister share with us what recovery plan he has in place and when the Government will get up to a 28-day turnaround for these important issues?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The new disability advisory panel—chaired by Zara Todd, whom the hon. Gentleman may know—will be working with us on reform of Access to Work. We have increased the number of staff working on this from 500 to 650 in the past couple of years, which is reducing some of the delays that we saw as a result of the big surge in applications. I would be glad to keep the hon. Gentleman posted on further progress, including our proposals for reform, which we will bring forward as soon as we are able to do so.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I recently met my constituent Dean, who is in his 60s and wants to return to full-time work after a bit of ill health. With more than 15 years’ experience in human resources, he is struggling to get over the line and get that next job. He feels he is being turned away not just because of his age, but because of his medical condition, which means he needs a cane to walk. What is the Minister doing to support people with health conditions, such as Dean, back into work?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. She might know of the Connect to Work service we have introduced, which will be available across the whole country by summer. The methodology for it has been designed centrally, but it is being commissioned entirely locally. The feedback we are seeing so far is that it is doing a very good job in supporting people in exactly the kind of circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Sir Stephen Timms
I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would drop me a line about that case so that I can look into what has happened.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I know that the Minister has been making progress with the review of the personal independence payment assessment. I hear from many people who struggle with the complexity and mistakes in the current system, including one lady with severe spinal and nerve conditions who had her payments reduced after the DWP did not receive the medical evidence that she had sent. Does the Minister agree that any changes to the system must be humane and fair, and that it must become easier to navigate and easier for people to trust?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I do agree. As my hon. Friend will know, we have set up a review of personal independence payment, which is under way at the moment. We have a steering group of 12 individuals, almost all of whom are disabled people, plus me and two other co-chairs, and we had our third full-day, in-person meeting last week. The issues that my hon. Friend raises are exactly the ones that we want to work through in the course of the review, which will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right to point to the disparity of information that there sometimes is for apprenticeships compared with university courses. It is something that we need to address by improving the information available and ensuring that young people embarking on an apprenticeship are treated with just as much esteem and respect as those who undertake a university course. Information is very much part of the changes that we are pursuing.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Sadly, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are facing a hidden problem in the child maintenance system: their ex-partner has found ways of hiding their income to avoid having their monthly payments increased or paying the arrears that they owe. Can the Minister share with me the work that the Department is doing to ensure that income assessment of paying parents is accurate, agile and serves the children it is meant to support?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a range of interventions are under way, including reviewing the child maintenance calculation across the piece. If there are specific cases that are causing her concern, she can share them with me and I will ensure that they are referred to our specialist financial investigation unit, which looks into cases where we fear that there is hidden income.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Powering Futures is a fantastic social enterprise based in Falkirk, and its oven-ready project will deliver at least £1.6 million in quantifiable social outcomes, including addressing youth unemployment in every local authority in Scotland. Funders have been identified, so will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what support his Department may be able to offer Powering Futures?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am very happy to make sure that he gets a meeting with me or another Minister in the team.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the retraining scheme that he is running for former Conservative MPs, although I am not convinced that a change of colour is really a change of heart. Let me come to the heart of his question. We do believe that if people have worked here and have contributed over the years, they are entitled to the benefits that the state provides. The logical conclusion of his position would be to deny that to many people who have lived and contributed here, sometimes for decades.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that working in the visitor economy is so good for young people’s confidence. The extensive Cornish hospitality sector would like to be part of the youth guarantee pilot. Will he consider meeting us to discuss that?
Pat McFadden
We are all going to have busy diaries after this session. I pay tribute to the Cornish hospitality sector. My hon. Friend is right that those are great opportunities for young people, and I will make sure she gets a meeting with someone.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the policy on overseas uprating is long standing under Governments of all parties, including the Liberal Democrat coalition Government. I am not going to make promises that will not be delivered. We will not be changing that policy in the near future.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Today, The Guardian published an article showing that up to 13,000 survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes living in Britain today could lose their compensation payments if they accept the redress scheme from the Irish Government. My campaign for Philomena’s law is backed by public figures including Dara Ó Briain, Siobhán McSweeney and Steve Coogan. It would resolve the issue by ensuring that the payments are ringfenced. Will the Secretary of State consider the merits of the case and agree to meet me to discuss it further?
Pat McFadden
The whole House will be aware that the women who lived in the mother and baby homes sometimes went through terrible experiences. I commend my hon. Friend for his campaign for some measure of justice for those women. We are examining what we can do in those cases. A small number of those women live in the UK, and I assure him that help is under active consideration.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My constituent Michael, who is autistic, lost his personal independence payment in January when he was moved to employment and support allowance without explanation. He is attempting to appeal that decision. Given warnings from the National Autistic Society about barriers that autistic people face in navigating the benefits system, what steps is the Department taking to improve communication and staff training to better support neurodiverse claimants?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter. It is fair to say that the PIP application process is old-fashioned, clunky and difficult for many. I mentioned earlier the review of PIP that is being undertaken. Members of the steering group have described applying for PIP as “dehumanising”. The health transformation programme is under way, and we are improving the process, including by making claims fully online in a trial number of postcode areas. I hope that a broadly much better approach will come out of the review.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
An important component of the Government’s drive to reduce the number of NEETs is encouraging Jobcentre Plus to work innovatively in constituencies such as mine. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending its work in organising with me a jobs fair on 16 April from 10 am till 1 pm at the Indian community centre in Rugby? Of course, he or his Ministers would be very welcome to come and see that innovation in practice.
Pat McFadden
I have already praised Rugby once during this session; let me do so a second time. I cannot promise to attend my hon. Friend’s jobs fair, but I can say that such fairs play a valuable role in bringing together employers who need staff with potential employees who need jobs. I saw that myself in the very sizeable Blackpool jobs fair that I attended a week or so ago.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Emma from Abbots Langley in my constituency has to comply with strict timeframes for her job as a frontline worker within a local government adult care service. Despite that, the video relay service allowance that she receives as a deaf person has been reduced by over 75%, meaning that it is significantly below her working hours. Given that the waiting period for Access to Work reconsideration cases can span up to several months, how can the Minister assure my constituent that the delay will not undermine her ability to work?
Sir Stephen Timms
There is a serious problem with Access to Work delays—on 16 February, the application backlog was 66,699—which is why we have substantially increased the number of staff working on it. Those who have a job in the offing are prioritised for applications. If the hon. Member would like to drop me a line about the particular case he has in mind, I will gladly look into it.
Immigration Policy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before we come to the urgent question on immigration rules, I should say that time is tight today as there is an important Bill to be discussed as well as the three statements that the Government have chosen to make. However, I must put on record in the strongest terms my disappointment that the Home Secretary did not come to the House last week to make a statement on immigration. This follows a week of drip feeding announcements to the media and a major speech outside this place. It is simply not good enough. If that is the impact of the reported changes to the Government’s comms grid, it needs a rethink. It is unacceptable for important policy announcements to be made to the media before the House is informed.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on her recently announced immigration policy.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The British public expect and deserve an immigration system with order and control. In November, the Home Secretary announced the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the second world war, and last week the Government took concrete steps to implement those necessary changes. I hear clearly the strong message from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course we would never mean any discourtesy to you or to your colleagues.
Features of the steps taken last week include that refugee status will now be reviewed every 30 months. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need for protection will have that protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home.
Further, we are introducing targeted measures known as a visa brake to help protect the integrity of the UK immigration system. As such, from 26 March we will refuse applications for specific visa routes from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, where evidence shows a consistently high number and proportion of visa-linked asylum claims. This is the beginning; other nationalities may face similar measures in the future.
Due to the number of asylum claims from nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia, we have also introduced visit visa requirements and direct airside transit visa requirements on those countries to prevent visitor visa misuse. Those came into force on 5 March.
We have tabled further legislative changes to revoke the current legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, instead restoring it to a power to provide support so that those who can support themselves do so. We are also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support when an asylum seeker is working illegally.
We have started a consultation on our approach to family returns, exploring reforms to the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK and the approach used when enforcing the returns of families who have not departed voluntarily.
After years of chaos and crisis, it has fallen to this Government to fix the broken systems we inherited. I know this country, and I know the protection that people want to provide to those who need it—we have seen that with the Syrian scheme, Afghan resettlement, Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders and Homes for Ukraine—but we can do that only when there is confidence that the system has order and control. These reforms restore order and build the system that the British people deserve.
Chris Philp
It is disappointing the Government did not come here voluntarily to announce their policies, and I notice that there was no apology, but given the scale of their failure, this is not surprising. Since the election, 67,000 people have entered the UK illegally, a 45% increase compared with the same period before the election. Many of those 67,000 have since committed serious crimes, including murder and rape. In the last six days alone, 900 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. The Government’s promises lie in tatters: the gangs are not smashed; the French are not intercepting boats near the shores, as we were promised last year; and the so-called one in, one out deal saw 41,000 illegal immigrants come in across the channel last year and only 300 go out.
The Government are now resorting to bribing illegal immigrants with £40,000 per family to leave—that is more than most working people here earn in a year. British workers should not have to pay record high taxes for this Government to give their money away to illegal immigrants. It is frankly disgraceful. Instead, the Government should now agree to our plan to leave the European convention on human rights, which would enable them to rapidly deport all illegal immigrants. The crossings would then quickly stop and there would be no need to bribe illegal immigrants to leave.
Let me turn now to indefinite leave to remain. When we proposed a 10-year path, the Government voted against it, but I am delighted that they have now done yet another U-turn and adopted our policy. We do not agree with every detail in their plans, but we agree with the substance. However, I am sorry to hear that some of the Minister’s own MPs are apparently unconvinced, so let me help him. Given that the Government appear to need our votes to pass these ILR changes, we will support them. Will the Minister confirm whether the ILR changes will be made in primary legislation or via the rules? If the Government use primary legislation, that will take some time to pass, by which time the 2021 and 2022 arrivals will have ILR, so we would also support him to pass emergency legislation if he will accept that offer—
Alex Norris
It is a challenge to be lectured on the need for apologies from the architects of the Trussonomics that mean my constituents are paying more on their mortgages month on month. However, we have seen more of that mathematics from the right hon. Gentleman, because he says that spending an average of £158,000 on families in hotel accommodation who now have no right to be here because they have finished making their way through the asylum system is better value than spending £40,000 in order for them to return home and to build their lives again. I am not surprised.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about gangs, but he will know that there has been a record level of interventions—more than 4,000. He talked about our work with the French, but he will know that 40,000 crossings have been prevented. He also mentioned returns. He will know that 60,000 people have been returned under this Government, a 31% increase on his time in the Home Department. He offers criticism, but the only answer that he offers in lieu is to tear up international agreements with no sense of what change that would drive. It would merely set back that returns work and lead us back to years of debate and no action. I will not do that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned ILR, but of course that was not the nature of the announcement last week. That related to the closing of an important consultation on earned settlement in this country. We will be having those conversations with Parliament, and measures will be laid in the usual way in the weeks and months ahead.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Could the Minister update us on the discussions about people who arrived in this country pursuing leave for five years, or whatever period their visa stated, to get status in the UK, and who are approaching the end of that period? I have a number of constituents who will reach that point in April, and they are concerned that they will have to start all over again under a new process. Could he update the House on their position?
Alex Norris
I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to earned settlement. It has always been the case that the immigration rules in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry to the country, are the ones that are germane to the conditions an individual has to meet. Nevertheless, she will know that we consulted on what transition protections there could be, and that consultation closed last month. There is an important reality for all colleagues to wrestle with here. In the first five years of this decade we saw unprecedented levels of migration through legal means as a result of the Conservatives’ open borders experiment, which means that one in 30 people in this country came in during that window. That means that those people will become eligible for social housing and other benefits at the same time, which represents a significant challenge to the taxpayer and to public services. Nevertheless, that consultation took place and we will be coming back to respond in the usual way.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is deeply disappointing that these changes were pushed through without an explanation in this Chamber. The same Home Secretary who emphasised the importance of scrutiny from MPs at the Institute for Public Policy Research has denied this House the chance to question her reforms. That is not good enough. Does the Minister think that reviewing each refugee’s status every two and a half years for 20 years will really fix the asylum system? That is estimated to cost £725 million over the next decade, so what plans do the Government have to fund this, and can they give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not cause the asylum backlog to further increase? Taxpayers are paying £6 million a day for asylum hotels—a legacy of the Conservative Government. Will the Minister back Liberal Democrat plans to end the processing through faster claims, such as Nightingale processing centres, or set out their own plan? Finally, will the Government confirm their plan for lifting the ban on asylum seekers working? Why have they chosen a year, not six months?
Alex Norris
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not remember the statement in November on these very issues. I can assure him that one of his Front-Bench colleagues remembers it well and thinks about it quite a bit.
On the 30 months, let me be clear about how the system will work. We do not want people to come to the country and get that good news of their claim for refuge being accepted, and then be at home and not take part in British life. We are saying that if people do that, their claims will be assessed every 30 months. However, they will be offered the chance to move to a protected work and study route, which means that if they are taking part in work or study, learning the language and not committing crimes, they are outwith that. I do not recognise the points on how many decisions would have to be made or the spend—that is not accurate.
The hon. Gentleman talks about quicker decisions. Last year was the best year since records began on initial decisions, so we are operating that system effectively. Nevertheless, significant demand issues mean that applications are down significantly across the EU and up significantly in the UK. Until and unless those issues are addressed, any process changes would simply be overwhelmed.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As other colleagues have said, some people came here under one system, but now the system is changing, so have the Government done any assessment of where those people are working? In my constituency, a large number of people are now in their fourth year before their cases were about to conclude, hopefully, to secure status. They work in the care sector and without them, to be frank, the care sector in my constituency would collapse.
Alex Norris
We know where these people are working because they came to this country on work visas, so we are clear on where they are. On the assessment, that was the point of the consultation that ended last month. We got more than 200,000 responses—that shows the strength of feeling. We are looking at that in the usual way, and we will come back with our plans after that in the usual way.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I quote approvingly the remarks of my constituency neighbour and Labour MP, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)? She said that if Labour is to win its battle against Reform, it has to do much more on illegal boats. I am sorry that she is not here, but I have warned her that I was going to ask this question. Specifically, she makes the good point that people should only be allowed to claim asylum abroad. If that were the case, surely there is an argument that if people arrived here illegally, they would not be able to claim asylum and would not be covered by the convention, and they could be detained and deported.
Alex Norris
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that I always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). I have known her for a very long time, and have found that being disagreeable to her is a bad idea. The third chapter of our November statement is about safe and legal routes. The Home Secretary has talked about our first foray in that endeavour being a study route, to provide options for people to seek sanctuary in this country—to the degree to which our communities can sustain that—from outside the country, so that they do not make dangerous journeys and we do not see people crossing the channel. I think that is in everybody’s interests, and I am glad to see it drawing consensus.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My constituent came to this country after leaving a very good job and uprooting his whole family, including young children, on the promise that he would be allowed to work and contribute to our NHS, which he has done for the past four years. However, because of the Government’s harsh and hostile policies, not only is his future now uncertain, but his children may not even be able to go to university. Does the Minister not understand the hostility and unfairness of this?
Alex Norris
I think we all recognise the absolutely important role that people from outside the UK have played in the NHS for decades. My hon. Friend will know that our proposals set out that working in the NHS and other public services was one proposed way in which people could earn that route to settlement. As I have said to other colleagues, we are looking at the consultation closely. We must understand that there is a real challenge beneath this, and that the immigration rules have always been applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that he and other hon. Members have made with vigour.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Has the Home Office made an assessment of the number of people who will be affected, and of the amount that will be saved, by moving from a statutory duty to support asylum seekers to a discretionary power?
Alex Norris
The overall supported population is 107,000. The decisions of approximately half of those people are now more than a year old, so they can access work in many cases. Similarly, a smaller proportion retain the right to work because they have overstayed their work visas. We are now doing the work of considering all those people individually to see who could work and therefore pay towards their own support costs, on the basis that if people can pay for their own support, they ought to—like our constituents—so that the cost does not fall on the taxpayer and we can reduce the burden.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In my constituency, people of all faiths and backgrounds live, learn and work next to each other. Unlike many other European countries, the UK has a good reputation on integration, so can the Minister reassure me that these reforms will not lead to the UK becoming like our European neighbours with much poorer records?
Alex Norris
I absolutely can. I saw my own community in my hon. Friend’s description of hers. All our reforms seek to promote integration. With regards to illegal migration, for example, when people seek refuge and have their claim accepted, they should enter work or study, and learn the language, which is crucial for integration. We also have important work to do across Government on social cohesion, of which the Home Office has a significant component. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will make a statement later about the important cohesion work to make this a brilliant, integrated and multicultural place, like Hounslow, Nottingham and the rest of the country.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
There are thousands of Ukrainians in this country—most of them women and children—who are effectively stateless. They did not come here as asylum seekers; they came as refugees. They do not know whether they are coming or going. They cannot return to their country, and there is no prospect of them being able to in the short or medium term. They need to be able to determine accommodation, education and employment, so what will the Government do to create some sort of proper settled status for Ukrainian refugees?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. It is really important that colleagues appreciate that the Homes for Ukraine scheme—the way by which people came to this country from Ukraine—was never intended as a settlement scheme. That was part of our engagement with the Government of Ukraine at the time. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have extended that period of protection for longer, in line with the challenges that people are facing. We want those people to live fully while they are here, and I hear the challenges that he describes, but, as I said, that scheme was never designed as a settlement scheme.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. On work visas and people integrating into our communities, will he say something about the abuses that we hear of—including how sponsors control the situation for these people—and about the potential damage that will be caused, especially to our public services, if the thresholds are unobtainable to many of our key workers, especially those in our health service?
Alex Norris
I absolutely recognise the characterisation offered by my hon. Friend. We know there was abuse of that scheme by unscrupulous employers. We have been working with trade unions—indeed, I met their representatives only this morning—on what a future model could look like to avoid such abuse, so that if people come to this country, they are not so precariously reliant on one employer, who therefore has a very unhelpful amount of power over them and their lives—it is an imbalance. We are looking at that closely.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In Afghanistan, women and girls are being persecuted on grounds of their gender. They cannot work, they cannot study, and by law their husbands can punish them however they see fit. Last year the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women to come to the UK, and last week it closed the door for both professionals and students. The work of the Linda Norgrove Foundation means that a number of female medical students are currently studying at Scottish universities, including St Andrews. What hope is there for others to complete their studies and support the maternal healthcare crisis that is under way in Afghanistan?
Alex Norris
We take our obligations and commitment to Afghans very seriously; since 2021, over 37,000 have come here via resettlement schemes. The change last week is because we have a student visa system that is being used as a de facto immigration system, which cannot be right. Of the 3,730 visas issued to students from Afghanistan, there were 3,454 claims for asylum. That is not an orderly system. I feel the power and passion with which the hon. Lady speaks, but to accept that premise is to say that we believe universities ought to set our asylum system, which cannot be right. I hope she will recognise that, taken in concert with what we have announced about a safe and legal study route, these measures must be a much better way, so that we as a Government accountable to Parliament know who is coming, what their protection need is, what their institution is and what they are learning while they are here. I think that is the right balance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members should be aware that I am hoping to finish this urgent question by around half-past 4, because we have three statements to follow, so please keep questions and answers short.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile has found that restrictive policies have had an insignificant effect on the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Denmark. Instead, the discrimination and constant uncertainty make it harder for young refugees to learn, build relationships or plan for their futures. Will the Minister commit to keeping permanently the five years’ leave for unaccompanied children, to create stability for the most vulnerable asylum seekers?
Alex Norris
I can give my hon. Friend succour in that regard. Our 30-month protection announcement last week does not include unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and we take our responsibilities to children very seriously. I have optimism in our new system. We need those children to study and then get into work, as well as to learn the language, as they have the most to benefit so that, so the protected work and study route will be particularly important for them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister and the Government are to be commended for trying to wrestle with this issue, and where there can be cross-party consensus, let us build on and foster it. Lots of groups of people who come to this country generate complaints, but one group that does not are those who come from New Zealand and Australia to help our sheep farmers at shearing time. May I urge the Minister to rethink the measure in this regard, as not a single rural Member of Parliament is calling for it? Those people should be allowed in. This is an animal welfare issue, and it is important for our food security and agricultural sector.
Alex Norris
The announcements about illegal migration that we made in November were the most sweeping since the second world war, and they were unpacked last week as well, but they were not so sweeping or broad as to include sheep shearing, although I know that that has become a pertinent point for some. The Minister for Migration and Citizenship and I are having conversations with rural MPs, and we have heard clearly the hon. Gentleman’s words.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to the urgent question, the Minister did not mention the announcement last week that people from four countries—Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Cameroon—will no longer be able to apply for a student visa. Many students who applied for such visas and came to study here subsequently found that the situation in their country had materially changed, so they then applied for asylum. I am very concerned that when things materially change, we will change the policy on student applications. We are seeing a war in the middle east now, and the situation in Ukraine, and I am concerned that this is now the Government’s policy. We should take it in good faith that people who come here to study do so—that they study and contribute, and that they can go back to their countries to contribute there when things have settled. We should not be cutting off student visas for people from countries in conflict.
Alex Norris
I hate to correct my hon. Friend, but I did mention those countries. No matter what reforms we announced in November and the impact of any element, everybody will have their claim individually assessed on the basis of their own individual circumstances. If someone has come here for a three-year course, I accept totally that the circumstances at home could have materially changed during that period. I say gently to my hon. Friend that when that is happening, in virtually every case, those systems cease to be merely a study route and become a de facto asylum route, and it is better that these routes are organised and co-ordinated by the Government rather than academic institutions.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Minister is unhappy that we are conflating two different announcements, but the issue is that the Home Secretary has not actually made an announcement about this matter—she has not come to the Chamber, set out the position and made an announcement. The Government are planning to make these changes without parliamentary approval, because the changes will not come before the House for debate. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all hon. Members can have a voice, that the changes are not made through a negative statutory instrument, and that MPs from across the House will be able to make our points clear in order to ensure that the goalposts will not be moved after refugees have arrived here?
Alex Norris
I hate to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I am not unhappy at all. The way I look at it, I get to give the answers, and right hon. Members and hon. Members get to ask the questions—I do not get to do both—so colleagues can raise whatever issues they wish to raise. On her point about scrutiny of the policies, as she will be aware, there has been a public consultation that with very good participation. There were two statements in November, one relating to restoring order and control—our asylum policy statement—and one relating to earned settlement, and colleagues had the opportunity for debate then. She will know that there has subsequently been at least one debate in Westminster Hall; I am sure there will be more. I have no doubt that colleagues will find parliamentary opportunities to debate these policies and any others of the Home Department.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
On the issue of indefinite leave to remain, the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that there will be “close consideration” of the public consultation that concluded last month, and yet last week the Home Secretary said that she is determined to push ahead with those changes to retrospective indefinite leave to remain. Which is true? This is about people who are working here and people who are contributing in many ways, not just financially.
Alex Norris
At the outset of the consultation, we were very clear that there were certain non-negotiable elements that we had decided prior to the consultation, including moving to a system with a default 10 years that could be reduced to five on the basis of the people’s contribution to their community and in relation to speaking English. Within the consultation, there were also questions about transitional protections. We are looking at all those issues in the round and I do not see an inconsistency in the two positions.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Where will we send an illegal entrant with no right to remain but whose country of origin is unsafe?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have removed 60,000 people with no right to be in this country—a 31% increase on our predecessors. It is not possible to effect return in every case; everybody knows that. There are certain countries to which we are unable to do so. In those cases, we are not effecting returns, but we have to have a system that has a backstop of removal. I think that is an accepted principle.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I acknowledge the considerable challenge that the Government have in winning back public confidence in the asylum system. The Home Office published a report last year concluding that there was insufficient evidence that restrictive asylum policies reduce claims, so will the Home Office publish evidence to show that cutting refugee leave from five years down to 30 months will deter claims in the UK? Does the Minister accept that a substantial settlement pathway of 20 years-plus is also unlikely to deter those claims?
Alex Norris
My hon. and learned Friend knows that we bring forward our impact assessments alongside the policies as we publish them, and as we seek to debate or implement them. He knows about the case that we made in our document in November as well. With regard to whether these policies work, I would gently say that Germany and Denmark have a similar period of time for protection, and both are seeing reductions in asylum claims. In the UK, there have been over 80,000 asylum claims for the last two years; for the previous decade, claims averaged 27,500. I do not think we can say that no change is an option.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My constituent is a hard-working taxpayer, but his wife and daughter remain in Iran because the family reunion route has effectively been closed since September. Does the Minister accept that failing to provide controlled, safe and legal routes not only lets down families like this one, but fuels the use of dangerous routes?
Alex Norris
That route is paused for now. The hon. Lady will know that over the last four or five years, we have seen a huge increase—fivefold, I think—in the use of that route. Given the significant changes, it is right that the Government ensure that the system is effective. We are looking at it closely and we appreciate the importance of family reunion. She will have heard what I said about safe and legal means.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given these changes, what changes to the national referral mechanism in relation to modern slavery does the Minister expect to see? What does the switch from a duty to a power for housing people waiting for asylum mean for the national dispersal method, including for places that have routinely had more people than was agreed, such as Stoke-on-Trent—and, if there are no changes, will he look at funding integration work in those places?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend will know about my work on modern slavery over my years in this place. We know that is a constantly moving picture. We want to make sure that the protections for victims of slavery are robust—I think there is a consensus here on that—and that the system is being used properly. I also take his point on dispersal. The Department’s view is that there should be full dispersal, meaning that communities share the challenge across their means. With regard to payments, we pay £1,200 per head to help that integration work.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Paying illegal asylum seekers £40,000 to leave the United Kingdom is a kick in the teeth for my hard-working constituents. Why are we not using that money to build a detention centre so that we can detain and immediately deport those who arrive in this country illegally?
Alex Norris
See, this is funny, Mr Speaker: when the hon. Gentleman was in my office saying he wanted the hotel in his constituency closed, he was saying, “Make sure we get a grip and get them closed”, but then when he sees the proposals to do so, he does not want them. He cannot have those two things together.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
We see reports of armed criminal gangs operating with confidence along the northern coastline of France. My constituents ask what the French authorities are actually doing to deal with the issue. Can the Minister give an update on the ongoing discussions that he is having with his French counterparts? What will change on the back of these reforms?
Alex Norris
This is an important point. The gangs are well embedded; they had a head start of a good six-plus years on this Government. It is not easy for the French authorities, which we work very closely with. Through the Sandhurst agreement, we have seen 40,000 preventions, but we are in active negotiations about where we go next to tackle that pernicious threat.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Aside from the cruelty of asking people who have fled war and persecution to re-justify their already-recognised refugee status every 30 months, how does the Minister plan to pay for this huge additional administrative burden? As we have heard, the Refugee Council has estimated that it will cost £725 million over 10 years, but he contests that estimate. Perhaps he can tell us how much he thinks it will cost, and why—when our NHS and schools are crying out for funding—he is spending taxpayers’ money on scapegoating migrants instead.
Alex Norris
I gently say to the hon. Lady that we will not be asking those who come to this country, have a protection need, enter into work and study, learn the language and do not commit crimes to re-justify their protection need. I think that strikes the right balance between the taxpayer and the individual, and I do not recognise or accept the figures that she cites. Turning to the issue of cost, we must recognise that we in this country support a significantly bigger supported population than we have traditionally. That number needs to reduce—we need to break that attractiveness—which is why we have proposed these reforms.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary mentioned that our immigration policy needed to be based on the idea of fairness. Is it fair to change the rules on indefinite leave to remain for those who are already making a contribution to our society and came here under the old rules? Will the Minister give those individuals some assurance that they will get some transitional protection?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. On fairness, the applicable rules have always been those in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry, so I do not accept that that in itself represents a lack of fairness. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have made, which is why we carried out the consultation in the way we did.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
There have often been occasions on which somebody has leaked in advance the contents of a statement that they are going to make to the House of Commons, or part of its contents, but this is the first time I have seen a total revelation in the press of something that the Government had no intention of making a statement about to the House of Commons. Why is that, and what will these measures do to deter people from breaking into this country illegally, with it then being impossible to deport them?
Alex Norris
On the deterrence point, as I have said, we are receiving applications at an unprecedented level, and at a time when our European Union counterparts are seeing fewer applications. There is an attractiveness to this country, which is why we are changing the protection package and carrying out record levels of enforcement against illegal working. Those are the changes we are making to break those pull factors to this country.
Turning to announcements, we would of course mean no discourtesy to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the apology I made at the outset. However, we stated our policy in November, and what we are now doing is building it out.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk expects our immigration system to be fair, open and transparent. The one problem we have come across, unfortunately, is that there is a lot of confusion online, as has been expertly shown by the shadow Home Secretary today. Can the Minister clarify that the process we are looking at will save the taxpayer £20 million, instead of spending money to keep open asylum hotels?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is exactly right. With regard to family returns, I hear from Conservative Members that they would rather pay a family with no prospect of staying in the country an average of £158,000 to stay in a hotel, rather than pay that £40,000. There are 150 families in the pilot; if we were to be successful with all of them, that would save the British taxpayer £20 million. I think we would be doing right by them in doing so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Yesterday we marked International Women’s Day with the statistic that women hold fewer than two thirds of the rights enjoyed by men globally. Afghan women are already barred from secondary and higher education, and they now face further violence and discrimination under the Taliban’s new criminal regulations. What is the Secretary of State doing? She is stopping them from applying to study at our universities. Does the Minister not agree that the aim of ending violence against women and girls extends beyond borders, and that his Government have a moral duty to help women fulfil their potential in safety?
Alex Norris
I totally agree, which is why we have offered sanctuary to over 37,000 Afghans via resettlement schemes since 2021, as well as those who have come via the asylum system. I do not think that the point of difference between the right hon. Lady and me is about the substance; it is about whether those sorts of routes to provide sanctuary to people who want to study and have their protection needs met should be run by universities on our behalf, without the scrutiny of Parliament, or by the Government themselves. I cannot agree with her on that.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his updates. The Home Secretary was absolutely right last week that the public expect a controlled and orderly immigration system. I fully support her plans, but can the Minister say more about how quickly the measures announced will be implemented, and how the Home Office will ensure that they are properly enforced in practice?
Alex Norris
I know that the public are eager to see change. We were able to make some immediate changes in November when we announced the policies, and last Thursday we tabled statutory instruments that we hope will effect further changes. Similarly, we made changes to the immigration rules last week, and we will do so at future opportunities when the need arises. Of course, where there is the need for primary legislation—particularly on important appeals reform—that will come in front of the House in the usual way.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The only country that has successfully tackled illegal boat crossings similar to ours is Australia, and it did so not by paying people £40,000 per family to leave, but by sending them to a safe third country. I noticed that the Minister completely failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Does the Minister accept the reality that the only way to tackle this problem will be to get on with having a safe third country to deport these people to?
Alex Norris
I follow the hon. Gentleman’s work. He always says no to large sites and no to hotels, and then proposes fantastical third countries that he is not capable of naming. Ultimately, this is the choice: do people want fantasy, more empty rhetoric and argument, or do they want change and action with this Government? I know what I choose.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Along with Home Affairs Committee colleagues, I spent time in northern France last year seeing the challenges of intercepting small boats. The French maritime doctrine has clearly been an obstacle to adopting the more assertive tactics that my constituents wish and expect to see. Can the Minister outline the progress in getting the French to change their tactics, and will he make the continuation of Sandhurst funding dependent on that?
Alex Norris
From my perspective, with regards to action in northern France, what works is what works. It is a matter of record that we have enthusiasm about maritime doctrine-type tactics, but there are other things prior to that which need to work as well, particularly our work with the French to disrupt organised crime, which is having a significant impact. My hon. Friend mentions Sandhurst, which we are in the process of negotiating. I can absolutely assure him that all of that will be seen through the prism of bringing forward effective action.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
If the Government are serious about stopping dangerous small boats crossings and smashing the gangs, there must be safe routes for those fleeing war and persecution. I remind the House that bombs are falling right now in the Gulf and in the middle east. What progress has the Home Secretary made in establishing safe and legal routes for refugees, so that people do not risk their lives crossing the channel?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady will know from our announcements in November that we believe in safe and legal alternatives. She will know that the “one in, one out” work with France is itself a safe and legal route. She will also know of the announcements we have made about a refugee study route. We are getting on with those things, alongside the difficult decisions we have made in front of Parliament in relation to the balance in disrupting that model and changing those behaviours from irregular and dangerous to safe and legal.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Like many towns, Long Eaton is home to an asylum seeker hotel. It was gifted to us by the last Tory Government, but I know the Minister is doing everything in his power to close it as soon as possible. A secondary effect of the Tories’ hotels, however, is illegal work associated with the exploitation of local asylum seekers. Can the Minister elaborate on how measures announced recently will help to end illegal work in Erewash?
Alex Norris
We know from the materials of the traffickers that illegal working is one of those advertising features used to suggest to people that they should try to come to the UK. The impact of that is then felt in communities such as Long Eaton, and it means that we have got hotels open, but we are changing that equation. We have extended the powers around illegal working to the gig economy in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which is now coming into force. The message is clear: people will not be able to employ people illegally, and people will not be able to work illegally.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We learn from the press, if not from the Minister, that up to £40,000 of taxpayers’ money will be used to reward illegal activity. Does that not make a mockery of the law? Would it not be far better to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, so that we can deport people who have no basis to be here?
Alex Norris
It is tricky, because the right hon. Gentleman talks with power and vigour that was lacking from his colleagues in their 14 years in government. Indeed, he may well know, as colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench certainly know, that they paid people to leave the country, because it is in the taxpayers’ interest. There are choices between measures that work and measures such as leaving the ECHR, which are fantastical and would just lead to years and years of arguing, disruption and no impact.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Some say that this Government are controlling our borders in spite of our progressive values, but no, we are securing our borders because it is in line with our Labour values. In my constituency, residents want to feel safe, and they do not feel safe with our borders not yet controlled. In wanting to tackle illegal ads, will the Minister set out what this Government are doing to stop illegal working, particularly within Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats??
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is right, and I make exactly the same assessment of the position in Nottingham that I make of the position in Bournemouth. Those are people who leant into the Afghan scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but who are rightly fed up about the three hotels in Bournemouth and the impact on their community. My hon. Friend’s vigour in working for the closure of those hotels is well known. As for the question of illegal workers, to prevent them from using those facilities we have introduced new punishments. People who work in the gig economy and are using the substitution of labour to circumvent legal working rules will be caught and punished, and we are doing that at record levels.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
At lunch time today I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, during which we heard about existential threats to the fishing industry across these islands. Will the Minister agree to attend a meeting of the APPG so that he can hear at first hand about some of the threats posed by his party’s immigration policies?
Alex Norris
I am sure that the subject of that meeting was not how to help people to work illegally in the fishing industry, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are discussing today, but of course I am always open to meetings with colleagues to hear about their important work and what they want to see from the Government.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s focus on closing the hotels, and I am delighted that the last remaining hotel in my constituency that was opened by the Conservatives will be closing in the coming weeks, but will the Minister recommit the efforts of the Home Office to recovering the excess profits made by the providers of the contracts that were so badly negotiated by the last Government?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend has timed his question perfectly, enabling me to say, just as the Chancellor joins me, that we have recouped tens of millions of pounds from those contracts, not to mention reduction amounting to hundreds of millions as a result of our improvement in relation to hotels. Nevertheless, all those hotels will be closed—opened by the Tories, closed by Labour.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Raising that point was useful, because many of the migrants are going into houses in multiple occupation, which is a real problem in my constituency. Along with my Liberal Democrat-run council, I have raised concerns not only about the impact on our community, but about where people are being placed. Those concerns have been raised with Serco, which is ignoring them. Will the Minister meet me so that I can discuss them with him? Those in my community are extremely concerned.
Alex Norris
Of course I will. I want to see equitable dispersal, and I am desperately trying to close the gap between the Home Office and local government so that there is better information sharing. Local authorities should not be surprised: there should be an early conversation about possible sites in their communities, not because they will have a veto but because they may have a better way of doing things.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister will agree that it is important for us to have a working and fair immigration system, but that, sadly, is not what we inherited. Constituents of mine in Harlow are rightly concerned that people who come to settle here should be law-abiding. Does the Minister agree that if they are not law-abiding, they will not be settling here?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. My hon. Friend can assure people in Harlow that every element of our system will incentivise people to come here and follow the rules, and if they do not, that will be a bar to citizenship. It will bar them from getting what they want from our settlement system. That is the right balance for the British people to ensure that our generosity is not abused.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I am very perplexed, and indeed I suspect that most Brits will be perplexed. We have more than 650,000 job vacancies, of which more than 165,000 are for unskilled workers. Why are we not dealing with the refugees—processing their applications, giving them training, putting them into jobs and enabling them to earn some money, rather than paying their hotel costs?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier that we in the Home Office are making decisions faster than ever without affecting the grant rate. We are making those quick decisions so that those who need protection can build their lives in this country. The hon. Gentleman may well have heard Question Time earlier today, when we were talking about the number of young people in Britain who are out of work. I cannot accept that so many young people in Britain can be out of work and the Government can have no aspiration for them to fill roles.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
My constituents want the Government to get off their back and get on their side, rather than using their hard-earned taxpayers’ money to spend up to £40,000 on removing illegal asylum seekers. Will the Minister rule that out?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said to his colleagues: the choice is between paying £158,000 for those families to live in hotels and paying £40,000 for them to leave the country. I do not know whether he needs a calculator, but I think that is a good equation.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Can the Minister tell us what modelling those in the Home Office have done in respect of whether these visa bans will actually affect the backlog of refugee and asylum seekers? Have they looked at the impact on local services in constituencies such as mine? People running care homes have told me that they are losing vital workforce members and may not be able to stay open.
Alex Norris
Of course we take a lens on reform. The hon. Lady will know that those seeking asylum cannot work in such environments, so they would not be germane to that conversation. We look very closely at the impacts of our policies and publish reviews at the appropriate moments.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The concept of paying someone who has come here illegally £40,000 to leave will stick in the throats of all taxpayers in this country. Notwithstanding the arguments that the Minister has put forward, what assessment has he made that making an offer of 40 grand will not act as a huge pull factor and cause more people to come here to collect our cash?
Alex Norris
First of all, I can offer the hon. Gentleman some degree of comfort: this is a targeted pilot at this stage. It cannot act as a pull factor, because people will not be eligible for it. Other countries that offer money, including Denmark, are seeing their numbers go down, which can also give him a degree of comfort.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister failed to answer the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). In the absence of a third-country scheme, to where do we remove people when their countries are not safe or there are no returns agreements?
Alex Norris
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Rwanda scheme would not have removed those people; it would have removed a tiny proportion, at an eye-watering cost. We are ramping up removals of those who have no right to be here. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that he wants to rip up the ECHR because he wants to send people back to countries that are not safe, he should name which ones.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Alongside last week’s announcements was the most welcome announcement that BNO passport holders will not be required to hold B2 language qualifications, but Hongkongers resident in Wimborne are really concerned about the income threshold. Can the Minister confirm whether that is also being exempted?
Alex Norris
As I have said to other colleagues, I can confirm that the income threshold, and particularly how it is resolved at a family unit level, was part of the consultation. We have had more than 200,000 replies, and we are looking at them closely.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Over 330,000 people have signed a petition urging the Government to scrap the plan to increase the ILR period from five years to 10 years, especially the retrospective nature of it. This will have a detrimental effect on the core of our society, especially the NHS, and will exploit workers, who will be vulnerable to exploitative bosses. Does the Minister agree with many of his Back Benchers that the Government must stop this cruel proposal taking effect?
Alex Norris
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some time ago, there was a debate on fisheries in this Chamber. The Minister who replied for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she would meet those of us who represent fishing villages. There is a need for visas for fishing crews, and it will not cost this country any money to have them here, as they contribute to it. Will the Minister please agree to a meeting?
Alex Norris
Whether it is with me or the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, I will ensure that a meeting on fisheries takes place.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
My constituents are deeply alarmed that retrospective changes to ILR could leave long-term residents living in fear of deportation. Does the Minister accept that leaving families across this country in a state of profound uncertainty risks undermining the very sense of security and fairness that our immigration system is supposed to uphold?
Alex Norris
I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we were very clear in our settlement consultation that coming here, working hard, contributing, paying taxes, learning the language, taking part in the community and not committing crimes will get someone the best route to settlement. I think that gives people the security they need.
Mr Speaker
I believe the Minister had a telling-off earlier, and I just want to reiterate the problem. The scrapping of the communications grid may be of benefit to the Government, but it is not beneficial to this House. This House does not want to be drip-fed for seven days via the news; the Government should come here first. We have got it the wrong way round. I hope the message goes back that this should happen no more.
Middle East: Economic Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government’s preparedness and economic response to the conflict in the middle east. Let me begin by paying tribute to our armed forces, and by expressing my concern and sympathy for the British citizens whose lives have been disrupted by the conflict so far. I understand the anxiety felt by families and businesses during these incredibly uncertain times. This conflict affects us all, and we must respond to it.
As I have demonstrated time and again, I will take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living and protect the public finances. I am clear-eyed about my response to the current situation. My economic approach will be both responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. The economic impact of the situation in the middle east will depend of course on its severity and its duration. The movements we have already seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months, but I also want to confirm to the House that our financial markets are functioning and that I am in regular touch with the Governor of the Bank of England.
This afternoon, I spoke with G7 Finance Ministers, setting out my priorities for the international co-operation needed. First, we are calling for immediate de-escalation and a return to the diplomatic process. Secondly, we must guarantee the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. Thirdly, I stand ready to support a co-ordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves. Fourthly, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance. I am meeting the chair of Lloyd’s of London later today, when we will discuss how best to support the continued passage of maritime trade.
I want to assure the country that the fundamentals of Britain’s economy are strong. Every step that I have taken since the election has built our national resilience: stability in the public finances; investment in infrastructure in both defence and energy security; and reform to our economy. Last week, I updated the House about our progress in delivering that plan. We have cut inflation so that it is now at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I have prioritised economic growth to drive up living standards and I have stabilised the public finances. We have already reduced the deficit by £20 billion since last year, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP. We are due to reduce borrowing more over the rest of this Parliament, and by more than any other G7 economy, and I have increased our financial buffers, confirmed last week by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
I know that families and businesses will be concerned about the impact of this conflict on them, so I want to set out the action we have already taken and will take to protect them. I am prioritising energy security, investing in clean, home-grown energy. Our contracts for difference are already protecting consumers, ensuring that generators of low-carbon energy pay money back into the system when the wholesale prices are high, shielding bill payers from fossil fuel price shocks. I can confirm to the House that, in the coming days, we will publish the Government’s response to the Fingleton review of nuclear regulation to build nuclear power more quickly.
Our energy system is now more secure than it was at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In 2025, the UK imported 17% less gas than we did in 2021. While gas generation is estimated to have set the wholesale price of electricity in Britain around 90% of the time in the early 2020s, that has now fallen by around a third. As a result we are less reliant on and less exposed to volatile international energy prices than we were at the outset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and that is welcome.
I recognise the role that North sea oil and gas will play in our economy for years to come. Last week, I met North sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment and growth, and in energy supply. The energy profits levy currently remains in place and the electricity generator levy will also be activated if prices remain at high levels. I have set out the details of our successor regime to the energy profits levy, the oil and gas price mechanism, balancing providing certainty to business with fairly taxing windfall profits from energy companies.
I have also taken direct action on energy bills. Our supercharger discount on business electricity is increasing next month, cutting costs for around 500 of the most energy-intensive businesses by an additional £420 million per year. We are supporting the lowest-income families by investing £15 billion in our warm homes plan to improve the energy efficiency of people’s homes and reduce their bills, and, through the warm homes discount, taking £150 off bills for 6 million of the lowest-income households—a doubling of the number of people who will receive the warm home discount compared with the plans the previous Government had. That is in addition to the £117 drop in the price cap that Ofgem has confirmed from next month, thanks to the wider action on bills I took in the Budget.
I want to be clear to families at home that despite the movements we have seen in energy prices in the last few days, the price cap for domestic bills for April will not change, giving families immediate certainty on their bills until at least the end of June. However, I recognise that households who use heating oil face unique challenges, so I have asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to lead discussions with officials and rural and Northern Irish MPs to explore further action we can take. Those meetings will happen on Wednesday.
The current conflict only increases the importance of the action I took at the Budget to reduce energy bills. A rapid de-escalation in the middle east remains the best way to protect us from rising energy bills, but as the situation continues to unfold my priorities will continue to be helping families with the cost of living and protecting the public finances. I am also taking action to ensure that people pay the lowest possible price at the pump. In November, I extended the 5p per litre cut in fuel duty for a further five months and ensured that fuel duty will not increase in line with inflation this year. Petrol is more than 8p per litre cheaper today than it would have been under the plans we inherited at the election. That discount increases to 11p per litre next month once that extension takes effect.
The new cheap fuel finder that I confirmed at the Budget is currently being delivered, helping consumers find the cheapest price for their fuel. Almost 90% of petrol retailers have already registered for this and last week I instructed my officials to accelerate the integration of the cheaper fuel finder with map applications. This week, I am meeting petrol forecourt operators and I will not hesitate to call out retailers who fail to provide data to the fuel finder. I am clear that the best way to keep prices at the pump low is rapid de-escalation, and I will continue to monitor prices as the situation develops. I have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to be vigilant across prices, including essentials such as road fuel and heating oil. Let me be absolutely clear: I will not tolerate any company exploiting the current crisis to make excess profits at consumers’ expense.
I am proud to be the Chancellor who is delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. I am committed to giving our military the resources they need. That is why I can confirm today that I approved access for the Ministry of Defence to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the middle east, meaning that no net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the MOD, but instead will be funded by the Treasury.
We do not yet know how long the conflict will last or what further action will be required, but it is my duty to be responsive in an uncertain world and responsible in the national interest to protect the public finances and help families with the cost of living. That is what the Prime Minister is doing and that is what I will continue to do. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement and add the Opposition’s firm support for our armed forces.
As the Chancellor has made clear, these are very serious and concerning times, and developments in the middle east are already having profound consequences for our economy. Oil prices have surged above $100 a barrel for the first time since the 2022 energy crisis. That alone is enough to have huge knock-on effects for households and businesses: families filling up their car will already have noticed petrol prices increasing, and fixed-price energy tariffs have either been increased or pulled from the market. We are already seeing British households worse off as a result of this conflict.
I am grateful to the Chancellor for updating the House on her meetings with other G7 Finance Ministers, and I welcome her commitment to supporting action to ease pressure on global supply by using strategic oil reserves. That, however, will go only so far.
As the Chancellor has said, the longer this conflict continues, the more likely it is that we will see a sustained period of higher prices. That, in turn, will have implications for interest rates and our cost of borrowing. The longer that lasts, the more likely it is that higher inflationary expectations will become anchored. If that happens, monetary policy will need to adjust accordingly, which may mean higher mortgages for homeowners who have only just begun to see some relief.
Gilt markets have already been responding to these events, which could mean that the forecasts we were given just last week from the Office for Budget Responsibility end up looking very different. We must continue to monitor developments closely.
Where the Opposition clearly differ from the right hon. Lady is in her approach to the economy in the run-up to this crisis, as her gross mismanagement has left us far more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case. She refers to inflation, which was bang on target when we left office; thanks to her choices, though, it rose back up to almost 4% last year—the highest in the G7—and remains elevated, which is far from ideal given the threat of a significant further spike in energy prices. Extraordinarily, the Chancellor has just now reconfirmed that the Government will press ahead with a rise in fuel duty later this year.
Borrowing is running higher than was forecast when the Government took office—we are spending well over £100 billion a year on debt interest alone. This leaves us far more vulnerable to rising borrowing costs. The Government are also continuing to impose ruinously high taxes on our oil and gas sector and choosing to rely on imports instead of maximising our own domestic energy supply. That is proving to be an incredibly short-sighted approach. However, as the right hon. Lady has just told us, there will be no change in direction. That is the wrong choice. More broadly, of course, business confidence has hit record lows, and unemployment has risen back to pandemic levels. Our economy is weaker as a direct result of this Chancellor.
Last week, at the spring statement, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to change course; instead, we got no action at all, just breathtaking self-congratulation and denial. She had a vital opportunity to come to the House with a plan to get the economy growing, but she did not do so—not least because this weak Government have caved in to their own Back Benchers, who prefer higher welfare spending to fixing our economy.
Today, let me reiterate our offer to support the Government if—even at this late stage, and particularly given the gravity of the current global outlook—they do the right thing by showing some backbone and coming forward with a proper plan to cut welfare spending and strengthen our economy so that we can properly support hard-working families through this difficult time. That is the very least that the British people deserve.
Finally, let me ask the right hon. Lady the following questions. Will she urgently reconsider her decision to implement the first increase in fuel duty in 15 years? Likewise, will she urgently reconsider her decision to continue with the crippling taxes being imposed on North sea oil and gas producers? On the Fingleton review on nuclear, can she clarify whether the Government are accepting all the recommendations, as Ministers previously committed to accepting?
Will the right hon. Lady give further details on what additional economic action is under consideration internationally if the conflict continues? What measures are the Government considering to support households in the event of a sustained period of higher prices, and what action is being considered as part of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s work to support those reliant on heating oil?
Are the Government tracking the Iranian regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems are not facilitating funds that are being used to support repression? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that there is sufficient resource available in the special reserve so that our brave servicemen and women have the support that they deserve?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the shadow Chancellor for his questions. The Government believe that the best way that we can protect families and businesses from this conflict is through de-escalation. We heard nothing in the shadow Chancellor’s response about what the Conservatives’ view is on de-escalation. We believe that it is important that we get back to the negotiating table and do not escalate this conflict, but I am not sure that that is the view of the Conservatives.
We know that commitment to greater energy security can help guard against shocks. After inaction and delay from the Conservatives while they were in government for 14 years, this Labour Government are committed to investing in and building new nuclear. That is why we are backing Sizewell C and small modular reactors— neither of which were funded by the previous Government, but both of which were funded at the spending review, because this Government are backing Britain’s energy security. This Labour Government are backing the industries of the future, such as carbon capture and storage—not funded by the Conservatives, but funded in the spending review, because we back Britain’s energy security. Through the National Wealth Fund, we are investing in floating offshore wind and our docks—not funded by the Conservatives, but funded in the spending review, because we back Britain’s energy security.
In 14 years the Tories did nothing. They failed when we needed new nuclear. They stood by and allowed the loss of gas storage facilities at Rough. They failed to fix the broken planning system to enable us to build renewables, and they had an effective moratorium on onshore wind, which is the cheapest form of energy. We are taking a different approach in the interests of our economy and energy security.
On energy bills, I urge the shadow Chancellor not to scaremonger. The £150 cut to energy bills that I announced in the Budget will continue, as has been confirmed by Ofgem. We removed the failed energy company obligation scheme, and we removed a number of levies from bills. On heating oil, those conversations will happen this week, and we are working closely with MPs and colleagues in Northern Ireland to make sure that things are working well. The Minister for Energy at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero met the heating oil sector on Friday and spoke this morning to the Competition and Markets Authority. There is not currently a problem with supply, but if Members have individual issues around supply, they should make sure that they get in contact with DESNZ.
The shadow Chancellor asked about fuel duty. Fuel duty would have risen by 8p if I had used the plans that I inherited from the Conservatives. We have had two Budgets in which the freeze on fuel duty was extended, and both times it was voted against by all Opposition parties. It is a little rich for the Tories now to say that they want to reduce fuel duty when they voted against Budgets that froze it.
On the energy profits levy, the shadow Chancellor must have a short memory, because he was in the Cabinet that introduced the energy profits levy. It was introduced for a reason. Windfall profits were being made by the energy companies and there was a need to help consumers with bills, which is exactly what we have done.
On the public finances, I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman listened to my statement last week or my statement today. The deficit has reduced from 5.3% to 4.2% of GDP. This is the first time in six years that the budget deficit has been less than 5% of GDP. In fact, in the 14 years that the Conservatives were in office, borrowing was higher than the G7 average; it is now lower than the G7 average, and it is coming down in every year of this Parliament. On inflation, I will not take any lessons from the party whose policy took inflation to more than 11%.
The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Work and Pensions Secretary, says that we should be spending less on welfare. Well, it would have been nice if he had done something about it when he was in charge. We are reforming the welfare system, which the Conservatives broke.
On Fingleton, we commissioned the Fingleton review because we are determined to build nuclear power, unlike the Conservative party. On oil reserves, we have reserves equivalent to 90 days of oil imports. As the G7 confirmed today, we will be making further announcements on that. On gas reserves, it was the Conservative party that closed the storage facilities at Rough. National Gas has confirmed today that our gas reserves are at a comparable level to last year and the year before that. The numbers that are being reported are utterly misleading, because gas comes from a number of sources—interconnectors, liquid natural gas and our storage facilities—so I would really rather the Conservative party did not scaremonger when people want certainty.
On money laundering, of course we have the very strictest rules. On the special reserve for defence, of course we will ensure that the Ministry of Defence has all the money it needs to provide support for our armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is right to focus on the cost of living and de-escalation in the middle east. I am pleased to hear her confirm again that there is money for the Ministry of Defence and access to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the middle east. Can she give us a figure or a range for how much money the Treasury is providing to the Ministry of Defence to deploy?
Rachel Reeves
It would not be right to disclose that sort of information. As I said, we will provide all the support that is needed for our operations in the middle east.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement, but it does not include a single concrete announcement, and in itself will not provide the reassurance that householders and businesses are looking for as they hear reports that energy bills are about to escalate. Last week, the Liberal Democrats asked the Chancellor whether she would consider scrapping the planned 1p increase in fuel duty, due in September. Will she confirm that that option is still on the table and has not been ruled out?
Last autumn, we Liberal Democrats called for a new energy security bank to roll out low-interest loans to households and small and medium-sized enterprises. We welcomed the Government’s warm homes plan in January, but will the Chancellor confirm that it could be extended from five to 10 years and that it will have a greater emphasis on home insulation? Could small businesses’ investment in energy-saving measures be excluded from business rates calculations?
In the long term, we need energy market reform. I urge the Chancellor and her Government to intervene to stop these unpredictable fluctuations in the gas market. We need urgently to develop a plan to delink gas and electricity prices, and move expensive old renewable subsidies from the renewables obligation to the much better and cheaper contracts for difference model.
I am glad that the Chancellor has written to the Competition and Markets Authority about keeping an eye on petrol pump prices, but last autumn I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and asked him to instruct the CMA to investigate bad practices in the energy market that affect hospitality businesses and small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses and UKHospitality have also asked for that investigation but, six months on, it still has not happened. Will the Chancellor please confirm that she will speak to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade?
Finally, on rural homes, we know that off-grid homes rely on oil, and they are already seeing prices go up as panic buying spreads. I am grateful that the Chancellor indicated that there will be a meeting on Wednesday. Will she confirm that an announcement will be forthcoming by the end of this week?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady talks about energy security, but she has never once acknowledged her party’s failure when they were in government. In 2010, her then party leader Nick Clegg justified opposing new nuclear energy on the grounds that it would take until 2022 to become operational. Well, 2022 has been and gone, but what is here is another example of Britain paying a high price today for the choices of the Opposition parties.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s specific questions. We announced at the Budget that we will take £150 off bills—that will come in in April and continue until June—by taking the failed energy company obligation levy, over which the last Government presided, off bills. People on heating oil also use electricity in their homes and will benefit from reductions in their energy bills from April. As I said, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will meet relevant MPs this week.
The hon. Lady walked with her colleagues through the Lobby to oppose the Budget measures, which included freezing fuel duties, so it is a bit rich of her now to say that she wants us to cut fuel duty. On ensuring that homes are properly insulated, at the spending review last year I announced £15 billion for the warm homes plan, which is focused on lower-income families.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that contracts for difference are crucial in weaning ourselves off imported oil and gas. We are in a better place because of the CfD auctions we have been holding and the energy infrastructure we have been building, and which we can build because of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which Opposition parties opposed.
Finally, as I said in my statement, the Competition and Markets Authority has an important role in ensuring that markets are functioning properly on heating oil, on petrol forecourts and for small businesses. We will ensure that it fulfils that role so that people are not overcharged for the energy they use.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to giving us energy security by reducing our dependence on international fossil fuel markets and moving to clean energy instead. I also welcome what she said about her support for jobs and investment in the North sea, her commitment to protecting consumers through the warm home discount and the warm homes plan, and indeed the commitment she made in the Budget to take £117 off consumer bills.
My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out the dire record of Opposition parties on new nuclear—14 years in which they failed. Will she give a commitment that this Government will add to their already announced successes on Sizewell C and on small modular reactors, and give policy certainty to the industry through a fleet approach to both large-scale and small modular reactors?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have already signed off commitments to both Sizewell C—a publicly funded nuclear power station—and small modular reactors, which we will build with Rolls-Royce in north Wales. The purpose of the Fingleton review is to ensure that we can build those quickly and cheaply, as—more than ever—the current situation demands.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
When I was doing the Chancellor’s job, the Treasury rule of thumb was that a 20% increase in energy prices meant 1% more on inflation and 0.5% less on growth. The truth is that it is much too early to know whether the Chancellor will have to find £78 billion to help households with energy bills, as I had to do in 2022, but we do know that the world is much more dangerous and that there are big problems in our defence budget. I welcome the fact that the Government are now committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but nearly two years on from when the previous Government made the same commitment, it is clear that that is not enough. Will she unblock the arguments between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence and outline a timetable whereby defence spending increases to 3% of GDP and we are able to defend our interests in the middle east and our allies in Europe, as the whole House would wish?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about it being too early to tell the impact is really important. Of course we will take the necessary actions to protect consumers and businesses, but the most important thing we can do at the moment is to de-escalate the conflict and work with Lloyd’s of London and countries around the world to get those vessels flowing through the strait of Hormuz. That is absolutely key for containing the rises in energy prices.
On defence spending, the Conservative manifesto committed to getting to 2.5% by the end of the Parliament. We are going to get to 2.6% by April next year, and we have made further commitments to 3% and then 3.5%. Obviously, we have a spending review coming up next year where these decisions will be taken in the round.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am planning to run this statement only until 5.45 pm, so I ask Members and the Chancellor to please help each other by making the questions very short.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The root cause of this issue in Britain is our excessive reliance on gas. That is why consumers in Glasgow East pay much more for their energy. The Conservatives had an offshore wind auction with no bids and an onshore wind moratorium, and the SNP is against any new nuclear power stations. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that we must double down on nuclear and on onshore and offshore wind to attack the root cause of our energy costs?
Rachel Reeves
We are building new nuclear in England and we are building new nuclear in Wales. We would love to build new nuclear in Scotland, but that will be possible only with a Labour Government in Scotland. On renewables, auction round 7 was very successful, and auction round 8 will take place later this year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to wean ourselves off imported oil and gas and be more secure with our energy supplies here in the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Chancellor has announced today that she is not really making any changes at this point, and that she is calling for a de-escalation. What would she say to my rural constituent who uses heating oil and has a virtually empty tank after a long winter, and is facing a 100% increase in the cost of heating oil? I did not hear anything that would help that particular constituent.
Rachel Reeves
As the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), said, it is too early to know the impact of this. The key is de-escalation and getting vessels flowing through the strait of Hormuz. The hon. Lady will have heard me say that heating oil is uniquely affected. People who use heating oil will get the benefits in their electricity bills, but I urge her to attend the meeting on Wednesday to put the case of her constituent to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor and Treasury officials for working closely with the Labour rural research group to discuss the heating oil troubles that we are facing right now, with prices going up by over 200% in some parts. Can she elaborate on what action will be taken with the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that we are protecting our consumers from these price gouging effects?
Rachel Reeves
The point about price gouging is really important, and that is why we have today instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that heating oil and petrol retailers, for example, are not taking advantage of this situation to line their own pockets rather than thinking about the consumers they serve.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
This last week has underlined our perilous national security situation and the potential risks to growth. Does the Chancellor agree that now is the time to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, perhaps funded by borrowing, along with our European and Canadian allies, to reassure the bond markets and to drive growth and protect our national security?
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is on the Treasury Committee, but his party has opposed every increase in taxes that we have brought in to better fund our public services, including higher defence spending. Like me, he will be looking at what is happening in the financial markets. I am not convinced that this is the time to unleash more borrowing on the markets. That is what Liz Truss tried, and look where it got us.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement, particularly the focus on energy security and our plan for home-grown clean energy. It has been astonishing since the election to hear that the Conservatives’ lesson from the Ukraine crisis was that we needed to be more dependent on international fossil fuels, after it cost us £78 billion, as the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), just said. The Chancellor mentioned the electricity generator levy. Will she tell the House how and when that would be activated?
Rachel Reeves
The energy profits levy is still in place, and the higher prices go, the more windfall tax is paid. There is also the electricity generator levy, whereby if electricity prices go up because they are, in some cases, outside of contracts for difference and linked to gas prices, we will recoup money there. That is obviously important because if the situation goes badly, we will need to be able to better support consumers. That is why the EPL and the EGL were brought in in the first place, and why they are important parts of the architecture we have.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When we are in the middle of a war, I am not sure that it achieves much to be overtly party political. The past is where we were; we are now in the present. Just to be helpful, I agree with the Chancellor on de-escalation and on defending our interests, not pursuing regime change, but the fact is that we have the highest energy costs in Europe. We are now in a crisis and potentially a war economy. I saw the Energy Secretary sitting next to her earlier. Whatever the good intentions on net zero, will she listen to the shadow Chancellor on North sea oil, because we are in this crisis now and have to meet it with every tool in the toolbox?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The best way to reduce prices for businesses and families in all our constituencies is to de-escalate and ensure that vessels can get through the strait of Hormuz, and that is our focus. But what this crisis, as well as Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, shows us is that we have to wean ourselves off oil and gas. We are better placed now than we were when Russia invaded Ukraine because we get more of our electricity through contracts for difference than we did then, and we are less reliant on gas prices to set our overall energy prices, but this shows that we need to do more to invest in both nuclear and home-grown renewables so that we are not so reliant on imports. However, as I said in my statement, I met North sea oil and gas leaders last week to talk about how we can support them during this time to ensure that we have access to the reserves we need.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. It is vital for residents in Dartford and across the country that they know the Government have their back when it comes to fuel bills going forward. Does she agree that the economic stability she set out last week in the spring statement means that the economy and consumers are much less vulnerable to the price shocks coming from the middle east than they otherwise would have been?
Rachel Reeves
We are in a better position than we were when Russia invaded Ukraine for two reasons. The first is our macroeconomic situation. For the first time since 2019, our deficit is below 5% of GDP. It came down by 1 percentage point of GDP just this year, and the OBR has forecast that it will fall every year, which gives us a bit more of a buffer. Of course, I set out how the headroom against the fiscal rules—both the stability rule and the investment rule—had increased at the spring forecast compared with the Budget. The other way we are better prepared is that more of our electricity comes from contracts for difference, which are not linked to the volatile and rising gas prices. That means that bills will be less affected, but I come back to the point that de-escalation will have the greatest impact on my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dartford and people elsewhere in getting their bills down.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Families are already struggling with the ongoing cost of living crisis, and the Chancellor has failed to bring down energy bills in the way that was promised in the manifesto. As prices continue to soar and international events cause people real anxiety as they look on, people are struggling and feeling the squeeze from the cost of living more than ever before. Will she now recognise that this is a crisis for families and put in real support to help them through the cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
With respect to the hon. Lady, on 1 April, energy prices will fall by an average of £117 thanks to the action that I took in the Budget, and will be frozen at that point until the end of June. As the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), and other Members have said, the most important thing we can do now is de-escalate the crisis. If she really believes in energy security, she should back Labour’s plans to invest in nuclear energy, as well as the jobs that it would create in Scotland.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Chancellor’s reiteration of the British industry supercharger scheme, but she will know that it helps only 10% of this country’s energy-intensive industry—electro-intensive industry in particular. The price per therm of gas is pretty much double what it was last week, so will she set out what help might be available for gas-intensive industry and for electro-industry that is not part of the supercharger scheme? Although we all hope that de-escalation comes, if it does not, will she meet the energy-intensive industries impacted by gas prices to see how they can be given immediate relief?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. Five-hundred businesses will benefit from an increased discount through the supercharger, taking it from 60% to 90%, from April. Next April, the British industry competitiveness scheme comes in, and it will benefit around 7,000 businesses. Of course, we will continue to consider how we can support our energy-intensive industries if the situation in the middle east continues.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Given that it was promised at the start of June last year, when will the Chancellor sign off on the defence investment plan?
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and the time he spent at the Treasury. As he knows, the previous Government committed to reaching 2.5% by the end of this Parliament. We are committing to bringing that forward, and by April next year we will be spending 2.6% of GDP. We will set out the defence investment plan based on our strategic defence review. Of course, the previous Government did not even bother to do a strategic defence review.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Constituents in Weardale, Teesdale and Gaunless valley are already paying double what they would have paid for their heating oil a week ago, and some of them simply cannot afford to fill up their tanks. Thanks to the fiscal headroom that the Chancellor has created, there is money in the system to support them, so will she consider fixed-term payments in the short term, and an expansion of the warm homes local grant in the long term, to help people to transition to cheaper forms of fuel?
Rachel Reeves
As I set out in my statement, we put £15 billion into the warm homes plan at the spending review last year, to better insulate people’s homes and help them to move to cheaper forms of energy. However, I recognise the immediate problems relating to heating oil, which is why I have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to consider price gouging, and why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will meet MPs on Wednesday. I hope that my hon. Friend will be there on behalf of his Bishop Auckland constituents.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Since the outbreak of the conflict in the middle east, heating oil prices have increased by over 100%. That is a harsh reminder that relying on volatile fossil fuel markets leaves households financially vulnerable. Many rural households are off the gas grid, so constituents such as Julian from East Lambrook are not protected by the energy price cap. Does the Chancellor agree that that is unfair on rural communities, and will she take steps to develop a mechanism to protect those householders from damaging global fossil fuel price shocks?
Rachel Reeves
Almost every household uses electricity to turn on the lights. They will benefit from some of the changes that will come in on 1 April. Some 4% of households in Great Britain, and more than 60% in Northern Ireland, rely on heating oil. We recognise the unique situation here. The increase in the price in the past few days does not reflect market conditions, which is why we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look urgently at extortionate prices. We are also ensuring that supply remains stable. Enough heating oil is available, and we do not want people to be priced out of it.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and thank her for her work to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Will she say a little more about her long-term work to increase grid capacity and change the planning system to help invest in new nuclear and solar?
Rachel Reeves
We made changes to the national policy planning framework a few days into this Government, and at the end of last year we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which makes it easier to build a range of infrastructure from housing to data centres and, crucially, energy infrastructure. That Act was opposed by the Opposition parties, who need to explain why they are against building the grid connections that will help us to benefit from cheaper energy.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I agree with the Chancellor that de-escalation is desirable, but this conflict is likely to go on for many months. She talks about reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which I agree with, but businesses are operating in the here and now, and they want reassurance. Forget the 500 businesses that will benefit from the supercharger scheme; what message can she give to medium-sized businesses that are very concerned and are having to lay off staff?
Rachel Reeves
I recognise the concerns about businesses. As well as the supercharger, the British industrial competitiveness scheme is coming in next year, and we are monitoring the situation carefully to see what else might be necessary. De-escalation is so important. There is no reason why this conflict has to go on for months and months—nobody wants that, it is in no one’s interest, and we must quickly get vessels flowing through the strait of Hormuz. That is why I am meeting Lloyd’s of London later today, to work through what insurance products can be introduced, and it is why G7 Finance Ministers talked on the call this afternoon about how we can guarantee the safety of vessels flowing through the strait.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Tens of thousands of homes across Cornwall are still totally reliant on heating oil, so I am delighted that the Chancellor has confirmed that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting rural MPs, whose constituents are disproportionately affected by the crisis. Does she agree that in order to accelerate away from a fossil fuel-led economy, the British Business Bank, National Wealth Fund, and Great British Energy need to take a more dynamic attitude to risk when supporting renewable energy projects?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and the group of rural Labour MPs for contacting me over the weekend with their stories and suggestions. That is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting MPs on Wednesday this week. The National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank are already investing heavily in renewables, and we increased their budget for them to do so. I also recognise the important opportunities in Cornwall, not just the South Crofty tin mine in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but other energy projects, including geothermal energy, and I have asked the National Wealth Fund to look again at those opportunities.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The British people are being clobbered. The Chancellor could have come here today and scrapped her hike in fuel duty. She could have come here, ended the insanity, and got drilling again in the North sea. Instead, she offered nothing—absolutely nothing. This crisis deserves a proper response. When will she finally understand that for now at least she is the Chancellor, not just a bystander?
Rachel Reeves
The freeze in fuel duty—Reform opposed it. The energy profits levy—the right hon. Gentleman introduced it when he was in the Conservative Government. I will take no lectures from him and the Tory tribute act sitting up there.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, for her support for the armed forces, and for acknowledging the anxiety of constituents abroad. Closer to home—at home, in fact—half of my constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar outside the town of Stornoway rely on heating oil to heat their homes. They face great uncertainty, with no guarantee of delivery, or of price on delivery. I hear what Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis fears regarding price gouging and price rises, so I welcome Treasury talks and hope that they will lead to further scrutiny and regulation of this unregulated industry. Otherwise, I will have to introduce the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the old Lewis tradition of cutting peat for winter fuel.
Rachel Reeves
I recognise that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be affected more than most by worries about the delivery and price of heating oil. That is why I have instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to look at price gouging and why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting my hon. Friend and other concerned MPs on Wednesday this week.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Will the decisions that the Chancellor is making about the strategic reserve being used for defence include consideration about the availability of funding for the Royal Navy to prepare warships to go to sea? There has been rumour over the past few days that one reason why one of His Majesty’s ships is not ready is that the contractor is still working 9 to 5. Will she be able to fund this properly, so that all ships are available as quickly as possible?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm that there are no financial impediments to warships going to the middle east. Money is available through the special reserve for personnel and contracts for all our operations in the middle east.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for the home of the British Army, I thank the Chancellor for her support for our armed forces. My constituency is also home to innovative defence and aerospace businesses, many of which are ambitious to expand and to play their part in strengthening our national security, but that depends on being able to access the investment that they need to scale up. Will the Chancellor reassure those businesses in my constituency that this Government will continue to work closely with the financial sector to ensure British defence and advanced manufacturing companies can access the capital that they need to invest, grow and create good, skilled jobs here in the UK?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, we have increased the funding available to both UK Export Finance and the National Wealth Fund to invest and support our defence industry. I also support the work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) are doing in ensuring that the financial services sector also lends to defence businesses, including scale-up businesses.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Almost two thirds of homes across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are dependent on heating oil, the price of which is now surging thanks to Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. Will the Chancellor reassure my constituents that help will be on the way from the Government?
Rachel Reeves
The meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be open to all MPs and is taking place on Wednesday this week, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to attend that meeting. We are aware of the unique situation with heating oil. That is why I have instructed the Competition and Markets Authority, but I am also keen to hear directly from MPs.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The impacts of this spiralling conflict are serious and will fall on our constituents’ pockets, so I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and the measures that she has set out. Yet last week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was in the United States attempting to lobby against our national interests—with a comical lack of success. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impact on living costs can only be compounded by continued, deeply unpatriotic interventions by Members of Reform UK?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his question and for his contribution to the debates last week. He knows how important it is to de-escalate, because it is our armed services personnel who would be at the frontline of any escalation of the crisis. De-escalation is also in the interests of all our constituents, whether because of heating oil, the price paid at petrol pumps or mortgage rates. That is why this Government are putting all our diplomatic efforts into de-escalating this crisis and reopening the strait of Hormuz.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As heating oil and petrol prices go up in rural North Dorset, my constituents are hearing the Chancellor echo one of her predecessors in effectively saying, “Crisis? What crisis?” She needs to actively get a grip on this issue. Motorists in rural areas use their cars because they have to. The vast majority of my constituents are off grid and have no alternative to keep warm other than using heating oil. This is a crisis in costs taking place today that meetings with and letters to the CMA will not help or address. She has mentioned that this meeting has been organised on Wednesday and that invitations have gone out for it. [Interruption.] We do not need the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) gesticulating like some—
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the hon. Member. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), says, it is too early to know what the impact of this crisis will be. That is why I met with G7 Finance Minister colleagues today, which I am sure the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) welcomes. We discussed the release of the International Energy Agency’s strategic oil reserves, for example. What is needed to contain prices for all our constituents is to ensure that we have the oil and gas on the market that we need. That is why we are prioritising diplomatic routes to de-escalate this crisis.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, because this is a worrying time for not just our national security, but our economy. I am pleased to hear about the work going on with the Competition and Markets Authority in respect of consumers of heating oil, but may I suggest that she has a conversation with her colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to expedite the £1 billion-worth of community energy investment coming through the local power fund and focus it as quickly as possible into rural areas such as mine in Derbyshire? If this is going to be a protracted conflict, that could make a difference.
Rachel Reeves
In the spending review last year, I put in £1 billion for the community investment fund in local energy schemes to ensure that communities are more self-reliant for their basic energy needs. That is the lesson from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it is also the lesson from this conflict in the middle east. We need to be more resilient and secure as an economy, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Iran crisis highlights the urgent need to speed up the UK’s energy system transition to clean, green, cheap renewables and energy efficiency. The last time that energy prices went through the roof due to illegal international aggression, in 2022, normal people paid the price while huge energy giants raked in billions of pounds in windfall profits. Will the Chancellor guarantee that in responding to this crisis, she will do everything possible to protect ordinary households and ensure that no energy company makes profits from this war?
Rachel Reeves
The reason we have the energy profits levy and the electricity generator levy is to ensure just that. If the hon. Lady is really serious about energy security and investing in low-carbon energy, I really do not understand why her party opposes planning reforms so that we can build grid infrastructure, as well as both small modular reactors and new nuclear in Suffolk. All those things add to our energy security and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Why do the Greens oppose them?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I respect the Conservatives who are calling for de-escalation, but they need to have a word with their leader, who wanted to sign Britain up to a war of choice with changing goals and no clear timescales, thereby contributing to the chaos and the worsening cost of living crisis. The Chancellor has a plan, and we are seeing inflation, interest rates and Government borrowing falling as a result. Will she commit to keeping to that plan to keep bringing down borrowing so that the country can live more within its means and get rid of the awful inheritance left by the Conservatives?
Rachel Reeves
Last week’s spring forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility showed inflation coming down, borrowing coming down and debt coming down. Our economy is fundamentally strong, but we all need to see a de-escalation of this conflict and the reopening of the strait of Hormuz to ensure that our constituents continue to benefit from falling energy bills and falling interest rates. That is why we are so focused on the diplomatic efforts.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
As the Chancellor has repeatedly said, at the root of the current economic crisis lies the closure of the strait of Hormuz. What conversations have the Government had with the Trump Administration, both about insurance and, more importantly, about deploying UK military assets to secure the reopening of the strait? Does she agree that a more robust approach might reassure our friends and allies in the Gulf who invest so much in the United Kingdom? Our presence there has been notable by its absence.
Rachel Reeves
There are two things that are needed to effectively reopen the strait. The first is security for vessels passing through it, which will require cross-country action involving the US, of course, but also the UK and France. We all stand ready to do that, and that was one of the things we discussed on our G7 Finance Ministers’ call today. Once that is provided, we also need to ensure that appropriate insurance products are in place, and we are working on that with Lloyd’s and the US Administration. We are the global leader in maritime insurance, so we have an important role to play to ensure those vessels are properly insured once they start to move again.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Chancellor has taken decisive action to bring down energy bills, but as she noted, those who rely on heating oil are often the most exposed to sudden price shocks. Even in my fairly urban constituency, there are hundreds of households in that position, and some of them have been on touch with me because the cost of heating oil has doubled in a week due to the effect of the Iran conflict. As the Chancellor works to shield the British public from the economic fallout, will she ensure that our households on heating oil are protected from the shocking increases we are currently seeing?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that the players in the heating oil sector behave responsibly and do not seek to profiteer from the current conflict. It is their customers who will lose out, which is why we have instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to guard against price gouging. I know that my hon. Friend will attend the meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on Wednesday to make those representations, but the best thing we can do is de-escalate and get those vessels moving, in order to get that oil and gas flowing.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
One in three households in North Shropshire are dependent on heating oil—I declare an interest, because mine is one of them. Since last week, people have been in contact with me, concerned about the rapid escalation of heating oil costs. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that she recognises that problem and wants to act on it, but can she outline in more detail what kind of remedy she envisages and how soon it might be put in place?
Rachel Reeves
I said in my statement that despite what we did in last year’s Budget to take £150 off domestic energy bills, there is a unique situation with regard to heating oil. That is why I was pleased to receive representations on that topic over the weekend—the Treasury is working through those proposals—and it is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will meet MPs this week. The reason prices are going up, though, is the challenges in getting oil and gas out of the middle east. That is why it is so important to de-escalate, but it is wrong for anyone to profiteer off the back of this crisis.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Many of my constituents stranded in the middle east have been left out of pocket because of their travel insurance. In my view as a former regulator, those policies have overly broad exclusion terms. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on her meetings with the insurance sector, the Financial Conduct Authority and consumer groups, and will the City Minister meet me to discuss this issue?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that the relevant Minister—whether that is a Minister in the Department for Transport or the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—will meet my hon. Friend. It is important that everybody who wants to get home from the middle east is able to do so. We welcome the work that airlines are doing with the support of the Government to get people home, but it is also important that people are not ripped off for that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
For months now, we have heard the Chancellor and other Government Front Benchers saying that we will be using oil and gas for years to come. Of course we will—no matter how much they want to wish it away, we will be using oil and gas for years to come, so we must secure our supply. In her meeting this morning with G7 Finance Ministers, did any of them say that banning new oil and gas licences in the North sea was a good idea? Are any of them banning themselves from accessing their own energy resources?
Rachel Reeves
It was, of course, the hon. Lady’s party that introduced the energy profits levy in the first place, and it did so for a good reason. Many of the questions today have been about the impact on prices, and the way that support was given to consumers during the Russia-Ukraine crisis was through money from the energy profits levy being used to subsidise people’s bills. That is why we have the energy profits levy.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She is absolutely right to take the action that she has on energy prices, particularly given that 20% of the world’s oil is transported via the strait of Hormuz. The strait of Hormuz also transports more than a third of the world’s urea, almost half its sulphur, and a significant amount of ammonia. What steps is the Chancellor taking to protect our farmers from spiking fertiliser prices at the same time as energy prices are rising?
Rachel Reeves
We are working closely with the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as business, to understand the different parts of industry that will be affected by protracted conflict. That is just another reason why it is so important to de-escalate. That is exactly what we are seeking to do, and it is also why we are working with G7 allies focused on reopening the strait of Hormuz, because that is the best thing we can do to bring down prices and ensure that supply continues to flow.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement this afternoon. As she has outlined, Northern Ireland is uniquely exposed, with up to 70% of people across Northern Ireland reliant on home heating oil. Instead of meeting me, does she have plans this week to meet the Minister for the Economy and my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to see how we can best support our people?
Rachel Reeves
It is important to understand the extent of the impacts on Northern Ireland. When we made the announcement in the Budget, we made money available for Northern Ireland to have its own scheme, recognising the slightly different energy market there. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is leading on this work at the Treasury, will meet his opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we understand the challenges there and what we can do to best support people.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, which underlines the importance of new nuclear to boost our energy security. Many of us who back new nuclear also care deeply about nature. Dungeness in my constituency is both a nationally important habitat site and a vital location for new nuclear. Does the Chancellor agree that we urgently need a reformed framework for habitat protection—along the lines proposed by the Fingleton review—so that we can safeguard the environment and welcome new nuclear back to places such as Dungeness?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his pragmatic approach. We will be responding to Fingleton in the next few days and then legislating as quickly as possible to make it cheaper and quicker to build the energy infrastructure that we know we need.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Defence industry supply chains are desperately in need of the defence investment plan. The Chancellor talks about the money being invested, but why is the Treasury not allowing the DIP to go forward? It is starting to become critical, and we need that infrastructure. The Secretary of State is desperate for that infrastructure. We need to know when it is coming forward. They are the Government’s self-imposed deadlines, nobody else’s.
Rachel Reeves
We published the strategic defence review earlier this year, and in the spending review last year, the biggest uplifts in spending were at the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Care. The previous Government said that they would get to 2.5% at the end of the next Parliament. We will get to 2.6% by April next year, and that money is already being spent. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to worry about that.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents in Derby will be worried about the devastation that they see across the middle east, and they will agree that de-escalation must remain a priority. They are also worried, though, about the impact on their weekly shopping bills, petrol prices and energy bills. Does the Chancellor agree that stability for our businesses and local people is vital, given the volatility we are seeing internationally?
Rachel Reeves
I am pleased that since I became Chancellor, the Bank of England has cut interest rates six times, and we have been able to take £150 off energy bills and freeze prescription charges and rail fares. My hon. Friend’s constituency contains Rolls-Royce, which will benefit from small modular reactors and also from the increased defence spending that is already going in.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Some 72% of households in my constituency have no connection to the mains gas grid. For those who filled their tanks over the weekend, the consequences of the Iran crisis have become very real, and those who are still to do so are anxious to learn when any potential support that may be agreed on Wednesday will be provided.
Rachel Reeves
I recognise that there are significant challenges in some areas of Wales, as indeed there are in Northern Ireland, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to attend the meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We have already had representations over the weekend about what is needed, and I want Members in all parties to be able to contribute to that, but the best way to reduce prices is to get that oil and gas flowing again, which is why it is so important to secure not only a military solution to get the strait of Hormuz open but an insurance solution, and I am working closely on that at the moment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I appreciate that a lot of Members will be disappointed not to have been able to ask their questions. I will try to prioritise them during the next statement if that is at all possible.
Middle East: Defence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement to update the House on the middle east. As I trust the House will understand, there is a lot on which to update it.
Let me start by praising our armed forces who are working 24/7 to protect British lives and British interests in the region—from our 400-strong air defence teams in Cyprus, who I visited last week, to our counter-drone specialists in Iraq, our fast jet pilots in Qatar, our command specialists in the regional defence co-ordination centres, and everyone else who is working on this crisis, abroad and at home. Iran threatens us all, but it is our forces who feel this most acutely. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking them for their outstanding dedication and their professionalism, for protecting British lives and for keeping us safe. We want to say to them, “You are the best of Britain in action.” [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The UK Government’s approach throughout the current developments in the middle east is founded on three principles. The first is defensive, which means taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. We have taken steps since January, weeks before the current war with Iran began, to pre-position Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone teams, radars and air defence in the region, and have sent additional military capability since last Saturday, when the Iranian retaliation attacks started. The second principle is co-ordination with allies. We do not work alone, so we are leading and co-ordinating our response with NATO allies and other partners, including the United States, E5 nations and the Gulf states. I am in daily contact with my counterparts, as is the Chief of the Defence Staff. The third principle is legal: we must have a legal basis for our decisions. That allows Ministers to make sound choices, and allows our military to operate with the fullest confidence. Our UK action is grounded in those principles, to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies.
In the last week, we have seen Iran lashing out with dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless strikes. On the first day alone, it attacked 10 countries with military and civilian targets, including hotels in Dubai and Bahrain and the Kuwaiti national airport. British troops stationed at a US base in Bahrain were within a few hundred yards of an Iranian strike, and a small drone hit our base in Cyprus, coming from Lebanon or Iraq—and Iraq has now fired over 500 ballistic and cruise missiles, and over 2,000 drones.
John Healey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for paying such close attention to my statement; Iran has now fired 500 ballistic and cruise missiles, and over 2,000 drones.
Even after the Iranian President’s apology and promise to the Gulf states over the weekend, Iran struck multiple countries with drones and missiles, including Bahrain, where 32 civilians were injured in one attack and a desalination plant was hit in another. We totally condemn these attacks. They are putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, including British nationals and members of our armed forces.
Although Iran’s current indiscriminate strikes began last Saturday, the Iranian regime has for decades been a source of evil, exporting violence across the middle east and beyond. It has supplied nearly 60,000 Shahed drones to Putin for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Here in the UK, Iran conducts aggressive cyber-attacks against us and has plotted assassination on Britain’s streets. The Iranian regime is a destructive force that has slaughtered protesters in its own streets and inflicts terrible suffering, especially against its own people. We want to see Iran stop its strikes, give up its nuclear ambitions and restart the negotiations.
As Defence Secretary, my No. 1 priority is protecting British people, military and civilian alike. Since January we have moved significant military assets into the region, ahead of the first US-Israeli strikes. Those preparations made a real difference and mean that we have conducted defensive military operations from day one. Our F-35s have destroyed Iranian drones over Jordan. Our Typhoons have shot down targets heading towards Qatar. Our counter-drone units have defeated further attacks against coalition bases in Iraq. We acted early to protect British people and British interests, and to support our allies.
As the Iranian response became clear last weekend, we adapted our actions to the changing circumstances, driven at all times by military advice. That is why we accepted a new US request for the use of British bases at RAF Fairford and on Diego Garcia last Sunday, and why I committed further resources to the region last week, including four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters, a Merlin helicopter and HMS Dragon. I can confirm today that Dragon will set sail in the next couple of days, and I want to personally thank all those who are working tirelessly—some for up to 22 hours a day—to get the ship ready. HMS Dragon will join US air defence destroyers to provide additional protection in the eastern Mediterranean.
Let me provide the House with the following operational update from last night. The UK is now conducting defensive air sorties in support of the United Arab Emirates. Typhoons successfully took out two drones—one over Jordan, and the second heading to Bahrain. The third Wildcat has arrived in Cyprus, and we have now deployed additional RAF operations experts to more than five countries in the region, helping to co-ordinate regional military and civilian airspace. The fragments of the drone that hit Akrotiri are being analysed for foreign military hardware by our experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.
British pilots have now racked up over 230 flying hours. We have eight jets in Qatar, including the joint Qatari-British squadron, which is flying in support of regional allies, and we have more jets in Cyprus than any other nation. I visited our 400-strong air defence team at our base in Cyprus on Thursday last week. They are there in addition to the 4,000 personnel regularly stationed on the island. I was subjected to the daily air sirens that they face. I saw the impact that the Iranian proxy drone had caused, and I asked the Commander British Forces, General Tom Bewick, “Do you need anything more from us back in Britain?” He said to me, “No, I have been given everything I have asked for.” The UK is leading the response to Iranian threats in close co-ordination with our allies, and Cyprus’s head of the national guard told me last week, “Our military co-operation has never been closer.” Our support is backed up by our NATO allies, including the US, France, Greece and Germany—something that I discussed with E5 Defence Ministers last week.
I can confirm to the House that, having given the US the go-ahead to use British bases for specific defensive operations into Iran last Sunday, the first US bomber landed at RAF Fairford on Friday. As the Prime Minister has set out, this activity is part of
“the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives…in accordance with international law.”
These missions are to destroy Iranian missiles at source.
We are deeply concerned about escalation in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a dangerous terror organisation that is tied to the regime in Iran. It must cease its attacks against Israel, but we do not want to see Israel expand this conflict further into Lebanon. More than 400 people have already been killed, and half a million displaced, by recent Israeli operations. The solution to these problems, and to this conflict, must be guided by the Lebanese people and the Lebanese Government. We urge de-escalation and the return to a negotiated process.
Moving beyond defence, I know that many Members have constituents with friends and family who are caught in the region, and they are worried about the safety of loved ones. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office teams are working as fast as possible to get our people out of the region. Three chartered flights have now taken off, with more to come this week. More than 170,000 people have registered their presence, which has allowed us to get them the information, support and advice that they need. More than 37,000 British nationals have been evacuated since the start of the crisis response, and as the Prime Minister said last week:
“We will not stop until our people are safe.”
These are deeply uncertain times. While we deal with the immediate crisis in the middle east, we must also maintain our strong support for Ukraine, deter increasing threats in the High North, fulfil our NATO commitments, and ensure that our homeland is protected. Our adversaries are watching. We must manage rising demands on defence, balancing resources to best effect. We must also deal with the cost of living impact that this conflict could cause, just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her statement.
I am proud of the UK’s response. Acting at all times in our national interest, we will defend our allies and support our armed forces. We will do everything necessary to protect British lives and British interests, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing that I received from his officials this morning.
May I begin by offering condolences, on behalf of the Opposition, to the families of the seven US soldiers killed in the ongoing action against Iran? I join the Secretary of State in utterly condemning Iran’s indiscriminate attacks across the region, and I express my gratitude and that of the Opposition to all our brilliant, brave service personnel and their families who are stationed out there.
Of course, the Secretary of State and I agree that the No. 1 responsibility of any Government is to defend their people and that everything possible must be done to secure our sovereign bases, particularly RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, which was attacked by drones a week ago. That is an incredibly serious development. We support the Government in taking steps to use the RAF and other assets to protect the airspace and defend against drone and missile threats to Akrotiri, but also in deploying our air force to defend allies in the region as an act of collective self-defence.
The problem is that any serious integrated missile defence plan for the sovereign base areas on Cyprus would by necessity include the presence of one of our highly capable Type 45 air defence destroyers, yet despite the Secretary of State saying that “since January” we have moved significant military assets into the region, there is not a single Royal Navy warship present and our Type 45, HMS Dragon, has not even set sail. Will he confirm that the Government decided only last Tuesday to send a Type 45 to the eastern Med, after the US action had already commenced and two days after RAF Akrotiri was attacked by kamikaze drones?
Of particular importance is that it has been widely reported that the Royal Navy recommended to Ministers weeks ago to deploy a Type 45 destroyer to the region. Is that true, and if so, when did the Navy make the recommendation to send a Type 45 and which Minister took the decision to decline that advice from the Royal Navy and instead choose not to send a destroyer? Most importantly, why was the decision taken not to send a Type 45 until there had already been attacks on our base on Cyprus? Can the Secretary of State tell us on what date he expects HMS Dragon to be in position to provide air defence in the region? Furthermore, given the Chancellor’s promise in her statement earlier to reopen the strait of Hormuz and France’s pledge to provide escort ships, what other Royal Navy assets will we be sending to assist?
On 19 February, the BBC reported that the United Kingdom would not allow the United States to use its bases to launch an attack on Iran. We know that three US Arleigh Burke destroyers—its equivalent of the Type 45—have for days been based in the Mediterranean, providing Cyprus with defence against ballistic missiles. Does that not mean that, until the Prime Minister’s U-turn a week ago, this Labour Government were displaying the most extraordinary double standards to our closest military ally by on the one hand denying the US the use of our bases, while on the other relying on it to protect ours?
One of the bases in question is Diego Garcia, which is absolutely critical for launching US heavy bombers. It is bad enough for the Prime Minister to be U-turning over permission to use Diego Garcia while it is still our sovereign territory, but how much worse will the situation be once we have started paying billions for the pleasure of Mauritius, a close ally of China, having a say on whether such action complies with international law? When it comes to the Prime Minister’s next and 17th U-turn, would not the best thing he could do be to scrap his crazy Chagos deal and spend every penny on the British armed forces?
However, this is not just about the future of Diego Garcia. Last week, the Cypriot Foreign Minister said that there are “questions” about the future of the UK’s military bases on the island. Is not the reality that Greece, France and Spain are all sending ships, and that Labour’s failure to deploy the Royal Navy to the eastern Mediterranean has completely undermined our international standing in the eyes not just of our many allies in the middle east, but of those who can now exploit such weakness? Will the Secretary of State therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that UK sovereignty of our bases on Cyprus is not up for negotiation?
It is not of course just HMS Dragon that everyone is waiting for. At a time of war on multiple fronts, we have been waiting months and months for the Government to publish their long overdue defence investment plan. I cannot emphasise how serious this is: Britain urgently needs to rearm. It was right that we gave a huge amount of munitions to support Ukraine, but that has made our need to rearm even more pressing. When exactly are the Government going to publish the defence investment plan? Can the Secretary of State at least say if it will be published before local election purdah commences? That is a key question.
Finally, is there not a simple reason why there is no defence investment plan, and is it not the same reason why, for the first time in almost half a century, there are no Royal Navy warships in the middle east? It is because when it comes to defence spending, this Government have prioritised welfare over rearmament. They have chosen to spend billions more on benefits rather than strengthening our defence in a dangerous world. After all the Prime Minister’s dither and delay, U-turns and weakness, will the Secretary of State finally demand from his Chancellor what we all know our armed forces need, which is a properly funded plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament?
John Healey
Let me start by recognising the fact that the shadow Defence Secretary supports the steps we have taken to put UK defence capabilities in the middle eastern region, and that he recognises and supports the fact that we did that in advance of the current crisis. These capabilities and our co-ordination of them have been alongside our US allies and have been purely defensive in nature. We have been making our best contribution to the protection of British interests, British personnel, British bases and British allies in the region.
The shadow Defence Secretary asks me about HMS Dragon. While we have been building up that significant military presence in the middle east since January, which he for the first time has recognised and welcomed, it is totally right that, as circumstances change, so should our military posture. He asks me when the option of Dragon was first put to Ministers. As the Chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC on Saturday, he looked at the proposals for Dragon being deployed to the middle east on Tuesday last week, and I signed them off the same day. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about the state of the British Navy, he should take a hard look at his Government’s record. Over 14 years, they hollowed out and underfunded our forces. They cut £12 billion from the defence budget in their first five years. Total frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 17, and in 14 years in government they did not order a single new destroyer. We have Dragon available to go to the middle east today only because the Labour Government commissioned it before 2010. I completely—[Interruption.] I am proud of the work our military are doing in the middle east, and I reject claims about the response. We got ahead of the first strikes in the way that we have set out.
I have been unable to find any evidence, in public or in this House, of the shadow Defence Secretary calling at any stage before the war began for military assets to be moved to the middle east. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary was calling barely a month ago in this Chamber for our military
“to prioritise or repurpose…inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 81.]
The shadow Defence Secretary really is proving himself quite an armchair general—General Hindsight, wise only after the event. I am really disappointed.
The shadow Defence Secretary asks about the defence investment plan. We are working flat out to produce that. He asks about defence spending. He cut it; we invested in defence. We have seen the greatest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. This year alone, we are spending £62 billion on defence, which is £8 billion more than the last year of the Conservative Government.
I am really disappointed, and our forces will be disappointed, that the shadow Defence Secretary did not stand up and offer an apology for what his leader said on Friday. His leader’s claim that British forces in the middle east are “just hanging around” is totally wrong and deeply insulting. They are working flat out, in the face of air raid sirens and warnings, to protect British lives, protect British interests and protect British allies. It is time the Tories did the decent thing, and apologised for her remarks and withdrew them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for his operational briefing beforehand. I also want to pay tribute to and praise our armed forces for their bravery, dedication and professionalism in defending our citizens and our allies in the region.
I agree with the Defence Secretary that we must urge de-escalation and a return to the negotiation process. I am glad that the Government pre-positioned Typhoons, F-35s, counter-drone units and other air defence assets in the region. However, the lack of a naval presence should be a cause of huge concern for all of us. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments that our armed forces are significantly overstretched from the High North to further beyond, and that the hollowing out in recent years has meant that we do not have enough assets, but what is being done urgently to rectify the situation and increase the investment in defence in the near future, so that we can be in several places at once?
John Healey
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action we have taken—the deployments I have decided to commit to the region. He asks what we are doing to make good 14 years of our armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded under the previous Government. The first step is to increase defence spending: this year, it is more than £8 billion greater than in the last year under the previous Government, totalling £270 billion in this Parliament alone, which is the single biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. The defence investment plan that will follow up the strategic defence review is a vision and a plan for rebuilding our forces, strengthening our deterrent, integrating our armed forces for the future and harnessing the accelerating power of new technology. I am grateful to him and his Defence Committee members for supporting and recognising that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and echo his praise for the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces in putting their lives on the line for us all.
The Liberal Democrats continue to have grave concerns about the UK being dragged into Trump’s illegal war. However, it is fair to say that the situation has evolved very quickly. Given that it is commonplace for UK personnel to serve aboard US navy ships, including aircraft carriers such as those currently engaged in attacks on Iran, can the Secretary of State provide an assurance to this House that no UK personnel are currently serving aboard US navy ships engaged in offensive operations in the middle east?
Furthermore, there have been serious questions raised about the use of UK bases for US airstrikes. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House on what monitoring is in place to ensure that US actions from UK bases remain purely defensive? Will the Government ensure that any intelligence relating to US strikes conducted from UK bases is provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review? If UK bases were used or were proposed to be used for offensive action beyond the Government’s authority, would the Government withdraw permission immediately? Securing those guarantees is essential to ensuring that the UK does not become complicit in Trump’s unilateral and illegal war.
Finally, even the limited defensive actions being asked of our armed forces have exposed how stretched resources really are. I must press the Secretary of State to give a clear timeframe for the release of the defence investment plan to start the urgent task of plugging those gaps. We must make sure that UK forces are given all the tools they need to do the jobs we ask of them, both now and in the future.
John Healey
As I said to the House in my statement, all the decisions we have taken and all actions in the face of the current conflict have been defensive in nature and legally well based. That gives a sound foundation for Ministers’ decisions and it gives forces personnel the fullest confidence in the actions they are taking. That is true of those we have deployed in the region and it will be true of those we have embedded, I am proud to say, in the US forces around the world. I am proud that our US-UK relationship remains deep and close, and that we continue to do things together that no other nations will do.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that our armed forces are the very best of us. Australian and British media are reporting that HMS Anson has departed western Australia ahead of schedule. Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether HMS Anson will play a role in defending British interests in the region on her voyage home?
John Healey
There are certain things that I will not and cannot disclose publicly. The operations of our submarines fall into that category. My hon. Friend is a long-standing member of the Defence Committee. I know she will understand the sensitivity and the potency of our submarine fleet. She asks the question, but she cannot realistically and reasonably expect an answer; I know that she knows that.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. At the same Dispatch Box about half an hour ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer perhaps unwisely delved into the world of military strategy and said a couple of things that were slightly alarming. First, she upbraided the shadow Chancellor for not calling for the de-escalation of the operations against Iran, yet the Defence Secretary’s own statement mentions de-escalation only when it comes to the situation in Lebanon. Can he clarify whether he is calling on his American counterparts to de-escalate in Iran or not? Secondly, she said that to open the strait of Hormuz we would need to support something she called “cross-country” operations with France and the US, and that we were ready to do that to open the strait of Hormuz. Will he comment on that too, please?
John Healey
The UK Government are urging Iran to de-escalate. We are deeply concerned about regional stability. Part of the reason for our co-ordinated defensive actions—the contribution we are making in the regional co-ordination centres, but also with our jets flying in defence of middle eastern allies—is to reinforce regional security and stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important statement this afternoon, and included the confirmation of the commitment to approve for the Ministry of Defence access to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities as they are needed to the middle east. I am sure the House will welcome that, as it will welcome the fact that she said,
“I am committed to giving our military the resources they need.”
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s leadership at this time. One of the defining characteristics of the UK’s response to the crisis when Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was the political unity that this party, the Labour party, offered our country. Does he find it extremely disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying that our military are “hanging around”, when they are putting themselves in harm’s way to defend our interests abroad? Does he expect, as I do, the shadow Secretary of State to apologise for that really disappointing, cheap political point scoring?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I had the honour of spending part of Thursday with our personnel on our base in Akrotiri, it was not just the teams and the pilots flying the fast jets who were working flat out—the F-35 team I spoke to had deployed at five days’ notice to Cyprus. The whole of the military personnel on that base were doing so, including those looking after and ensuring the relocation of non-essential personnel and families to hotels in the Paphos area. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more insulting than the suggestion that they are simply “hanging around” in the middle east. I really would like to hear—we did not hear it from the shadow Defence Secretary—any Conservative Member contest what their leader said and apologise on her behalf. Let us have the sort of support that recognises that our armed forces are in the region to protect British personnel, British bases and British interests. We are proud that they are doing that job.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am not particularly keen on the tone of these exchanges, so may I make a positive suggestion to the Secretary of State? We have heard that Ukraine has offered to assist the United States with its specialised version of anti-Iranian drone technology. These weapons for bringing down Iranian drones are much cheaper than the drones themselves, whereas the weapons that we and the Americans generally use are much more expensive. Given the difficult relationship between Zelensky and Trump, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a role here for Britain, with its high standing in Ukraine, to see if we can make a start by acquiring from Ukraine some of these weapons, which we can use in the defence of our own bases and which may then pave the way for a deal between Trump and Zelensky for the wider benefit of the whole theatre?
John Healey
We are taking this one step at a time, but I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and the tone in which he offers his thoughts. Like me, he will welcome President Zelenksy’s declaration that Ukraine stands ready and is offering its experience and expertise to the Gulf states facing many of the same Shahed Iranian drones. We are playing our part. The defence special adviser for the middle east is currently making a series of visits to nine Gulf countries with a team that includes British experts in the Ukrainian fight against Putin’s invasion and the technologies Ukraine has been using to defeat many of Putin’s developments and drones. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is also talking to British firms about the contribution they could make to supplying the reinforced defences that our middle eastern partners so badly need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I encourage Members to ask short questions and the Secretary of State to give briefer answers.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I shed no tears for the demise of an Iranian regime that murdered and repressed tens of thousands of its own citizens, particularly women, but I am proud that this Government have not joined the US and Israel in this reckless war, which lacks a clear plan and which is hitting my constituents in the pocket and threatening the global economy. Given that this Government have our own independent foreign policy, we are not the handmaiden of Washington, as the Tories would like, nor the poodle of Putin, as Reform is. Can the Defence Secretary say how important it is that the Chancellor is providing new funds for our armed forces who are defending British interests and British citizens in the region?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right to underline the statement and the commitment the Chancellor made this afternoon to this House. He is also right to point out that while the US may be our closest ally, as the Prime Minister has said, it is for the Prime Minister and the British Government to decide what is in Britain’s best national interests.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I listened very carefully to what he had to say about the authorisation for the US to use UK bases and his confirmation that there are UK personnel embedded with US operations in the region. With that in mind, it seems all the more important that this Government are entirely clear on the limits of the consent they have given to operating with the US. On Monday last week, US Defence Secretary Hegseth mocked the idea of rules of engagement and said that he wanted to seek “maximum lethality”. On Saturday, President Trump then said that new areas and groups of people would be under serious consideration for “complete destruction”. What confidence does the Secretary of State have that the US is following the same rules of engagement that he believes are legal for the UK?
John Healey
I have the fullest confidence. These arrangements for access, basing and overflight are well established. The relations between the US and the UK are very close. We have operated them together before, and we are doing so now.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for all he is doing to support our troops in the region and protect British citizens. It is clear that a long conflict would pose real risks not only to our troops, but to energy prices and the cost of living here in the UK. Does he agree that we need to see urgent de-escalation and a reduction in tensions across the region, and does he share my concern that the Conservatives and Reform would see us dragged into a conflict that could have such devastating consequences for British lives and livelihoods?
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes important points. I welcome his support for the first concern of this Government, which is the protection of British personnel and British citizens in the wider middle east, our bases and our allies. I know that he supports the action we have taken both before the current conflict broke out and in the week or so since.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is the problem here not our military capability—we still have the second most capable navy in NATO—but the political will? Why is it that HMS Duncan, the sister ship of HMS Dragon, is alongside in Portsmouth, having spent the summer in a maintenance period? She has been up and ready to go for weeks. Why was she not sent at the beginning of this crisis?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is another former Defence Minister from the previous Government, so he knows all about the decisions that left our Navy in the state it is in now. He will also appreciate that we have taken decisions to deploy the things that Britain can best put into the region to protect our allies and our people, both military and civilian. He will recognise and applaud the fact that because of that, from day one, our fast jets have been flying defensive operations in co-ordination with our allies and our US colleagues, and that where circumstances change, we will adapt the action and decisions that we take, which is what we have done from the point that we saw the indiscriminate extent of the Iranian response last Saturday.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Iran has a network of proxies and lone actors who threaten our security here at home. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking all the volunteers of the Community Security Trust who protect our Jewish places of worship and schools? Never have they been more crucial.
John Healey
I will indeed. My hon. Friend is right: the Community Security Trust does extraordinary work in very difficult times and is responding to deep unease, deep concern and, in some cases, serious fears among the Jewish community in this country.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
May I first say that I do not know of anybody on the Conservative Benches who would not wish to associate themselves with the Secretary of State’s praise for the courage and determination of our armed services, both worldwide and particularly in Cyprus? I have to declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker; as you know, I am an honorary citizen of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus has maintained a principled neutrality that has served British nationals and others well over many years. Akrotiri is based almost exactly between Paphos and Larnaca—it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to square. Will he tell the House what steps will be taken to protect the many British nationals resident in Cyprus and the many other British visitors who have hitherto gone to the island for their holidays?
John Healey
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about our armed forces and will ensure that they are passed on. I had not realised he was an honorary citizen of Cyprus; I hope he will appreciate that, as I confirmed in my statement, the head of the national guard has confirmed that co-operation between our militaries has never been closer. I hope he will also appreciate that the defensive capabilities and activities that we are running from Akrotiri are part of defending not just our base, but our people right across Cyprus and the island of Cyprus itself. From that island, we can also help to defend regional allies, which we are doing.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing to support all my constituents in the region and to keep them safe. I know that he and I share the priority of getting our serving personnel the capabilities that they need. In the light of the movements we have seen today in the gilt and bond markets, which underline the pressure on Governments to finance increased defence spending, does the Secretary of State agree that we should explore innovative multilateral financing mechanisms, such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, to help to unlock the capital our defence industrial base needs to grow?
John Healey
I do, and we are. My hon. Friend will also have noted the Prime Minister’s important speech at the Munich security conference a couple of weeks ago when he recognised that in this new era of threats we face, this is now an era of hard power. He has recognised the need to spend more on defence and to spend it faster.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I visited the UK-US Bahrain base at the end of last year, and during the Venezuela statement on 5 January this year I said that we were exposed in Bahrain with the naval assets. The Secretary of State has rightly said that the UK presence over there has been ramped up since January. If last Tuesday was the first time that the Chief of the Defence Staff saw a request for naval assets to go to that region, what has gone wrong during that time and is it a strategic failure that it has taken that long for a request for those assets to be put on that desk?
John Healey
I have explained to the House the range of defensive capabilities that we put into the region ahead of this current conflict. When we saw the scale of the Iranian reaction to the strikes—the retaliation from Saturday onwards—it was clear that we wanted to do more. I have done more, and I have explained that to the House. I have also explained that these are not just British defensive assets deployed on a fully legal basis; these assets are employed in full co-ordination with the US and our other allies. As I have explained, HMS Dragon will take up its position in the eastern Mediterranean alongside other defensive destroyers that the US has already deployed in the area.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State laments the state of our Royal Navy, but he will remember that it was his party that cut investment in our Royal Navy over 14 years, cut the number of warships we had by 25% and ordered no new destroyers in that period either. Does the Secretary of State agree that while we should be investing in our Navy, we should take no lessons from the Conservatives, who set up our Navy to be ready to fail in the situation that we are in now?
John Healey
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and we are investing in our Navy, just as we are increasing defence investment across the board, including in the munitions that we need when we are faced with conflicts like this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have noticed that there are still a lot of people on their feet. I am aiming to finish this statement at around 6.45 pm. I call Richard Foord.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State made the distinction between permitting the use of British bases for offensive action and for defensive action. I understand the need to protect and defend British citizens in the middle east, but can the Secretary of State explain how he is seeking to maintain this distinction between offensive and defensive action, given that it would require a degree of control over US military activity that the British Government may not possess?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is a military man by experience. He will understand the nature of the requests that nations make of each other, the agreements that they put in place and how those work. Accessing, basing, overflights—that is exactly the request that we had when it was clear that the Iranian response to the first wave of attacks took us into a new phase. It was a request from the US that we allow US bombers to operate from Fairford and Diego Garcia for specific defensive purposes: to take out the Iranian missile positions. That is what they are doing.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It was a Conservative 2010 strategic defence and security review and subsequent basing review that took the Royal Navy’s repair facilities from three to one—an utterly reckless decision that was made worse considering that the Conservatives knew of the Type 45s’ power plant problems—creating an internal competition for the limited resource of the Royal Navy. Does the Secretary of State agree that it was reckless Tory risk taking that left the Royal Navy in this precarious situation—
John Healey
I do agree with my hon. Friend; he speaks with the authority of someone who was serving at the time in 2010. In that first year, the Tories cut £2 billion from the defence budget, and in their first five years they cut £12 billion from defence. They underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over 14 years.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The deployment of HMS Dragon means that we have left a gap in our commitment to be the flagship of the Standing NATO Maritime Group One. HMS Duncan is already tasked to go on Operation Firecrest to the High North, and HMS Dauntless is still in the fleet time support period. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that we will be able to fulfil our commitment to NATO in providing the flagship role, and can he guarantee that it will be provided by a British ship?
John Healey
I am not going to announce the deployments of British forces in advance. The hon. Member is right to point to the balance of threats and responsibilities that we have to manage. We are doing that, and we will always fulfil our NATO commitments.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Can I thank my right hon. Friend for everything that he is doing in Britain’s national interest? Our armed forces cannot believe their ears when we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that they are hanging around doing nothing and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) swanning off to the States to tell Donald Trump that, if he were Prime Minister, he would blindly follow US defence policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first duty of any Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence is our national interest—Britain’s national interest and not anything else?
John Healey
The first duty of any Government is to defend the country, pursue our national interest and support our armed forces. On this occasion, we had expected and look for better from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have only been in the House for 21 years, but whenever we talk about defence and when our armed forces are in harm’s way, I have to say that a blame game on either side is not going to save a single life. While we all want to see de-escalation, the Government, I hope, will have learned lessons in the last few weeks and months to prepare for escalation. Is the Defence Secretary aware of the 2024 report by the US director of national intelligence that underlines the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that Iran holds, and will he work with friends and allies in the region and the new Syrian Government to identify and deal with those stockpiles? Finally, on Akrotiri and other bases in the region, will he ensure that our armed forces personnel and their families are given the right protective chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear kit?
John Healey
I am aware of the 2024 report that the right hon. Gentleman cites, and we are aware of those risks. I say to the House that the right hon. Gentleman puts his 21 years as a Member of this House to good effect in the comments that he makes this afternoon.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
We should be deeply alarmed at the sight of US bombers arriving at UK bases ahead of joining President Trump’s bombing of Iran. These attacks violate international law, and the suggestion that these aircraft would be used only for defensive purposes is frankly absurd. Their deployment risks dragging Britain into unlawful attacks and the further loss of civilian life. What assurances can the Secretary of State give this House that UK bases will not be used to facilitate further unlawful attacks and that Britain will not be dragged deeper into an illegal war that the majority of the British public do not support?
John Healey
British bases will be used by American aircraft for fully lawful and defensive purposes. That is spelled out in the agreement that we have with the US, and it is to destroy Iran’s missile bases, which hold such indiscriminate risk and threat to our personnel and allies in the region.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Protecting livelihoods and limiting the cost of living hit both depend on President Trump ending his war of choice. I doubt he cares a jot about the damage he is doing to our economy, but he does care about his poll numbers. Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that it is a matter of national security that every method is used to make it clear to the President that his reputation prior to the midterms is best served by bringing this crisis to a speedy conclusion?
John Healey
The last thing the right hon. Lady will find me doing is commenting on American political affairs. What she will find me doing as Defence Secretary is putting the protection of British people—military and civilians—bases and allies front and centre.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
US and Israeli strikes on Iran have pushed the region into deeper instability. More than 1,000 civilians, including children, have been killed, Britons remain stranded, and the shock to fuel prices is already being felt at home. The Government were right not to join this illegal war, but will the Secretary of State hold the line against the drumbeat for escalation? Will he commit only to defend British citizens and national security within international law, and not enter an offensive war without the consent of this House?
John Healey
My hon. Friend will have heard me set out in my statement, and in response to other questions, the principles on which the decisions that we have taken are based. They will continue to inform any future decision that we take, as circumstances in this conflict may change.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Nobody supports the armed forces more than I do. The Secretary of State has my full support and respect, as he knows, but I want to ask a simple question. There seems to be some confusion among Government Back Benchers, who think the Government have somehow kept them out of this war. The Government have not kept Britain out of the war: our bases and allies are in the firing line. The Chancellor spoke about the strait of Hormuz and the necessity of taking action where applicable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will—and, under international law, can—take action against Iranian threats to oil tankers and other facilities in the strait of Hormuz?
John Healey
We will take the action we need to defend British interests, personnel and civilians. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our personnel are at risk—as he puts it, they are in the firing line. I am incredibly proud of the work they are doing not just to protect our bases and each other, but to protect our allies in the region and to lead the co-ordination of defensive operations that help to keep the middle east safe in the face of these Iranian attacks.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The targeting of RAF Akrotiri by Iranian proxies is a direct act of aggression against the United Kingdom. The Iranian regime have repeatedly shown their willingness to export terror internationally across multiple fronts. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with colleagues across Government to ensure Iran poses less of a threat to Britons abroad and in the UK?
John Healey
Our first priority is British citizens in the region. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and her team are working so hard to advise and help Britain bring Brits back. My priority is to protect our forces personnel and ensure they can play their role in protecting our allies and British citizens in the region. I recognise that many people have friends and family stranded in the middle east, and are concerned about their future. I am incredibly proud of the role that our armed forces are playing in doing just that.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
We all agree that it is important to protect our overseas bases and personnel deployed on operations, and that must include Ukraine. Over the weekend, the MOD posted a video on social media from a British-run military repair facility in Ukraine. It has been taken down, reportedly because it revealed the geolocation of the sensitive site. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is correct, and can he assure the House that it will not happen again in relation to Ukraine, the middle east or anywhere we have facilities?
John Healey
We have taken that video down through an abundance of caution. The last thing that I and the British Government would want to do is put Ukrainians at risk; we would not allow that to happen. I want to ensure that the steps we take in our support of Ukraine—just like those we take in support of our allies in the middle east—reflect our national interests and our duty to protect our own people.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I talked to people in Exeter over the weekend, and there was very strong support for the Government’s current position of defending British citizens and assets, and—at this point—not going further. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s work to increase defence spending and commitment to new assets, including the new medium helicopter programme, in partnership with Leonardo in the south-west, which will safeguard hundreds of jobs in our region, stands in stark contrast to the record of the Conservative Government?
John Healey
I do indeed. That contract will not just secure well over 3,000 jobs for the future, but will create opportunities for many more in the years ahead. It is not just a contract to build new medium helicopters in Yeovil; Leonardo has committed to make Yeovil and the UK its global centre for the development and export of military helicopters, and for the development of helicopter autonomy for the future. The contract reinforces and is a great vote of confidence in Britian’s innovation and industrial base.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I mean no discourtesy to the Secretary of State, but in his statement, which lasted for 10 minutes, there was an omission: the murder of 165 young children at a school, which was allegedly targeted by a Tomahawk cruise missile in a double-tap strike. The Government talk about calling out war crimes—in particular, violence against women and girls—but this does very little to support that proposition. Will the Secretary of State condemn that attack? Would he like to explain what he has done to talk to his alleged allies about this particular strike?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will note that we have only the reports from the Iranian regime about the strike. He will be aware that the US is looking into this at present.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I want to start by paying tribute to Edinburgh’s Iranian community. Despite being concerned about their families in Iran, they have taken time in the past week to host public events, which shared details of Iran’s rich culture and the barbaric nature of its regime.
I want to ask a question about HMS Dragon. The maths are quite clear: the ship cost £1 billion, but the Conservatives cut the defence budget by £14 billion. Surely, if they wanted to see more destroyers in the Mediterranean, they should have built the things.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the Iranian community in his home city of Edinburgh; I echo his comments. He is also right, of course, that in 14 years the Conservatives did not commission a single new destroyer. We have HMS Dragon, which is set to sail this week—in the next couple of days—only because it was commissioned by the previous Labour Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Luke Taylor.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on the Iranian regime has shocked and disgusted our constituents, just like the Iranian regime’s crackdowns on opposition protests for decades. The horrors that we have seen reinforce the feeling in this country that international events are happening to us, and that since Brexit and since Trump re-entered the White House, we have had much less say in our future and security. Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls to empower us to take back control of our fate by issuing defence bonds, which would raise the cash we need to meet our defence spending, and by rebuilding our place in Europe through deeper co-operation with our European neighbours to reduce our dependence on the mad king in the White House?
John Healey
I am always interested in ways of getting more funding into defence. That is one of the reasons that I have laid such stress not just on the record increase in defence investment that the Government are making from the public purse, but on ways that we can leverage that with investment from private sources. That is why we have a defence investors advisory group, which will shortly set out its report with proposals that we can pursue.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the end of the first statement, it was indicated from the Chair that those who were not called on that statement would be prioritised in respect of this second statement. Did that happen? If not, why not?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. There has been a degree of prioritisation, but no guarantee. I am sure he understands that the time pressures in the Chamber are sometimes impossible. With three Government statements and an important debate, it is just impossible to call everyone.
Social Cohesion Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s action plan for social cohesion entitled, “Protecting What Matters”.
Britain has faced global crises at many moments in our history; we got through them by staying strong and united. Today we navigate new threats to our communities and families. We must stand together once again against those who seek to divide and weaken us. They want to sow division in our streets, our neighbourhoods, our homes and our minds. They feed off deliberate misinformation, hatred and extremism, carried across social media by algorithms, and funded by hostile states and rogue billionaires determined to pull our communities apart.
Online echo chambers, hatred for those with a different point of view and an unwillingness to seek compromise have led to a politics that is more aggressive, polarised and toxic than we have seen before—certainly in our lifetimes. As a nation, we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together—a multi-ethnic democracy where neighbours look out for each other—but the foundations on which this country was built have been rocked by the rapid change all around us. Economic shocks and austerity halted the once steady improvement in our living standards. Rapid technological change has transformed how we work and live our lives. Intergenerational unfairness, regional inequality, an ageing population, the Tories’ open borders experiment and the disruption caused by their asylum-seeker hotels policy—all of that—has left communities more fearful of the future and more susceptible to siren voices wrongly putting the blame on minority groups.
Today, through the publication of “Protecting What Matters”, which we laid as a Command Paper in both Houses this afternoon, we have set out our steps towards a more confident, cohesive and united kingdom. Patriotism means bringing our country together, never pulling it apart. It is not patriotic to target someone because of their religion or the colour of their skin. We will resist those who peddle that kind of hatred and division. We choose to celebrate our country and all it stands for. We choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times. We choose to take on those who seek to divide us. That is patriotism.
Our action plan aims to build confident communities that have hope in the future. There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards. People remember high streets from years gone by that were vibrant, buzzy, great places to socialise with friends and family. There is a real sense of anger, as well as of loss, that so many have been left boarded up and run down, covered in graffiti and full of dumped rubbish—bleak symbols of the wasted Tory years.
People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent. Fair funding for councils means that funding now follows deprivation for the first time in over a decade. We are offering grassroots organisations £5 million through the common ground fund to tackle division in communities.
We will focus, too, on protecting young people from those who want to warp their minds with hatred and introduce more effective regulation of home education, with the first ever register of children not in school, stronger oversight where children may be at risk and the piloting of a new approach where new safety checks are carried out before a child can be taken out of mainstream schooling.
It is important that children grow up understanding the diversity of our nation, so we are investing £500,000 to link schools serving different communities in order to ensure that they know and understand each other better. We will establish a social cohesion measurement framework so that we can identify risks early and act quickly. We will set expectations on integration for new arrivals and the communities who will receive them, with a focus on learning English so that people have a shared language, can participate in the local community and have respect for British values, our democracy and our way of life. We will end the Tory asylum hotels policy and shape an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and that works better for all communities.
We will not allow hatred to distort the lives and life chances of those who are targeted. Right now, Muslim communities are facing shocking levels of abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels and now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes—way out of proportion to the size of our Muslim population. Mosques, schools and businesses have been attacked. Women have been harassed. Families are living in fear.
We have a duty to act, but we cannot tackle a problem if we cannot describe it, so today we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so that we can take action to stop it. The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech—about religion in general or any religion in particular—and ensures that concerns raised in the public interest are protected.
I thank the members of the independent working group chaired by Dominic Grieve, who have provided advice to me on this matter. They have been targets for abuse because they carried out that work. That is utterly unacceptable. I am grateful for their patience and their wisdom. We will now work with groups across society to consider how the definition can be used most effectively and what comes next in disseminating it. We have deposited a copy of the definition in the Library of each House.
We also remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have witnessed murderous antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad. Sickeningly, those have led to spikes in antisemitic abuse. Since coming to power, the Government have taken decisive steps to combat antisemitism, with record funding for security at synagogues and schools, millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and new laws to stop abusive protests outside places of worship.
Today we are going even further to tackle antisemitism in schools and colleges and in the healthcare system and, crucially, clamping down hard on the extremism that so often targets Jews first of all. Work is under way across Government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life. We also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in the workplace. We are building on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, rolling out training across the civil service and working with major employers such as the NHS. This will include training to prevent and respond to religious hatred across the entire workforce.
Confronting extremism in all its forms requires more resilient communities. We will implement the anti-extremism policies that the previous Government announced but never brought into force, embedding the 2024 extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report and improving our ability to monitor and stop extremist influence online and offline. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations. We will also strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist abuse and ban visas for extremists and hate preachers.
Our universities should always be beacons of free speech, where students feel safe to learn, to disagree and to explore how they see the world, but in recent years this has been undermined and we will not tolerate that. We are introducing new measures to tackle the rise of extremism on our college and university campuses, particularly since the 7 October attacks, which include strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, improving oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and taking more robust enforcement action where it is needed.
We will also protect people from hate content online. The Government will not stand by as rogue platforms push divisive and aggressive hatred on social media. We are looking at how we can make platforms give their users more control over the algorithms that determine what they see, and we will make full use of the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023.
We have all grown up in a United Kingdom that is, by global standards, remarkably cohesive. That cohesion underpins our economic strength, our democratic freedom and our national security. It is a fundamental part of the Britain we love. We have made our choice. In place of division, we choose unity, and we know that the people of Britain have made the same choice. The division and hate spewed by a small minority will never reflect our country.
The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fêtes to bring their kids together, where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club with the same passion as they would support their country’s team in the world cup, and where neighbours hold street parties and set up mutual aid groups to look out for each other during covid. This is a Britain to be proud of, and I commend this plan to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, I had no prior notice that he would overrun the 10 minutes that he was allocated for his statement by more than two minutes. He has taken 12 minutes, so the shadow Front Bencher will get their time extended to six minutes. I call the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although the Government leaked it on Friday and his Department briefed it to the press yesterday. Parliament should not learn the details of Government policy through newspaper reports. This House deserves transparency.
There are some measures in this strategy that we welcome. Efforts to tackle extremism in charities and universities are important and necessary, and we welcome them, but the strategy lacks ambition and action to deliver tangible change. The Secretary of State spoke for two minutes over his allocated time, which is ironic because there is absolutely nothing new in the measures that the Government are announcing this evening.
The strategy claims that the Government intend to embed the anti-extremism principles adopted by the previous Conservative Government in 2024, but if that is the case, why have this Government reversed the position on naming extremist organisations? We now have the ridiculous situation where the Government claim they have a policy of non-engagement with extremists but refuse to say who that policy applies to. Last month, we saw this confusion laid bare when the Home Office was asked whether it engaged with the Muslim Council of Britain. Two Ministers gave contradictory answers. When asked whether the MCB had given written evidence to the Macdonald review into hate crime, the Minister for Policing and Crime, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated:
“The Government’s policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has not changed.”
However, just two days later, when asked whether the Muslim Council of Britain was on the list of organisations subject to that policy, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), replied:
“The Home Office does not comment on specific groups.”
So which is it?
This lack of transparency also applies to the review itself. Will the Minister now publish the full report provided to him by the working group? Will he publish a list of every external organisation that the working group met, and every organisation his Department has subsequently consulted on that report? Will he confirm whether organisations deemed extremist or subject to the Government’s policy of non-engagement were permitted to submit evidence? So far, this review appears to have been conducted largely in secret. The Government even had to be dragged kicking and screaming into publishing an email address so that evidence could be submitted.
The proposed definition still raises serious questions. Jonathan Hall KC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that any definition should include clear examples of free speech that are not considered anti-Muslim hatred. He says it is important that people can still openly discuss difficult but significant topics such as migration and Islamism. The definition risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism and it risks creating a back-door blasphemy law.
The strategy also claims that the Government want to promote the English language, but they will not say whether they support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages. We should be investing in English language training, not endless translation. Translation undermines integration, it wastes taxpayers’ money and it ultimately harms equality. There is no legal duty on councils to translate documents into foreign languages, yet too often officials gold-plate the Equality Act 2010 and do so anyway.
Meanwhile, around 1 million adults in this country cannot speak English properly. This fundamentally limits their life chances and perpetuates separate communities. If the Government truly believed in equality, they would not turn a blind eye to practices such as family voting, where husbands effectively take the votes off their wives. Neither would they tolerate the misogyny and segregation that occur when men prevent women from learning English—[Interruption.] Labour Members might want to listen to this, because I am about to talk about antisemitism and I know that they have had a problem with that.
On the question of antisemitism, will the Government challenge anti-Israel boycotts and divestment campaigns in local government, as we have seen recently in Bristol, advocated by a party in this House? Such campaigns fuel hostility towards Jewish people and contribute to the rise in antisemitism. Local procurement boycotts of Israel are supposed to be unlawful, yet Ministers do nothing to enforce the law. They will not even compile a list of the councils pursuing such boycotts.
Added to these fears, separatism is on the rise in our country, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly set out in her speech last week. She said that
“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain…Britain is a multiracial country, we must not be a multicultural one.”
[Interruption.] That was in the Secretary of State’s statement, by the way. We must reject the absurd idea that culture is something imported from somewhere else. For integration to work, people must know into what they are integrating. That means a culture that is confident, that is strong and that believes in itself. That is what this Government still seem unable to understand and unwilling to defend.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think—for his comments. The reason this is the first social cohesion strategy that any Government have published for many years is that the Conservatives did not bother when they were in government. No, there has not been proactive engagement with the MCB in the work carried out by the Government or the taskforce. The previous Government did not publish a social cohesion strategy, but they did sow division in our communities. Their asylum seeker hotel policy, which we are having to clean up, caused all sorts of problems all over the country. They actively stripped money out of poorer communities and then boasted about it, leaving high streets to fall into decline and the people living in those communities feeling that the country was going backwards and was offering them nothing.
On the definition, there is absolutely no question of blasphemy laws by the back door. We will not do what the Conservatives did and stand by and simply watch while Muslim communities face targeted abuse in ways that any decent country would consider to be absolutely intolerable. As for English language teaching, they cut funding for it by 60%, and then have the cheek to stand there and say there is not enough of it going on. When I was a student, I volunteered to teach English to refugees. I suggest the hon. Gentleman does the same thing, because it is enriching for the volunteer and beneficial for the person learning English. Speaking the same language is fundamental to social cohesion.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I welcome the narrative he has spoken about, because I think it will give a lot of strength to people in my constituency. Can I ask him a practical question, though? I hear a lot from people with Muslim-sounding names that when they apply for jobs—research also shows this—they are three times less likely to get a positive response than someone with a western-sounding name, even if they have the same CV and qualifications. Of course I will be speaking about the narrative that he has talked about from the Dispatch Box, which will be welcome in my constituency, but what does he want me to say to the young Muslim and black men on the Kilburn estate in my constituency who are rejected when they are looking for jobs because of how their names sound?
Steve Reed
Many Members across the House will recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, which will have been communicated to us by our own constituents. There are laws against outright discrimination, and those must be properly enforced, but we hope the definition will help the vast majority of employers—people of goodwill—who may not understand the nature of hostility towards Muslims or people who appear or sound like they are Muslim to see how employers contribute to that hostility. The intention of the definition is to enable those individuals and employers to better understand the circumstances, so that Muslim people are given the same opportunities and chances in life as anybody else.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Government present this social cohesion strategy, partly because we have consistently called for its publication without further delay—it was promised last year. This should not be a political matter. We all witnessed the scenes during the 2024 riots. To suggest that a community cohesion strategy is unnecessary is to be blind to the very real challenges facing our country—challenges that have regrettably been inflamed by certain politicians who should know better. Given that almost 140,000 hate-related offences have been recorded in the year to March 2025, it is clear that action is definitely needed at a national level.
To support community cohesion, we must first build community itself and the kind of community that comes from access to shared spaces—youth clubs, green spaces and the everyday places where, regardless of background, we come to recognise how much we have in common with each other. Will the Secretary of State outline how faith communities will be properly supported and involved in proactively preventing division?
The Government also previously committed to promoting local faith covenants as a way of strengthening partnerships between councils and faith groups. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new strategy will provide practical support for local authorities to implement those covenants, especially given that many councils are on the brink financially?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her party’s welcome of the strategy. It is important that we give it as much backing as possible because there is an awful lot to fix in what the previous Government left behind.
On help to build communities, our Pride in Place funding makes available £5.8 billion across nearly 300 constituencies. The intention is that the communities themselves will take the decisions about how that money is spent. I have been to visit some of those communities already. Frequently, there is multi-faith engagement in taking those decisions on the neighbourhood boards. That brings groups together and gives them a role, together with other community organisations, in taking decisions about how they can build cohesion and, indeed, community in their localities.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that the abhorrent rise in inflammatory rhetoric from national figures, including in this place, has normalised Islamophobia to the extent that it is now open season on British Muslims. This scapegoating feeds a hostile environment, and recent violent attacks on British Muslims show the real-world consequences. Let us be clear in this House: this is not just an attack on British Muslim communities; it is a direct challenge to the British values of fairness, respect and the rule of law. We must stand united in saying that British Muslim communities deserve safety, dignity and the freedom to exist without fear, like every other community. Can the Minister set out how the strategy will directly address this open season of hatred against British Muslims?
Steve Reed
I of course recognise what my hon. Friend says. We have a situation where over 40% of all recorded religious hate crimes target British Muslims. That is wildly out of proportion with the number of Muslims in our country. The reason we are publishing this strategy today, and the reason that it includes the anti-Muslim hostility definition, is so that we can better tackle the problem by describing it and then reviewing how we disseminate it with partners, institutions and groups across the country to give Muslims access to the freedom and rights they deserve, just as much as anybody else in this country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Like a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, I come from an immigrant family and grew up in a household where a foreign language was primarily spoken by my grandparents, my father was bilingual and I was monolingual with the language of the country that my family had come into. The key to it all working is a willingness to integrate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there are measures in this overall plan, which seems to have much to commend it, that are designed to prevent separatism and ghettoisation in society? Where that exists, a community becomes impossible to navigate in the way that we would all want it to be navigated.
Steve Reed
There is an awful lot in the report, and I cannot go through all of it because I will further annoy Madam Deputy Speaker by using up too much time, but if I might point to one area, we are allocating £500,000 to link together schools from different communities so that children growing up, perhaps with their friends from the same community, can get to know and better understand children from other backgrounds as well, and to understand that they live in and are part of a thriving, diverse community.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently attended an anti-hate crime seminar organised by the Rochdale Council of Mosques. It struck me that it was clear that innocent Muslim men, women and children are subjected to vile Islamophobia in the street and blamed for terrorist outrages, just as Jews are subjected to vile antisemitism and blamed for the actions of Israel. I welcome today’s new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, which is needed every bit as much as that existing definition of antisemitism. I note that the definition of antisemitism has not had a chilling effect on free speech either.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which are well made. It is important that, even going beyond this strategy, our existing laws against abuse and hate crime are properly enforced up and down the country, but we expect and hope that the definition will help organisations and individuals to better understand what causes anti-Muslim hostility and therefore how we can prevent it from happening.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
All forms of abuse are appalling. All forms of targeted abuse—be they against Muslim, Jewish or black communities—are even more appalling. I would be interested to know why the word “Islamophobia” does not appear in the statement, when that is clearly an enormous problem in our society. I am unclear about whether the Secretary of State took any advice from the Muslim Council of Britain, which has often been very helpful in explaining to the wider community the consequences of Islamophobia. Does he not think that there must be much greater concentration on the role of the racist far right in our society, which, on social media and elsewhere, continually incites—subliminally and overtly—violence against identifiable minorities all over the country, with devastating consequences for the security, safety and wellbeing of many people on our streets?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman is correct: it is important that we tackle all forms of abuse and discrimination, no matter which minority group they target. That is why, in the case of the Muslim population, we have included the anti-Muslim hostility definition as part of our report. The language for that came from the working group itself, which of course included many senior and well-respected figures from the Muslim community.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
My constituents tell me about the increased level of hate crime against Muslims. I hear stories of women being abused or having their hijabs pulled off. That is a direct result not just of most of the coverage in our right-wing media, but of politicians in this place, some of whom have held the highest offices in the land, including the Leader of the Opposition. They feed into this narrative and cause anti-Muslim sentiment. What more will we do to counter the level of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment?
Steve Reed
I recognise well and with deep sorrow the situation that my hon. Friend describes. It is outrageous that over 40% of all recorded religious hate crime targets Muslims—that is way out of line with the Muslim proportion of our population. We have published the report, the entire plan and the definition to encourage and support organisations in tackling the forms of discrimination that blight the lives of British Muslims up and down the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement, in which he described the society we all wish to live in. It is the society that I wish to live in, too. As he will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks up for those of the Christian faith, those of other faiths and, indeed, those of no faith. Respect is core to realising that we can all live together. In Northern Ireland, the past 34 years have shown that Protestant and Roman Catholic can live together. We have seen that in my constituency of Strangford. In Ards, the local mosque is side by side with the Presbyterian church, and there are no problems and no attacks—nothing happens. Christian Syrian refugees came to Ards for sanctuary under the refugee allocation of the last Conservative Government. Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to see what has been done in Northern Ireland, as he considers the pluralistic society that he desires? Will he ensure that all religious beliefs are treated and respected equally?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right: there will be much to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland in bringing back together disparate communities, particularly in the period since the troubles came to an end with the Good Friday agreement. I will ask my Department to reach out and make sure that we take those lessons on board.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his Ministers; the previous Minister, Lord Khan, who started the process; and the working group for all their hard work. The Centre for Media Monitoring launched its landmark “The State of British Media 2025: Reporting on Muslims and Islam” report today. It is the largest study of its kind ever conducted in the UK, analysing more than 40,000 articles across 30 outlets. It finds that nearly 50% of all UK media coverage about Muslims contained measurable bias, and 70% associated Muslims or Islam with negative behaviours or themes. This is not a fringe problem; it is systemic. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the definition of anti-Muslim hostility will be taken seriously by Ofcom, so that media outlets that spread conspiracy, target Muslim communities and actively undermine the social cohesion of this country are held to account?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her support today and for her advice on these issues over many years. I recognise what she says: the vast majority of coverage of Muslims in the media is negative and completely misrepresents the experience and contribution of Muslim communities. Yes, it is important that we engage with Ofcom, broadcasters and indeed other public institutions to ensure that they take on board the definition and work to improve their performance.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State said:
“There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards.”
I agree with those sentiments. Will he therefore consider encouraging the Chancellor to reduce taxation on high street businesses to support job creation and help them to thrive?
Steve Reed
We already have the fastest growing G7 economy in Europe thanks to the Chancellor, so I do not think she needs the hon. Gentleman’s advice.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
In times of increasing division, there is no place for divisive rhetoric, and the Government clearly have a role to play in supporting cohesion. The Tories clearly failed in that respect; we have heard again of their inability to embrace the United Kingdom of today. I welcome the definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Racism against Muslims, Jews and people of all backgrounds, including Sikhs, is sadly increasing and needs to be tackled. Many hate attacks on Sikhs are recorded as Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred, and it is important that that data is disaggregated. However, the United Kingdom is a very diverse country, so can the Secretary of State outline how his proposals will support people of all backgrounds, including in less diverse communities such as rural and coastal communities and smaller towns?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right to say that the response of the official Opposition was disappointing, because it implied that they have learned nothing since their historic election defeat a year and a half ago. Pride in Place—£5.8 billion distributed to almost 300 constituencies—will give some of the most held-back communities in the land up to £20 million each, and local people will choose how that money is spent. Whatever the demographic make-up of individual communities—be they more or less diverse—that will bring local people together to make decisions for themselves. The restoration of power to communities will help to build resilience within them, for whatever challenges we may face.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State believe that echoing Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech strengthens community cohesion?
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The publication of the definition of anti-Muslim hostility has been almost a decade in the making. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Faith for their determination to define the hate and prejudices that Muslims face. As the Secretary of State knows, the definition must command the confidence of the Muslim communities that it is meant to support, so will he commit to an extensive outreach programme with a diverse range of Muslim community groups to ensure that the definition has the necessary community buy-in to begin tackling the deep-rooted hatred faced by Muslims in Great Britain?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his years of leadership and advocacy on this issue. To have his support makes me even more proud that we are bringing forward the report and the definition today. Of course, it is critical that we carry out the work to ensure that the definition is disseminated widely, through local government, schools, universities, the NHS and broadcasters—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) implied—so that it can have the biggest impact possible in protecting Muslims from abuse and discrimination.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I welcome that the strategy acknowledges that antisemitism, an increasingly concerning issue, is being normalised in many corners of society. Indeed, 2025 saw the second highest annual total ever recorded for anti-Jewish hate incidents, at 3,700. What action is the Secretary of State taking to protect the Jewish community from those who may see Israel’s involvement in Iran as an excuse to attack British Jews?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a danger and threat that we all recognise, and much in the action plan will cover the issues he is talking about. For one thing, we are reviewing the visa watch list to ensure that extremists and hate preachers are not given visas to enter our country. Secondly, the Charity Commission will get new powers to close down charities that are promoting division, including antisemitism.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the social cohesion strategy as we seek to unite our communities. In Altrincham and Sale West, we are fortunate enough to have some fantastic interfaith groups and organisations, and I give a special mention to “The Rabbi and The Imam” project. With antisemitism and Islamophobia on the rise, the project brings together local Muslim and local Jewish leaders to talk about their faiths, focusing on shared humanity, understanding and unity, including going into local schools. Is that exactly the kind of initiative that the Government and society need to get behind to counter extremism and hatred?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent example from his constituency; interfaith projects such as that will make the difference. Communities will be supported to take action to tackle the division that is trying to be forced on us, and on all of them, by hostile actors who want to weaken our communities and thereby weaken our country.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
In 1979 my father took me to Newton Stewart cinema to see “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, and I recall my father being more upset by a spoof travel documentary that preceded the main film, because there was swearing in it, than he was about the supposed slights to Christianity. It was an early lesson to me that no one in this country, in a modern democracy, has the right not to be insulted or offended, so why are we in this place, the cockpit of democracy, discussing a blasphemy law by the back door?
Steve Reed
I am sorry that the hon. Member has chosen to misrepresent the definition. It is intended to protect Muslims from abuse that we know is shrinking people’s lives and life opportunities. One would hope that everyone in this House would get behind actions intended to give Muslim people the same chances as anyone else in our country.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the community cohesion strategy, which the Labour group of Hope not Hate, which I chair, has been calling for. The Secretary of State will know that the other side of the coin when building community cohesion is the counter-extremism work to stop people being radicalised in the first place, whether that is people on the far right with anti-Muslim hatred, or people on the far left with anti-Jewish hatred. What action will be taken to address those who perpetrate such myths about people, whether they be Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Jew, and what resources might come from the Department to achieve that?
Steve Reed
The Government are intending to bring into force and fully utilise the powers available in the Online Safety Act 2023. By doing that, we think we can tackle some of the worst online sources of disinformation and hatred that are being spread around to sow division in our communities.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition. We are committed to appointing an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, who can advise and be a critical friend to the Government in doing the work that we need to do. We will engage widely across local government, schools, universities, broadcasters, the NHS and others to agree on how we can best utilise the definition in order to support the Muslim community.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I have long been arguing that we need an overhaul of charity regulation to tackle rogue operators who are exploiting charity status to peddle extremism and hate, so I am thrilled that the Government have listened and are starting that today with new powers for the Charity Commission—I look forward to seeing the detail. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Charity Commission will have a range of sanctions to impose where needed, and that there will be clear communication with HMRC to ensure that sanctioned and shutdown charities can no longer abuse public money through Gift Aid?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Charity Commission will be getting new powers so that it can close down those organisations that purport to have charitable objectives but are really cover for promoting hatred and division. With the changes we are announcing today, that will no longer be allowed to continue.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
We all agree that there is no place in our society for hatred or discrimination against anybody, anywhere. Islamophobic incidents in the UK are at record levels; there are thousands of incidents each year, with many more likely to be unreported. Abuse is increasingly normalised and politicised through media, TV and online, at institutional as well as street level. Police data shows serious undercounting, making specialist monitoring essential. Islamophobia in the UK is not limited to fringe behaviour, and data shows a pattern of escalating hostility and normalisation in public discourse, including in this place and the other place. How will this definition be integrated into the Nolan principles, and what sanctions will apply to Members of this House and Members of the other place?
Steve Reed
It is for the House authorities to determine what happens with Members of this House, but the hon. Member is right to point to the huge concern that we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims. It is under-reported, in all likelihood, because we know that not all instances of such crime are reported.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Steve Witherden—[Interruption.] I mean Dr Scott Arthur.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we are easily confused.
Yesterday I attended Open Heavens church in Wester Hailes, and a man told me how he had faced open racism from his colleagues and had been forced to resign, take his employer to court, and win his tribunal—a fantastic achievement. It was a shameful episode, but what made it worse was that he was an NHS consultant, and it was the NHS that he took to court. The point he made to me on the floor of the church was that too often society views hate as a series of events, rather than a culture. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has presented today will result in a change of culture, rather than simply addressing events? How will we measure that as we proceed through the remainder of this Parliament?
Steve Reed
We will measure the outcome of the report through new measures as part of the social cohesion framework that is described in more detail in the action plan, and we will be engaging directly with major employers, including the national health service, to ensure that they are taking every possible action to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, whichever groups might be targeted.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Many facets contribute to causing division in society, not least the cost of living. When we saw the march in London, a large number of the audience there were racist, but a large majority of the people attending were not racist, they were just concerned about the cost of living. How does the Secretary of State see this definition incorporated, in terms of holding our far-right media and social media platforms to account, and how do we balance that with addressing the cost of living crisis?
Steve Reed
Part of the action that the Government are taking is the allocation of £5.8 billion to some of the most held-back communities in the country—over 300 constituencies will benefit from that funding. It will be local communities, through neighbourhood boards, who will decide for themselves how that money will be spent, directly addressing poverty but also directly addressing the lack of power that many of those communities feel. That will deliver the kind of change that the hon. Gentleman is describing and that we all want to see.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Rachel Taylor to ask the final question.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
As part of my work on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have heard at first hand from victims of horrific hate crimes, who have been targeted just because of how they looked and who they were. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will finally deliver the funding, resources and a call to action to empower communities like mine in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to bring people together and to combat those seeking to create division and hatred across this country?
Steve Reed
There is much in this report, and I hope that Members will take the opportunity to read it in full, including the definition and the many other proposals. This country is strongest when it is united, and the intention of this report is to bring this country back together in the face of those who have tried to pull our communities apart.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 9.00pm at today’s sitting.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 2, 5, 16, 17, 19, 21, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 102, 105, 106, 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104, and 107 to 121.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 181 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 173 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 109 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 177 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that Lords amendments 21, 37, 38, 39, 44, 101 and 105 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 1
Cessation of Child Protection Plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 21, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree, amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 38, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.
Lords amendment 41, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 44, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 102, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 105, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104
and 107 to 121.
Olivia Bailey
Children’s voices are heard rarely in this place and are too often ignored in our society, so I say at the outset that it is truly a special privilege to play my part in the passage of this landmark legislation. This Bill is about creating the conditions in which every child can achieve and thrive, to ensure safer and more secure childhoods, to tackle the scrouge of child poverty and to deliver high and rising school standards. Today I ask the House to renew its commitment to that ambition for our children and our country. I extend my thanks to my colleague and friend, Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, for her skilful stewardship of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to back the Government amendments made in the other place that increase the ambition of the legislation.
In part 1 of the Bill, we have introduced a new duty on local housing authorities to, with consent, notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We have also strengthened the Government’s work to put the voices of children at the heart of decisions about their futures, with amendments on family group decision making and the kinship local offer.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Olivia Bailey
Sorry, but I have to make progress as I have so much to get through.
Turning to part 2 of the Bill and schools, we are taking forward our historic strategy to lift children out of poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) set out last year, from September all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible for free school meals. That will put £500 back in families’ pockets, support 500,000 more children with a nutritious meal and lift 100,000 children out of poverty. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making for children and families. We are supporting this by upgrading the eligibility checking system, making it much easier for local authorities, schools and parents to confirm free school meal eligibility.
Finally, the Government are also enabling the introduction of academy trust inspection and giving powers to the Secretary of State where academy trusts are not meeting acceptable standards.
I will now turn to the 13 non-Government amendments made in the other place, first the amendments relating to child protection. On Lords amendment 2, statutory guidance is already clear that a multi-agency conference should take place to review whether the child protection plan should be discharged. On Lords amendment 5, effective multi-agency child protection practices that prevent tragedies and save lives needs to happen now—further delay is unacceptable. In addition, evaluation is already under way, and regulations to give multi-agency child protection teams their functions will be subject consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is much positivity in what the Government are bringing forward. Back in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan has brought forward a pilot scheme to take smartphones out of the classroom while children are in school. Has the Minister considered that positive strategy? If it is a positive in Northern Ireland, I think it would be a positive here as well.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention; I will turn to that matter in due course.
The Government cannot support Lords amendment 44 on principle. Extending the consent requirement would risk discouraging families from seeking or continuing to receive help or support. The amendment suggests that a child’s or a family’s circumstances can never change.
Olivia Bailey
I am sorry but I am going to make some progress.
I will now turn to the amendments relating to looked-after children and deprivation of liberty. Lords amendment 16 concerns a proposed review of the level of funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We all know the importance of effective support for the success of adoptive families. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), announced £55 million for the fund in 2026-27 and confirmed that the fund will continue in 2027-28. He also announced a 12-week consultation on adoption support, including the ASGSF. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that we do not undermine the integrity of the consultation by undertaking a separate review.
Lords amendment 17 intends to strengthen relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. In practice, it would require local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between looked-after children and any sibling they are not living with.
I am proud that this Government have set out the biggest reforms to the children’s social care system in a generation. In particular, we are implementing changes to expand fostering, creating 10,000 additional places for children, and resetting the system to back kinship care, so that more children can grow up safely with people who already know and love them. These changes will allow many more children who grow up in care to spend time with their brothers or sisters.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on making kinship care central to their policies. Many children in care experience significant disruption in their lives, through multiple home moves and school changes, and relationships with their brothers and sisters are so central to a child’s sense of identity, belonging and emotional security. Will the Minister look again at how regulations and guidance could better ensure that those relationships are protected?
Olivia Bailey
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of sibling relationships. Lords amendment 17 would do little to advance that cause, but the reforms that we are driving forward on children’s social care will.
Lords amendment 19 seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that is important to include health partners in regional arrangements to improve looked-after children’s outcomes, but there are already legal requirements on local authorities to do this. These duties will continue to apply to local authorities that form regional care co-operatives, and the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lords amendment 21 concerns joint funding arrangements for children deprived of their liberty. Mechanisms for pooled funding already exist and work well in some areas, and legislating now would be premature ahead of pilots that will test effective models.
Lords amendments 41 and 42 seek a monetary cap rather than a numeric limit on branded school uniform. I welcome their lordships’ support of the Government’s aim to tackle the cost of uniform for parents. Our manifesto was clear that we will limit of branded items of uniform required, so uniforms make children look smarter but do not make families poorer. However, these amendments would undermine our shared aims. A cost cap would risk creating perverse incentives for schools by creating a financial target; many schools could require more branded items, reducing savings for parents.
A cost cap would require Government to regulate for wider, unworkable factors, including how many spares parents might buy, cost variations for clothing sizes and even promotional pricing. It would also impose new bureaucracy on schools to carry out regular retail price monitoring, often across multiple suppliers. We recognise concerns about high-cost individual items, which is why we will strengthen existing cost guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory branded uniform items should be avoided.
Lords amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number following an upheld objection. Every parent should be able to send their child to a good local school, and we want a choice of good schools for all families. That is why, when we bring forward the updated statutory school admissions code, it will make securing a high-quality education and high levels of parental choice central factors in any decision on PAN. However, at a time of declining pupil numbers, schools acting unilaterally in isolation can put that parental choice at risk. That is exactly why clause 56, unamended, is essential to help to ensure that all schools and local authorities work together to ensure that place-planning delivers a choice of high-quality schools for all families.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I completely agree with the Minister’s position; parents should have the choice to send their child to whichever school they believe is best for them. In relation to admissions, one of my first cases after becoming an MP was an automatic off-rolling of a child after she had been absent for 20 days, despite the absence having been communicated to the school and extended due to a bereavement. She was off-rolled with no process and no review, and she was out of school for nine months. Will the Minister consider reviewing this punitive policy to ensure that there is a formal review before a child is removed from their preferred school?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister is being very generous with her time. However, she will be aware that many Members wish to speak in this debate. As it stands, that will be very difficult, given the time constraints.
Olivia Bailey
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that case, I am happy to look into it for him. Off-rolling absolutely should not be happening.
Let me turn to the crucial issue of allergies. Lords amendment 105 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members across the House who have been campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools, including my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). Last week, we published draft statutory guidance, which will be in force in September. It sets out clearly that schools should have a dedicated allergy safety policy and stock spare adrenalin devices, as well as whole-staff allergy awareness training.
At the launch, I had the privilege of joining Helen and Peter Blythe, and their wonderful daughter Etta. Their campaigning in memory of their son, Benedict, has been both brave and instrumental. We recognise their argument about allergy safety requiring the strongest protections. That is why I am pleased to confirm—with Helen in the Gallery today—that we will put Benedict’s law on the statute book, with our own amendment to require schools to have and publish an allergy safety policy, to have regard to statutory guidance and to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to allergy safety. This will protect children with allergies in schools and ensure that our guidance can evolve as clinical advice changes. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Helen once again for her bravery and brilliant campaigning.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for recognising that we need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can she reassure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen and the MPs who have campaigned for this will see the amendment at the very earliest opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can ensure that Benedict’s law is delivered in full?
Olivia Bailey
Absolutely—I can give that assurance. I am afraid that I cannot take any further interventions, because I must get through the last section of my speech.
Let me turn to Lords amendments 37, 38 and 106, on social media, VPNs and phones in schools. I acknowledge the strength of feeling on these issues in both this House and the other place. The Online Safety Act 2023 brought in strong protections, but this Government have always been clear that we will build on its foundations. We know that parents across the country worry about what social media is doing to their children’s sleep, concentration and mental health. Many feel that they are fighting a losing battle against platforms designed to keep children scrolling.
Many parents and campaign groups have called for an outright ban on social media for under-16s. Others, including children’s charities, have warned that a blanket ban could drive children towards less regulated corners of the internet or leave teenagers unprepared when they do come online. That is why last week the Government launched a consultation to seek views to help to shape our next steps and ensure that children can grow up with a safer, healthier and more enriching relationship with the online world. The consultation will be open until 26 May, and we will respond in the summer.
The consultation already addresses the areas covered by the Lords amendments. Crucially, the consultation goes beyond the Lords amendments and seeks a view on a range of other issues, including children’s use of AI chatbot services, mandatory overnight curfews, whether platforms should be required to switch off addictive features, and whether the digital age of consent in the UK general data protection regulation should be raised from 13.
We are also ensuring that we can act swiftly and decisively on the outcomes of the consultation. That is why we are proposing an amendment in lieu to allow us to act via regulation-making powers. These powers will allow the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to restrict or ban children of certain ages from accessing social media services and chatbots, limit access to specific features that are harmful or addictive on these services, age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use, and change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR if the outcomes of the consultation show that that is necessary. The specific measures will be shaped by what parents, children and experts tell us, and any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament, ensuring proper scrutiny.
Olivia Bailey
I cannot; I must make progress—I am so sorry.
We understand that we need to act swiftly, and rest assured that through these powers we will be able to do so. Let me be extremely clear that it is not a question of if we act, but how.
Finally, let me briefly turn to Lords amendment 106. We have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but because previous guidance was not sufficiently clear, we have published strengthened guidance so there can be no doubt that, from bell to bell, schools should be mobile phone free. We are also acting to ensure that bans are properly enforced. Our network of attendance and behaviour hubs will provide targeted support to schools that are struggling. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phones policies and enforcement. Our consultation is seeking views on whether we need to go further to support schools—for example, whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing.
Hon. Members have the chance tonight to vote to keep children safe online and offline, to tackle child poverty by putting money back into parents’ pockets, and to put in place a schools system that enables every child across all our schools to achieve and thrive. I urge the House to support this vision for our children and our country’s future, and to back the Government’s amendments in lieu. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am delighted to address the 13 amendments sent back to us by the other place this evening. The volume of Lords amendments reflects the strong feelings in both Houses about the deficiencies in the Bill, but there is a chance tonight to make change for the better. At the moment, the Government seem to do their utmost to oppose anything that they did not come up with—not on merit, but because they have retreated into a tribal bunker in which only ideas emanating from Labour special advisers or union bosses are deemed acceptable. May I suggest that this is not serving the Government very well?
Let us take the phone ban. The Education Secretary has turned into a contortionist. First, she told me that a statutory ban on phones in the classroom was a “gimmick”. Then, the Prime Minister slammed it as “unnecessary”. The Education Secretary later admitted that there is a problem, but she said that more guidance can fix it. Finally, she is now consulting on whether to do a statutory ban but refusing to back our amendment, in Lords amendment 106, which would actually deliver one. I am flattered by the energy that the Education Secretary is putting into avoiding agreeing with me, but this is getting ridiculous.
If the Government cannot properly argue the merits of their case, we get bad legislation. We had that problem with the Bill when it first came in. The Government still cannot justify the rationale for taking away academy freedoms—the very same freedoms that have delivered improved school standards in this country. Indeed, we now have the absurdity of the schools White Paper rightly saying that academies are the driving force behind school improvement, while in this Bill the Government are destroying academies in all but name. This is palpable nonsense. Do not try to make any sense of it—it is not possible.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend allow me?
Sir John Hayes
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making the case for banning mobile phones in schools and for restricting access to social media. We do not need more discussion or consultation, and we do not need more research, because research already shows the harm that those things are doing. By delaying and prevaricating, we are robbing children of the chance of a healthy life, so let us just move on and do what so obviously needs to be done.
Laura Trott
As ever, my right hon. Friend is the voice of reason in this Chamber.
Turning to our amendment that deals with pupil admission numbers, Lords amendment 102, I hope the Government will try to explain why they think good and outstanding schools should be made smaller when they are oversubscribed. To be clear, that is exactly what the Government are asking Back Benchers to vote for this evening. Parental choice has been the great driver of school improvement in this country—it empowers parents to vote with their feet and encourages excellent schools—yet the Government want to turn that principle on its head. They want to cut good school places, which is bad for parents, bad for schools and, above all, bad for children. School standards are on the Order Paper this evening, and the Government want to vote against them.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady knows that the challenge at the moment is that, because of the way that the system works, local authorities can control the number of admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools, but have much less control when it comes to academies. When there are falling pupil numbers—as she knows there are across the country—and work needs to be done to ensure we have the right number of places in the right areas, the only lever that our local authorities have to pull is reducing admissions to good and outstanding maintained schools. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that it is right that this Government act to make sure we can make choices in the interests of children and parents, regardless of the type of school?
Laura Trott
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. At a time of shrinking school places, it is important that it is the good school places that survive, and parents should make that choice, not bureaucrats.
The Government’s inability simply to admit that they got it wrong in the Bill, and that there is a better way of achieving the outcome they want, is ever present. Lords amendment 41, which would impose a cost cap on school uniform, is palpably better than having a cap on the number of items. It is the height of insanity to insist that it should be illegal for a school to use the football kit it received for free because that would be outside of the item limit. If anyone is thinking that this cannot actually be Government policy, I suggest that they read the guidance that sits alongside the legislation. It literally says that
“All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn”,
meaning that they come under the cap. That makes absolutely no sense.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that specific point, but it is clear in the guidance that an item can be loaned as long as it is not compulsory. That is a perfectly reasonable situation that enables school sports teams to loan uniform items.
Laura Trott
The whole point is whether it is compulsory or not—that is the whole point of uniform, and I was reading directly from the guidance. It makes absolutely no sense; how is a child wearing something that they have been given for free going to increase costs for parents? If the “not invented here” syndrome were not running so rampant in the Department for Education, the change made by Lords amendment 41 would already have been made.
The same is true of Lords amendment 44. We all know the horrific case of Sara Sharif, which was used as a rationale for bringing forward many of the positive child protection measures in the Bill. The serious case review published at the end of last year set out multiple failings that led to Sara falling out of the system. That review states that, while well intentioned, this legislation would not have helped Sara, so we have brought forward amendment 44 to fix that. It ensures that consent would need to be sought from the local authority to homeschool any child who has ever had a child protection plan. That would mean that the Bill would have helped Sara, which is the Government’s stated aim, but guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government are now opposing that amendment. We are diligently doing the work an Opposition should do to improve the legislation, but it is being shrugged off by the Government—not on its merits, but because they do not want to accept anything from this side of the House. It is not good enough.
Mr Forster
I thank the shadow Minister for raising the case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. The safeguarding review that she has referred to highlighted failings in Surrey county council and failings in the law. That review recommended three quite detailed things, which are not included in the Lords amendment—the amendment is separate. Would it not be better for Surrey to be put under special measures and for the Government to implement the safeguarding review in full, immediately?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things that are outside the scope of the Bill. What we know is that the change made by Lords amendment 44 would have helped Sara in a way that the unamended Bill would not have done.
I am not going to push Lords amendments 2 and 21 to a vote this evening, but I reserve the right to come back to them if the Government do not engage constructively in the other place. I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her brilliant work on those amendments and on the wider Bill.
Turning to phones, I really want Members to understand how bad things have got with phones in schools, and why a statutory ban is necessary. I know that the Government have issued revised guidance and have asked Ofsted to enforce it, but Ofsted’s guidance on this topic still allows phones to be present in schools. I cannot overstate to Members how damaging and dangerous that is. I was thinking about how to communicate this most effectively, and given that the Government are not listening to me, to parents or to teachers, I thought that first-hand testimony from a young person might get through.
I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the following account from a former pupil involves some graphic content that I sincerely wish I did not have to talk about. However, I refuse to shy away from it, because if we are exposing 13-year-olds to such content in schools, we need to be able to talk about it in this Chamber. This is testimony from a girl who was at an outstanding girls’ school that had a “not seen, not heard” phone policy. Such policies are common in many schools across the country and count as a phone ban under the Government’s definition. The Minister says that children’s voices are rarely heard—well, I hope she listens to this testimony today.
“When I was around 13 or 14 years old, one of my classmates would pull out her laptop at lunch times. She would connect her laptop through her phone’s hotspot, because the school wi-fi would block any social media, and launch up social media, because some thought it was funny to see how long it took to find an old man wanking—it was never long—or how long it took for somebody to ask them their age, and when they replied with ‘14’, they would send their Snapchat for you to add. The teachers never knew, because we were alone in our forms.
“Some of my friends had access to Snapchat from very young, some even primary school, but I did not. I got Snapchat when I was 12 or 13, but I remember before, my friends talking about dick pics in the changing rooms, and one said she got at least 10 in the morning. She’d put up her phone and show us by scrolling through them, just because it was funny that they would just send it. This happened after she added someone on Snapchat that she didn’t know. Others had them too.
“Looking back now, I remember pretending to find everything funny, just to fit in, but actually I felt really confused and grossed out at some of the content being shared. All of this happened at school, and we probably should have talked to a teacher, but as an 11 to 14-year-old girl, you’re not going to tell your male form tutor that people were being sent dick pics in school, or that your classmates were sending porn in the form group chat. I didn’t even tell my parents until recently, because I was embarrassed, or maybe because it just seemed normal, but my mum was already pretty strict with my phone usage and if I told her what was being sent around at school, I felt like I would be in trouble and she’d take the phone away. The phone was how everyone connected, so I needed to protect it. Over time, all the sexually explicit stuff just became normal.”
I remind Members that this is happening at school and, in this case, at an outstanding girls’ school. It is so far from being an isolated incident—in fact, it is the opposite. It is approaching a norm.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
To enhance my right hon. Friend’s point, I have been running a survey in my constituency and the vast majority of respondents and parents have said that they support the concept of a simple age limit on social media, because of these particularly harmful algorithms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible thing for all of us in this House to do is to support our party’s policy of keeping our children safe by putting an age limit on social media?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is completely right. We need that age limit, and we need the phone ban in schools. Polling out today shows that 40% of children are shown explicit content during the school day. That is happening right now. This is an emergency. No more guidance; no more consultations—the Government should legislate, do something about it, and vote to ban phones in schools tonight.
The Lords amendments on social media received overwhelming cross-party backing in the other place. They were put forward by the noble Lords Nash, Berger, Cass and Benjamin. The amendments have been extensively debated and are backed by a number of expert groups and bereaved parents. In the place of those amendments, we have the farcical situation where the Government are asking the House to support their own amendment, which does not tell us what the Government will do or even when they will do it. No action is required by the provision being put forward this evening.
Mr Perkins
The shadow Secretary of State has been speaking a bit tonight about parental choice. That is, until this amendment, where she does not believe parents are able to decide what their children should do. In fact, she believes that she is far better placed, as are many Members in the House of Lords who do not know how to take a photo on their phone, to tell people how to parent their children. Does she acknowledge that many parents recognise that their children have positive experiences on social media? Is it not sensible to have a consultation, as the Government have already announced, to hear from experts, from children and from all the people who have opinions on this issue, rather than legislating at great haste and making a huge difference to many young people’s lives?
Laura Trott
This is a safeguarding issue, and we have always taken steps when it comes to safeguarding young people. Let me be clear to Labour Members: the Government can choose to do nothing based on this amendment. Ministers do not have a view on whether social media should be banned, and they have put forward an amendment that does not tell us what they will do. It is extraordinary.
Alicia Kearns
This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries.
The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend eloquently sums up why this amendment is so important.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Laura Trott
I am sorry, but I will make some progress, otherwise I will get in trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have an emergency, and it is hidden on children’s phones. A quarter of children in primary school have seen porn, and the vast majority access it via social media. Some 70% of teenagers have seen real-life violence online, while only 6% were looking for it. In other words, the social media algorithm deliberately serves it to them. Criminals are using Snapchat and Facebook to groom children. Child sexual abuse imagery crimes are up enormously. Snapchat is flagged in almost half of cases. Meta platforms make up a quarter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Laura Trott
I am sorry, but I really have to make some progress.
Sextortion is also a huge issue on social media. In 2022, there were 10,000 reports of sextortion by snap. That was not in a year, but in one month, and those are just the ones we know about. Most horrifyingly of all, social media is culpable in dozens of children’s deaths. To give just one example, Ellen Roome’s son Jools took part, she believes, in a TikTok blackout challenge. That is where young children and teenagers are encouraged to hold their breath until they pass out. Jools died as a result in April 2022, and that was two years after the challenge had supposedly been removed from the platform. When I met Ellen and other bereaved parents, they said that, tragically, their bereaved group just keeps on growing. In the face of that, do Members know what the Government’s consultation says? It says that children like using TikTok to post dance videos. This misguided view that social media is in some way good for children, or that its benefits outweigh the harms I have spoken about, is what has got us into this position.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?
Laura Trott
I am sorry, but I must make some progress.
I have heard Ministers argue that vulnerable children or children who are isolated need to find their community online, and I want to put that argument to rest once and for all. All the evidence shows that these children are the most likely to be exploited, groomed and harmed by social media. If a child is scared or isolated, the last thing we should do is put them on social media. It is a terrible argument, and I hope it is not repeated today.
The other options that the Government present in their consultation simply do not meet the scale of the challenge. A curfew so that children can only get damaged by social media during the day does not help. Time limits so that children still see the content, but just for fewer hours, are not good enough. Getting rid of scrolling is fine, but how does that stop children being groomed?
So far, three senior Labour figures have managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation: the Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Health Secretary and the Labour leader in Scotland. They have judged this policy on its merits, and I hope the House manages to do the same tonight, because we are in a crisis. If Members across the House agree, they need to add their voices and vote for change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate four-minute time limit.
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the Lords amendments to the Bill that are of most interest to the Education Committee, following our scrutiny work on the Bill and in relation to a number of other subsequent and ongoing inquiries.
I welcome the decision to place the expansion of the entitlement to free school meals in the Bill. The Education Committee welcomes that expansion, which will increase the number of children who can benefit from a nutritious hot meal in the middle of the day. Combined with the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, it will substantially reduce the scourge of hunger, which harms children’s health and holds back their learning.
My Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals. The use of universal credit data, which the Government already hold, would make auto-enrolment much easier to achieve. I urge the Minister to ensure, by implementing auto-enrolment, that no child misses out on the meal to which they are entitled.
I welcome the introduction of a requirement to notify health and education services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I have seen at first hand many times in my constituency the destabilising impact of temporary accommodation on children’s lives. It is usually the worst quality accommodation and is the most likely to be overcrowded, damp and mouldy. It is often far away from school and friends, with no space to do homework, and brings the constant underlying insecurity of not having a permanent home. It can have profound consequences for children’s health and education, and the new duty to notify is an important first step in ensuring that children can be supported.
Chris Vince
I declare an interest, as a member of the Education Committee and a former teacher. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her passionate speech. Does she agree that it is hugely important that teachers are aware when young people in their care are in temporary accommodation, because of the huge impact it can have on their education, as she has suggested?
Helen Hayes
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. So often we hear from teachers that they recognise a drop in a student’s engagement or performance, but without understanding why.
I welcome the introduction of the new requirements on allergy safety in schools. As the parent of a child who had unexplained allergies in early childhood, I understand some of the fear and anxiety that parents experience when entrusting a child with allergies to a formal setting. There is anxiety about whether allergens will be properly managed, and anxiety about what will happen if their child experiences an allergic reaction. The new requirements will ensure that there is more consistency, improve knowledge and introduce better protocols for managing allergies in schools, so that parents and schools can have more confidence.
I turn to Lords amendment 17 on siblings and foster care. In the Education Committee’s inquiry into children’s social care last year, we heard directly from young people with recent experience of the care system. They told us about the profound impacts of sibling separation. Sibling relationships are very important for looked-after children, who often have experienced trauma and broken relationships with their parents and other family members. Yet far too often, siblings are separated by a care system that struggles, due to funding and lack of capacity, to deliver child-centred care. My Committee was shocked to discover that the Department for Education gathers no data on sibling separation. That is a first and necessary step in seeking to reduce it.
I appreciate that the Government are not yet content with the wording of the amendment on sibling contact, but I urge them to find a way to incorporate stronger requirements for sibling contact to be prioritised and maintained before the Bill reaches the statute book. It is a small change concerning something that should happen anyway, and has the potential to make a big difference to vulnerable children in the care system.
In the short time that remains to me, let me mention just two other matters. The first is the amendment relating to school uniform costs for families. I know what a strain those can be for families who are struggling with the cost of living, and I welcome the Government’s efforts to limit the costs, but I urge the Minister to give a further assurance about the risks of the high costs of specific items. I encountered an egregious case in my constituency, in which a child from an extremely low-income background had been given a place at a school but was told that she could not attend unless she had the appropriate blazer, the cost of which was £100. I hope the Minister can give an indication that the guidance for schools will be strengthened in this regard.
I support robust measures to protect children from social media harms, including raising the age of digital consent and a ban on some social media apps for under-16s, and I support a statutory ban in schools.
Helen Hayes
I will not, because of the time limit.
However, there are important differences of opinion between stakeholders on the best ways in which to regulate young people’s access to smartphones and social media, so I consider it right for the Government to consult. I welcome the amendments that will allow legislation to be introduced without delay. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some assurances about the timescale for the introduction of legislation following the consultation, which I believe will be necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to welcome the Bill back to the House of Commons, some 15 months after it started its passage at the beginning of last year. I am, however, extremely disappointed that the Government have provided such a small amount of time for us to discuss the numerous Lords amendments, and that they are throwing so many of them out. I am grateful to our colleagues in the other place for their diligence and their efforts to strengthen and improve the Bill.
Lords amendment 41 and 42, tabled by my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to introduce a price cap on the amount of branded uniform that a school can require parents to buy. We know that the price of uniform causes real hardship for families, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. As we have just heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), it often causes genuine anxiety. Children are sometimes sent home for wearing the wrong item of uniform, which disrupts their learning. While we strongly support the Government’s intention to introduce a branded uniform items cap, I implore the Minister to look again at the detail.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed a uniform price cap, which would keep the prices down for parents while giving schools the flexibility to choose their own uniform policy and decide how many branded items they wish to include. The Minister talked about perverse incentives and driving up prices for parents. In fact, a monetary cap would do precisely the opposite, because it would be using the market and incentivising suppliers to drive down their prices. Obviously, they would want to be able to sell more items of branded clothing within that cap. I appreciate that the Government point to their manifesto commitment, but there is nothing shameful about changing one’s mind—or, dare I say, U-turning—when the evidence demands it. That is something that the Government should feel pretty comfortable with by now.
Let me turn to the theme of supporting families. Lords amendment 16 would require the Government to review the per-child funding in the adoption and special guardianship support fund following the devastating cuts that they implemented last year. The fund provides therapeutic support for some of the most vulnerable children in society, allowing them to process their trauma and relearn how to trust. As a result of last year’s cuts, many adoptive parents and kinship carers can barely afford to pay for needs assessments, let alone the complex therapy that the children actually require. A number of them have written to me from across the country about their experiences since the Government cut their entitlements. Heartbreakingly, many mention the threat of adoption breakdown looming over their family.
The fund is a lifeline for families, but that lifeline is fraying. We are told that tough choices must be made, but the Department for Education’s advertising budget hit nearly £50 million last year. That is a £15 million increase in the last two years. Just halving that budget could restore crucial therapeutic support to thousands of children. Will the Minister support our amendment that seeks to review the funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and commit herself to restoring individual grants, or are this Government more interested in glossy advertising campaigns than in supporting the most vulnerable children?
Speaking of vulnerable children, let me turn to Lords amendment 17, tabled by Baroness Tyler, who has done amazing work on the issue of sibling contact rights. The amendment seeks to close a loophole in the current regulations so that siblings, when one is in care and the other is not, are able to remain in contact. It would require a child’s care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all the child’s siblings, whether they are in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child’s welfare.
The Government have said that there is no need to close the loophole because the duty already exists, but I ask Labour Members whether they can be content with such an answer when it is clear that the present system is not working. We have heard again, from the Chair of the Education Committee and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), about the importance of this issue.
I have been given permission to share Abby’s story. Abby grew up in a residential care home and lost contact with two of her sisters, which was subsequently restored. However, I do not have time to go into that now because the time for debate has been so limited this evening, but I hope that we will return to this subject again if the Government insist on doing the wrong thing and throwing out an important amendment that a number of their Back Benchers clearly support.
The Government motion on amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38 further amends the UK GDPR legislation to tighten control over children’s personal data online. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for that change for over a year. While we welcome the Government’s copying of another of our proposals, simply granting themselves the power to do something at some point is no protection for children until they act, and action has not been forthcoming. The same is true of the second part of the motion. Again, we have a consultation that appears to be dithering over whether something should be done at all.
We Liberal Democrats have made it very clear to the Government that if they want our support, they must make a firm commitment to act, and to act quickly. We are calling for a specific implementation timeline and a change in the consultation’s terms of reference, so that it becomes a question of how, and not if, we regulate social media. We have a thought-out policy that is ready to go if the Government want to take another idea of ours. We have proposed a harms-based approach to online regulation: age-rating user-to-user services according to the addictiveness of their features, the harmfulness of their content and the impact on mental health.
The solution is practical and future-proofed, and would provide the incentive to make the online world safer for us all. Unlike the Government’s approach, our approach would ensure that these sweeping powers are not concentrated in the hands of a single Secretary of State. Are the Government truly comfortable with bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation? They must consider the precedent that they are setting. We are handing a loaded gun to any future Administration, of any political complexion, to decide which websites are harmful and which are not. For the sake of our children’s safety and our democratic standards, I urge the Government to think again.
Finally, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches made a promise to the campaigners, the charities and the thousands of parents who have written to us that we would not play party politics on this issue. While we may differ in our approach, we will oppose the removal of Lords amendment 38, because we need the Government to hear the voices of the thousands of parents and children who are desperate for something to change. Every hour that this House spends debating whether we should do something, another algorithm is being developed to exploit a vulnerable child. By opposing the removal of the amendment, we are sending a clear message that the safety of our children is a non-negotiable right.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I will speak briefly to Lords amendment 17. Since 2016, I have used every single parliamentary lever possible to improve sibling contact for children in care, by trying to create parity in the legislation. Although the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, there is no such requirement for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings or half-siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents. Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds often state that their only constant, positive and reassuring relationship is with their siblings. After all, they have a shared experience. No matter how horrific it is, it is something that only they truly know about.
Alicia Kearns
Lords amendment 105 is named Benedict’s law for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school in the morning feeling anxious that they will not be safe, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may never pick up their child again, but that was the unfortunate reality for Helen and Peter Blythe. Since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict’s law would ensure that every school has a mandatory allergy policy and holds spare adrenalin medications on site, and that every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children. One in three schools in our country currently has none of those things, but we would not have known that if it was not for Helen’s campaigning for the Benedict Blythe Foundation. That is why this law is needed.
I offer my thanks to the Government. The statutory guidance to which they have committed is a real step forward, and today’s announcement that the Government will accept our amendment by tabling it in the Government’s name is welcome. It finishes the job, and means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I am so relieved that we have reached this point. I drafted the Benedick Blythe amendment last September, and I pay tribute to Harry Warren and my team, with whom I have campaigned throughout this time. When the amendment was put to the Lords, the Government whipped their peers to vote against it. I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today.
The Government had told me that legislation was not needed. When the guidance was announced, we welcomed it, but we said that it did not go far enough. That is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We are glad the Government now recognise that the guidance does not go far enough, largely because we were determined to push the amendment to a vote. We will need to see the wording of the amendment as soon as possible, because in the Lords we learned that guidance can be given and guidance can be taken away. There was a view that a threat of losing what little had been offered would deter Helen Blythe, and that misjudged her entirely. I am willing to draw a line under this, but I put it on the record that I want the Government to maintain their resolve and make sure the amendment is laid, because on Tuesday last week we received a letter telling all of us in this place that the amendment would be voted down and was not needed. On Friday, that was still the Government’s position, which is why they missed the deadline to lay their own amendment.
I want to turn to the financing of this amendment. The Government do not plan to provide funding to schools for the medications needed to protect children having anaphylactic shock. That is not the right approach. It currently costs the taxpayer about £9 million to provide the additional adrenalin auto-injectors prescribed to children to take into school individually. By altering the distribution method, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation has recommended, the new measures in Benedict’s law could save the Treasury £1 million a year. Just as with defibrillators, which the Conservative Government funded for all schools, we are asking the Government to fund medications to save the taxpayer money. These savings are before we consider the estimated £1.5 million saved by reducing A&E and hospital admissions, improvements in school attendance and parental workforce participation. I ask the Government to look at that again as they draft the amendment for the Lords.
I want to close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe. Her asks have really been very simple:
“Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.
That is why we come to this place—to protect those who need us—and I am so proud to have been able to stand beside Helen in her fight. I ask colleagues today to hold Benedict in their hearts tonight. I know that today is a good day, but such a promise will only be worthy of him when it is kept and when children become safer in our schools.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
As a father of two young boys, I want to be clear that I have approached these Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 38, not only as a legislator, but as a parent. I have seen at first hand the pressures that social media places on children, and I have considered this matter with the utmost care.
To date, I have received 1,309 emails from residents across North Somerset calling for immediate action to raise the age of social media access to 16. That makes this campaign one of the largest I have seen since my election. The consensus is clear: parents, teachers and almost everyone who works with young people want to see meaningful change, including the Gladiator Steel—I am sure no one wants to mess with him. Social media was sold to us as a tool for connection—a way to stay close to friends and family, to find community and to share in each other’s lives—but that promise has been broken.
Freddie van Mierlo
The Government already had an opportunity to raise the age of digital consent from 13 to 16 with the amendments put forward to the Data (Use and Access) Bill by the Liberal Democrats, but they are dithering yet again while children could have been benefiting from that change. Why does the hon. Member think the Government are continuing to dither on this issue?
Sadik Al-Hassan
I will talk about that in a second, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s patience.
Social media was sold to us in that way, but these platforms have been driven not by connection, but by engagement algorithms optimised purely for profit—something altogether more troubling. Parents such as me are locked in a daily battle, which they simply cannot win alone, of fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked. This is not just my experience. A 2024 report found that 78% of young people have experienced at least one form of online harm—body shaming, harassment, non-consensual sharing of sexualised images—or been publicly outed. As a pharmacist, I know that if a drug were causing such measurable harm for 78% of young people, it would be withdrawn, reformulated or placed behind the counter with strict controls on who could access it. We would act because that is what the evidence demanded, and the same logic must apply here. We have an identifiable source, we have overwhelming evidence of harm and we have the power to act.
Big tech companies are billion-dollar corporations that have built their business models on capturing the attention of young people for as long as possible. If we are serious about holding these companies to account, we should go further. I urge the Government to consider a windfall tax on social media companies, so that those who have profited from the exploitation of children begin to pay for the damage they have caused. Like the tobacco industry before them, these companies knew their product was harmful and took steps to make it more harmful and more addictive, but then denied responsibility for the consequences. We do not accept that argument from tobacco companies, and we should not accept it from big tech either.
The revenue raised could make a real difference. Youth centres have closed, and the pubs and community spaces that once gave young people somewhere to go and something to belong to have disappeared. Mental health services are overwhelmed. Education support is stretched. A generation has been harmed and the companies that profited from that harm should contribute to repairing it. That is why I welcome this debate today and any discussion on raising the digital age of consent, regulating social media and, crucially, holding big tech to account.
I understand the urgent call for action, to put our boot on the neck of big tech companies that have hurt an entire generation and put our children at risk—I share that desire completely—but I also understand that we need to get this right. It is relatively straightforward to identify what change is needed. The harder and more important question is how we make those changes in a way that is enforceable, durable and genuinely protective of children. A well-intentioned measure that cannot be properly implemented or enforced helps no one. We must learn from Australia’s model. The world is watching. Our teachers, parents and healthcare professionals are watching. Our children depend on what we decide in this Chamber today, tomorrow and in the future. Their opportunities, hopes, and dreams are in the balance, so we have to get this right—for them.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There is now overwhelming evidence that addictive algorithms and harmful content are deeply damaging to our children’s wellbeing. We Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 38, which would ban social media for under-16s, although our preference is for online regulation with film-style age rating of user-to-user services.
While the Government dither and delay, children across the country are being exposed to deeply harmful content every single day. I have spoken many times about the saturation of pro-eating disorder content that children view on social media, but the harms do not stop there. Social media is increasingly acting as a marketplace for the illicit drug trade. Researchers at the University of Bath have found that up to a quarter of vapes confiscated in secondary schools contained the deadly drug Spice. The Government’s own data reveals an eightfold increase in young people entering treatment for Spice in 2024-25.
How are young people getting their hands on these dangerous drugs? Through social media. Researchers have identified nearly 10,000 accounts involved in the supply and distribution of Spice, using TikTok as a means of communicating and advertising to children. Ofcom agreed that the content is “priority illegal content”. However, it declined to use its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023. We are facing a shocking reality. Children, right now, can buy the most dangerous prison drugs on mainstream social media: Snapchat, TikTok, Telegram. If Ofcom will not step up and the Government will not make it, what choice do we have but to prevent children accessing these platforms altogether?
The Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 38 and 39 completely miss the point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) outlined. The Government must act now to stop children being exposed to illegal and harmful content online. We cannot allow endless inquiries, consultations and delays to stand in the way.
Wera Hobhouse
I will not; I am sorry.
More than 40 charities and experts support this approach. Our constituents have made their views clear too. I have been inundated with emails, the overwhelming majority of which support a ban. Now is the time for action. The Government could accept this cross-party amendment and give children an escape route from the dark corners of social media.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I would like to talk to the social media element of the Lords amendments. The argument for stronger protections for children online has been won, not least because of the appalling harms that have come to so many children because of the lack of proper, functioning legislation. I will use my time, which is limited, on this subject to make clear what I would like the Government to do and why I will be voting down the amendments in front of us tonight.
I want to focus on my steadfast belief that we must age-gate functionalities instead of age-gating social media, because I think that phrase will immediately become outdated—it is already outdated in schools.
One of the big problems with the Online Safety Act and how long it took to come in is that so many technologies are now not covered by that legislation—it is not evergreen. I am determined to ensure that my time in this place is used to create evergreen legislation for the issue of our time, which is protecting children from the horrendous and exploitative harms that they are coming to.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Would the hon. Lady agree that the film-style age rating system that the Liberal Democrats have come up with speaks to exactly what she is saying? An app that allows children access to strangers or is built with an addictive algorithm, for example, would have a different age rating than something that is absolutely safe and gated, like a game, which could be rated safe for younger children.
Lola McEvoy
I am interested in the idea of licensing functionalities and new developments before they come into children’s lives, which is not happening at the moment—at the moment it is happening after they have been used for a long time. We are age-analysing and risk-assessing them retrospectively, which seems very backwards to me.
I agree that we should have a licensing scheme for content that is designed for children, like CoComelon and some of the other content that we know is addictive for very young children. Such a scheme would obviously have to be fleshed out, with a proper consultation on publishing rights and with information on who is going to do the licensing. I feel very strongly that self-published is inappropriate for under-16s. I do not think that content that is not regulated, that has not gone through any supervision and that has no legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way.
I will sum up by saying that one of the young people in my latest online safety forum said to me via an anonymous note—I told them all that they could send me an anonymous note if there was anything they did not want to say in front of their peers— “Don’t ban it, but if you do, make sure it works.” I thought that was brilliant. Young people are much savvier than we give them credit for.
I want to make it very clear that at the moment, Ofcom is yet to use its strongest powers. The Online Safety Act does not include AI. I am determined that whatever this Government decide to do, they must do it with the idea of effective implementation of the legislation. We owe it to the next generation and the generation currently using the digital world to get it right and to future-proof their right to a childhood. Because so many of them have been badly let down, we must make evergreen—
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Only one clause in this legislation applied to Scotland in advance of it returning from the Lords. Lords amendment 38 contains a reserved power that would apply across the whole UK the changes that are being suggested to the Online Safety Act. I want to focus specifically on those changes.
Comments have been made about social media, but it is not exclusively social media where there are dangers to children online. It is not exclusively user-to-user services where there are dangers to children online. There are some games that can be downloaded that do not have user-to-user services but are highly addictive, and those would not be covered by the Conservative or Liberal Dem proposals because they are games without user-to-user services.
There are massive risks online for young people, but I do not want us to absolve companies of the responsibility of dealing with that. There is this sudden feeling that dealing with this issue is dramatically urgent, but people have been sending unsolicited nude pics online for more than 30 years. It has been happening for a significant length of time. It is urgent that action is taken, but it does not have to be taken today; it has to be taken correctly and in a way that works, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) just said.
We need to ensure that, whatever we do, we have a clear aim in mind. What is the intention? Are we trying to protect children online, or are we trying to ban children from social media? Are we trying to ensure that young people are not exposed to people who are looking to groom them, to access them, or to convince them of something? Are we trying to protect them from that, or from obsessively looking at algorithms and videos on TikTok? Maybe we are trying to do both, but we need to be clear about what the aims are.
There is no point in banning social media if we do not know why we are banning it, and if we still allow access to Roblox and many other places where there is harm. If we ban YouTube, what happens if a kid wanders into a room and watches YouTube that is playing on the TV via the PlayStation? Who is responsible for that? How do we sort this—how do we ensure that it works?
I am clear that whatever happens, it needs to work. We must not just listen to the big tech companies. We need to do as the Minister has suggested: listen to parents and experts to understand exactly how children consume the internet. We need to know where and how these individuals who are accessing children for nefarious purposes are doing it, because it is not only through social media or the platforms that are being defined by some people as social media.
I am clear that this needs to work. Therefore, I am supportive of the Government undertaking a consultation. I have spoken to DSIT officials and as many people as I possibly can about this. I am very glad about some of the changes that the Government are bringing forward—for example, to ensure that livestreaming cannot be accessed by young people. I have been pushing for that for a significant number of years, and I am glad that we have got to that place, but there are far wider issues with certain functionalities online that need to be tackled and that will not be covered by a blanket ban on social media.
We cannot let the companies continue to get away with this. We cannot let them continue to have horrific and harmful illegal content, without cracking down on it and making sure that they are held accountable for the behaviour on their platforms. We cannot just say, “We’ll ban under-16s from social media and absolve ourselves and the companies of responsibility.” We need to take real action that will really protect our children. Please, everyone, respond to the consultation.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 105. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on allergy, a lifelong allergy sufferer, a former teacher and the parent of a lifelong allergy sufferer, I am painfully aware of the inconsistencies of allergy care, and the anxiety and harm that it causes.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes’ amendment aimed to introduce new requirements based on learning, following the tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and others. While I believe that there is much more that can be done to improve the lives of allergy sufferers, I am pleased that the creation of new statutory advice and the implementation of Benedict’s law will vastly improve the situation for children with allergies. All schools will now be required to stock allergy devices, have a dedicated allergy policy and ensure that teachers are trained, meaning that lifesaving treatments for allergies will no longer be hidden in tupperware boxes at the back of dusty cupboards. It means that no parents will ever receive a phone call like I did, when I was asked whether my child, in the school’s care, needed to use their auto-injector, knowing full well that if the answer was yes, it could have already been too late.
I am proud that the Government are putting allergies at the heart of proactive, preventive school planning. Recent approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency means that more adrenalin devices are available, including stable, long-lasting and less-traumatic adrenalin nasal sprays. I would appreciate it if the Minister can confirm that nasal sprays and other adrenalin devices will be available in schools following the new statutory advice. Children are more likely to have a reaction in school than anywhere else: 80% of food allergy reactions happen in schools, including a quarter for the first time. That is why it is essential that schools have devices available, even before diagnosis occurs.
I want to celebrate the campaigning of Baroness Morgan of Cotes and the incredible work of Helen Blythe. The implementation of Benedict’s law in full will reduce the risk to our children. It will ensure that every child starts the school day safe, and will reduce the fear that they will not leave it that way, even if they have allergies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Rebecca Paul, who has just two minutes.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am incredibly pleased to speak in support of Lords amendment 38, which seeks to raise the digital age of consent to 16. I only wish we had much more time for this debate, as it deserves.
For years, parents like me have worried about the harms of social media on our children, and the detrimental impact of excessive screentime. We have tried to manage it as best we can on our own. We have felt the sting when we have been told by others that responsibility fully sits with parents, and that good parents do not need the state to help them get this right, yet no one says that about alcohol, smoking or buying fireworks. In all those cases, it is acceptable for parents to be helped by sensible laws put in place to protect children from preventable harm, yet social media and excessive screentime are just as harmful as cigarettes, alcopops and messing around with fireworks in the street, so why would the state not step in on that too?
I have three children, and it is fair to say that they love screentime. If I try to talk to them when they are glued to a YouTube video of someone else playing a computer game, they ignore me, completely engrossed. They do not want to go out in the garden, play with their friends in the street or play with toys. Instead, if given a choice, they would always choose to stare zombie-like at their tablet. Thankfully, I have kept them away from social media, but there is only so long I can get away with that.
Staring at a screen for endless hours is not healthy. It prevents children from developing the social and cognitive skills they need in adulthood and is terrible for their mental health. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a mental health crisis, which started at the same time as the mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. It really should be a wake-up call. What does the future look like if our children’s most important relationship is with their phone? Their brains are literally becoming hardwired to respond to likes and shares, rather than human interaction and connection.
Social media is doing exactly what it was designed to do: reeling our children in and feeding them content that often is not in their best interest but is highly addictive. We know this because we all experience it the same. Social media is not for children. We do not need any more time given over to consultation to confirm what we already know—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I call the Minister to wind up.
Olivia Bailey
I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable contributions. We have heard a number of powerful speeches that made really important points. I am very sorry that I do not have enough time to respond in detail, but I will endeavour to write to Members who asked specific questions.
This is a Bill with opportunity at its heart—opportunity for every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into. It will make children safer online and offline, with our ambitious, swift action on social media and phones; it will help to tackle the cost of living crisis with our action on free school meals and the cost of uniforms; and it will drive up standards in our schools and improve outcomes for children in care.
Tonight, the House has the opportunity to support free school meals for half a million more children, swift action to protect our children online, and the most significant safeguarding measures in a generation. This is a landmark Bill, but it is also a Labour Bill—because it is ambitious for every single child in this country. I urge the House to support Labour’s vision for our children and for our country’s future.
Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.
Business without Debate
Funeral Directors: Regulation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am afraid that it will be a rather morbid debate this evening. We spend remarkably little time in our lives thinking about the practicalities of death, and it is probably part of human nature that we do not dwell too much on the inevitable future fate that awaits us. That means we put far too much implicit trust in those who take responsibility for our bodies, and in those of our loved ones when we die. We all assume that in death we will be treated with respect and care by professionals, but his evening I am afraid I will share some hard truths about the gruesome reality of death. I warn anyone watching that what I have to say will be graphic and distressing—there in no way around that.
Last year, Gosport residents and funeral directors Richard Elkin and Hayley Bell were found to have kept 46 bodies entrusted to their care in a completely inappropriate environment with an unregulated temperature. Describing entering the place to see his mother, one of my constituents said,
“the awful smell is something that will never leave me”.
Concerns about what was going on behind the doors of Elkin and Bell funeral directors were first raised by local residents, and then by the senior coroner at Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth. A body had been sent for a post-mortem that was
“laying in pools of bodily fluids”
and infested with maggots. The post-mortem also found that the deceased individual had suffered a spinal fracture after death.
After a Gosport borough council environmental health investigation raised concerns but took no further action, a few months later, simply because bills had not been paid, bailiffs attended the property, where two bodies were discovered, putrefying, in a room with bloodstained floors, water dripping from the ceiling, and broken windows. One of them was an elderly gentleman who had been left for 36 days. His body was found in a badly decomposed condition. It is too much of a cliché to compare this to a horror movie, because this is real life, or real death. When the family of one of the deceased was contacted, they were surprised, because they were under the impression that their loved one had already been cremated. The company had certainly taken payment for it.
As the Minister will know, it was completely legal for Elkin and Bell to keep dead bodies in a room like that. Elkin and Bell could only be brought to justice by some incredibly diligent work by Hampshire police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and John Price KC, using a variety of different offences including fraud, forgery and a piece of common law that dates back to Victorian times. The crime of preventing lawful and decent burial was dusted off from the days when it was used to convict grave robbers. That is instead of what should have been possible, which was sentencing the pair because they had wilfully neglected bodies in their care, and treated people’s loved ones as nothing more than money spinners.
The case highlighted that the funeral sector is nothing better than a wild west. When this was first brought to my attention, I was incredulous and horrified to learn that there is no regulation of any kind governing the sector. In fact, the only law that governs the funeral industry is around the financial transparency of funeral plans, and that was put in place after a Competitions and Markets Authority investigation in 2021. There are simply no mandatory qualifications, no accreditation, no licensing, no designated working practices or formal inspection and, crucially, no law to fall back on when things go wrong.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing the debate. She is right to raise this issue. In Northern Ireland, we are fortunate to have a number of funeral directors of long standing who have impeccable reputations and integrity. However, funeral directors in Northern Ireland as a whole are not regulated either. Trade bodies such as the National Association of Funeral Directors and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors require members to follow codes of practice, but many operate without that oversight, although those who provide prepaid funeral plans are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done to protect the general public and instil confidence in a regulated system? That is the way forward.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; better regulation is exactly what we are pushing for. In fact, everything needs to be better when it comes to the services governed by those organisations. As he says, the vast majority of funeral directors up and down this country work with incredible professionalism, great pride and integrity. They care deeply about what they do, and about the families and the individuals who they look after. One funeral technician told me that she does not see her work as a job—she sees it as a privilege. Such businesses and individuals have been silent pillars of our communities for centuries.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on an incredibly difficult topic. On behalf of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend and Zoe Ward, who had horrific things happen to their babies’ bodies as a result of the lack of regulation, I spoke to both main professional bodies, which cover 80% of the sector, and lots of businesses, including the biggest player in the sector. They are united in thinking that regulation is the answer to restoring public trust in the funeral sector. Does she agree?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I am about to make exactly that point. I am grateful to him for teeing it up so beautifully for me, because it takes only one business to do the wrong thing to erode trust, but unfortunately the case of Elkin and Bell is not the only case. There have been similar cases at Legacies Independent in Hull and Florrie’s Army in Leeds, which I think is the case he refers to, where deceased babies were staged in lifelike positions in a living room. These are unspeakable and unimaginable horrors. There have been other cases where bodies have been found in the most unimaginable condition, but no further action could be taken by the police or others because, simply and incredulously, those businesses have not actually broken any laws.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister will know that this is the second Adjournment debate on this issue that he has had to respond to in these last several months. Given the fact that most practitioners want to see regulation and the public want to see regulation, does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government seem to be very slow on this issue—unless the Minister is going to give us some earth-shattering news this evening? This is too vital and important a set of circumstances just to leave to an unregulated marketplace in continuation; it needs regulation and it needs it quickly.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for listening to me on this issue when he was the Justice Minister, when I first brought his attention to the situation. The points he makes are absolutely right. Over the past couple of years I have met the two voluntary trade bodies for the funeral sector, the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors and the National Association of Funeral Directors, as well as countless reputable funeral businesses and, crucially, many of the families impacted by these cases. I am so grateful to all of them for the time that they gave me, but as my hon. Friend said, every single one of them has stressed the need for the sector to be better regulated. I echo his calls for the Minister to give us some good news on that in a minute. That is important for everybody; otherwise, all those who carry out their work with such enormous care and diligence will have to operate under the shadow of suspicion. We owe it to them as much as anyone else to get this right.
The Minister knows that malpractice is not uncommon. Quite simply, taboos and sensitivities around death have effectively created a smokescreen for bad care. I am especially concerned about one area: the rise in direct cremations. For those who do not know what that is, it is where the loved ones do not see their deceased at any point in the journey. In their cases, there are absolutely no safeguards, checks or balances. The key thing here is that direct cremations have expanded hugely in the last few years, partly as a result of covid, from just 3% of funerals in 2019 to 20% in 2023.
We all see the charming adverts on the television in which an elderly gentleman explains with a smile that he has arranged for himself a direct cremation. He says, “I just didn’t want any fuss. It is much easier for my children.” We know that some very reputable and caring businesses do this process, but if the children knew what direct cremation might be, they would know that it might be little better than a conveyor belt. Mum and dad may be bundled into a van, maybe still in their soiled nightclothes, with a catheter attached and without any form of temperature controls. They could be taken to an unknown location and left for days before a slot becomes available at a crematorium. Who knows? In the hands of an unscrupulous company—who knows which ones they are?—it is all too possible for any human dignity and respect to become a completely unnecessary complication and expense in this process.
The only requirement before cremation takes place is that the body needs to be rid of objects such as pacemakers and other medical equipment. That was another part of my journey through understanding this process. This surgical procedure is carried out by embalmers, who also drain the body of blood in order to replace it with embalming fluid and remove the contents of the stomach. I was really shocked to learn that that can be performed without any accreditation or qualification whatsoever, and with no minimum standards of care for the body. That is not to say that there is not a form of qualification—the British Institute Of Embalmers provides professional training, and reputable companies such as Co-op funeral directors require a level 5 apprenticeship qualification for their embalmers—but it is not mandated to be able to practise.
In a nutshell, if the political career of any one of us in this room did not work out, we could walk out of here and set up our own funeral home—in our house, if we wanted to—with no special skills or accreditation and nobody inspecting our work. With that as the starting point, who can ever say for sure that their family member was treated with the appropriate professionalism? I have a question for the Minister; I know he has been hoping that I would get to this for some time. What can the Government do to restore trust in this sector? It is unfair on those who practise with enormous integrity that their professionalism is being called into question.
The Minister will know that the Fuller inquiry was set up in the wake of the crimes of the necrophiliac David Fuller, who abused 100 dead women and girls in a hospital mortuary in Kent. Those women were between the ages of nine and 90. In the wake of cases such as those in Hull and Gosport, Sir Jonathan Michael, who led the work into the Fuller report, was asked by the Government to prepare stage 2 of the report, which considers the wider funeral sector and those working in it. The report was published last July and includes some very sensible recommendations, including a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors that invokes a licensing scheme, mandatory standards and regular inspection.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
This is a really important debate. While regulation of the funeral sector is fundamental, does the hon. Member agree that it must be proportionate? A small, independent home carer for 20 or 30 people a year cannot be expected to have to mirror the administrative burdens placed on a large, multi-site corporate provider. Does she agree that core standards must be universal, but related to the structure and scale of a business?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I do not think that the size of a business is necessarily any reflection of its professionalism. We know that a large number of small, independent funeral services up and down the country work with incredible professionalism.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that nothing should be introduced that is unnecessarily bureaucratic or costly for those businesses.
The Fuller report says:
“It is important that real change is implemented to ensure the security and dignity of the deceased, and that a specific government department is given responsibility for overseeing this.”
Everybody who is involved in this sector recognises that there is a need for it to be properly regulated, inspected and overseen, so can the Minister set out clearly what his initial thoughts are on the recommendations of the Fuller report and when the Government will respond to them in full? When they do so, will they set out clearly what firm action will be taken, and when? We have waited so long, so when the Government respond, it must be with clarity, with purpose and—above all—with urgency.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
When the Minister replies, can he be clear about whether it is the Department of Health and Social Care or the Ministry of Justice that has control over this area? There seems to be a bit of a wrestling match going on between the two. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that responsibility needs to sit in one place, so that there is definite control over this sector.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is crucial to know which Department will take the lead on this work and ensure that it happens, because while I think the Minister will be responding to the Fuller report, we are also awaiting the outcome of a Law Commission report that was kicked off in 2022 by the last but one Justice Minister, the former Member for Finchley and Golders Green. That report is looking at different laws on what happens to our bodies after death; it does not include the regulation of funeral directors. My fear is that, as the hon. Lady just said, efforts to regulate the sector will fall between the silos of Government Departments, and nobody will grip this issue.
As we have discussed, what is required is a minimum standard of qualification, accreditation or licensing, and robust inspection. A regulator with the power to withdraw licences and sanction wrongdoers might seem like a tempting first step, and Scotland is ahead of England, having passed legislation 10 years ago to introduce a licensing and inspection regime. However, 10 years on, not a single Scottish funeral director I have spoken to has actually been inspected. I am concerned that this could be the worst of both worlds, with the illusion of regulation masking the possibility that nothing has changed in practice.
A sensible approach would be to extend the scope of the Human Tissue Authority beyond public mortuaries to the whole death pathway. The Fuller report recommends that the HTA
“should require the organisations it licenses to ensure that any individual who provides care to deceased people is suitably qualified, experienced and supervised.”
If inspections are going to be carried out by local authorities, they need to be significantly better trained and resourced to do so, and we would have to take into consideration the fact that some of them run funeral services of their own. They cannot mark their own homework. Inspections must have public trust. The regulator can make sure of this by aligning its minimum codes of practice with those provided by the two voluntary trade bodies we have already heard about, the SAIF and the NAFD.
I am also concerned about the existing marketplace in training. For sums of money reaching into the thousands of pounds, professional qualifications are delivered by the British Institute of Funeral Directors. At face value, that seems quite promising; after all, those courses are accredited by the University of Greenwich. So far, though, I have seen absolutely nothing that gives me confidence in the legitimacy of the BIFD’s work, particularly in light of the fact that Hayley Bell of Elkin and Bell fame, who has now been sentenced to four years in prison, was one of its examiners. If its own examiners cannot uphold even the most basic standards of care for the dead, what is the value of the qualifications it is selling people? Just as important as qualifications is a person’s suitability for a job. Surely, a lesson from the Fuller case is that funeral technicians and embalmers, as well as anyone else involved in the death pathway, should undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check.
As we have heard, the death pathway is open to so much abuse, and I warn the Minister that the cases I have mentioned will only be the tip of the iceberg while there is no regulation to tackle them. Doing so will require a whole system of changes, not just licensing and inspection. In some cases, this could be achieved by expanding existing legislation, such as the Human Tissue Act 2004, and it must be done in a way that is not punitive for small, independent businesses.
I would also like the Government to explore the possibility of a new crime, that of the mistreatment of a body after death, because we cannot keep relying on Victorian common law. We must ensure that the death pathway is much clearer and runs more smoothly, to provide a minimum of opportunity for things to go wrong. For example, I have heard that in some cases, bodies are already decomposing by the time they make it to a funeral director because of a lack of medical examiners to sign off the death. What reassurance can the Minister give me that his Department is going to improve standards in this area as well?
I believe that for there to be full accountability and trust in the system, a clear method of tracking the bodies is necessary. One of the most heartbreaking parts of the Elkin and Bell trial was the story of baby Albie, who died after just 11 minutes of life. His parents still have no clear picture of what happened to his body after it was taken into the care of Elkin and Bell. At every step of the journey, identification numbers and proof of licence should be shown when a body is passed from one responsible authority to another. Without that, families simply do not have the certainty that their family members have been well treated, or even that they have been reunited with the correct ashes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I am coming to a conclusion. Why is this issue important? We all know people who say, “I don’t care what happens to me after I’m dead; I won’t know anything about it.” It is a truism that funerals are for the living. I have been heartbroken by the stories I have heard from families who regret the arrangements made for loved ones—stories of feeling racked with guilt and unable to say goodbye in the way that they wanted. Grieving is such an important part of human ritual, regardless of someone’s religion or beliefs. We are elected to Parliament to make things better and to improve people’s lives, but today I am asking the Minister to commit to improving people’s deaths, to restoring dignity in death, and to ensuring that our loved ones are treated with the care and professionalism that they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing this important debate and for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) highlighted, I was here at this Dispatch Box not so long ago responding to him on the same topic.
We all recognise the profound importance of ensuring dignity, safety and high quality standards of care for people during life and after they die. Bereaved families place immense trust in funeral directors to guide and support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times of our lives and to ensure that our loved ones are laid to rest with the utmost respect. They rightly expect that high standards, professional conduct and appropriate oversight are firmly in place. However, these deeply troubling cases, including the appalling events in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Gosport and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), demonstrate that his trust cannot always be assumed.
Although these cases are rare, they have revealed serious weaknesses in our system, as the hon. Member for Gosport has adumbrated this evening. Unacceptable and distressing incidents, such as bodies being stored or treated in ways that cause deep anguish, were able to occur. In some instances, the police lacked the powers they needed to act. In the case of Elkin and Bell, the two funeral directors in the hon. Lady’s constituency, charges included intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance, the common law offence of preventing the lawful and decent burial of a body, and carrying on a business with intent to defraud creditors or another fraudulent purpose.
The Ministry of Justice is actively exploring options to strengthen criminal law protections for the deceased, including the potential for new offences as outlined in the Law Commission’s 14th programme of work. This work will identify gaps in the current law and whether new offences are needed to address behaviours that fail to treat a deceased person with dignity and respect. I am pleased to say that we have already taken steps to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased.
My Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government’s response to phase 2 of the Fuller inquiry. In December 2025, the Government published our interim update, outlining the progress made against the 75 recommendations. Of those, 11 have been accepted in full, 43 are accepted in principle and 21 remain under consideration. The 11 recommendations accepted in full cover standards, data and operating procedures in the wider health sector. Highlights include the Human Tissue Authority’s publication of updated guidance on 1 December to ensure that adverse incidents in the anatomy sector are recorded, and NHS England’s agreement to introduce data collection on conveying deceased patients in ambulances for the first time in 2026-27.
Since I was last here at the Dispatch Box responding to the hon. Member for North Dorset, the Human Tissue Authority has also issued universal and generic best practice guidance for those responsible for the care and dignity of the deceased, including organisations not formally regulated by the HTA. That point is particularly pertinent in relation to the hon. Member for Gosport’s comments about the increasing number of direct cremations. In addition, the HTA has begun reviewing its codes of practice. That process will continue into 2026-27. The review may lead to changes to the current guidance in light of the Fuller inquiry recommendations, and it will help us to consider whether the codes could be applied and used by other settings.
Before turning to the discussion about the options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, I want to remind the House how we got here. Following the unspeakable crimes committed by David Fuller, the last Government established an independent inquiry, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care, to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such unlawful and abhorrent acts in hospital mortuaries, and how those actions went unnoticed. I must make it clear that crimes such as David Fuller’s are extremely rare. However, that will come as little consolation to the families involved. At this point I extend my deepest sympathies to those families, who continue to bear the weight of suffering, and for whom it must be particularly triggering when debates such as this are held in the Chamber.
Phase 1 of the inquiry focused on the crimes that Fuller committed in the mortuaries at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. The phase 1 report, published in November 2023, identified failures of management, governance and regulation, as well as a lack of curiosity, which enabled Fuller to continue his repeat offending. It set out 16 recommendations for the trust and one for local councils. In February 2024, the trust published an assurance statement on the implementation of the recommendations from the report. Kent and East Sussex county councils reviewed the position and confirmed that their contracts with the trust required compliance with licensing and regulatory standards to ensure that the deceased were treated with dignity and respect.
On 15 July 2025, the inquiry panel published its final phase 2 report, which dealt with the care of the deceased in both hospital and non-hospital settings. It acknowledged that arrangements for the care of deceased people are complex and often interconnected. It clearly identified multiple organisations, with different governance and operating models, spread across a large number of sectors. It focused on whether procedures and practices in hospital and non-hospital settings, including the funeral sector, were doing enough to safeguard the security of the deceased, and it considered the role of regulators.
The overall recommendation of the inquiry’s chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, was for the Government to introduce an independent statutory regulatory regime to protect the security and dignity of people after death in all settings where deceased individuals are cared for, regardless of the institution, including funeral directors. Eleven of the phase 2 recommendations relate to the introduction of statutory regulation, including regulation of the funeral sector. They remain under consideration. Through the Fuller inquiry recommendations programme board, established in July last year, work continues apace with the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess options for Government intervention to improve standards of care for the deceased in the funeral sector, and, as such, to respond to the recommendations.
Mark Sewards
Can the Minister tell me whether any meeting has taken place between those Departments, or whether one is going to take place, and if so, when?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading my speech. I can assure him that meetings had taken place before my appointment as the Minister responsible for the aspects of the regulations relating to the Department of Health and Social Care. I can also confirm that further meetings are taking place, at my instruction, with the relevant Departments—hosted by me in the Department of Health and Social Care—so that we can genuinely move forward. I know that there is consensus across the House that we must move forward, genuinely and expediently, not only in aligning lines of demarcation and responsibility across those Departments, but in genuinely working together and showing leadership on this issue. I shall be happy to keep the hon. Members who are interested updated on those meetings when they take place.
This is a complex and sensitive matter that requires careful and thoughtful consideration to safeguard the rights and dignity of those who have died, to support their bereaved families, and to ensure that any measures taken are proportionate, given that we are working with a number of small and medium-sized enterprises. To support this work, I am continuing to discuss progress and next steps with relevant Ministers across Government, as I said in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). The Government are continuing to consider all options to ensure that high standards are upheld consistently across the funeral sector, and that includes the possibility of introducing suitable and proportionate regulation for funeral directors.
As we discuss these options, we are clear about the need for the approach to maintain high standards, protect the dignity of the deceased and support bereaved families, recognising that any additional costs arising from regulation will ultimately fall on them. At the same time, we must consider the impact on the funeral sector itself.
The funeral sector comprises 6,500 private businesses across the UK, the vast majority of which serve their communities with compassion and integrity, as we have heard tonight. Some 85% are already members of trade bodies that provide guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection schemes. The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on businesses by 25%, and that will contribute to our approach to regulation in this area.
Simon Hoare
Is the Minister, and other Ministers who are involved in this area, fully seized of the fact that this is a very unusual situation, in that the professional bodies and the lion’s share of practitioners are calling for regulation? It is very unusual that they want to see regulation.
Dr Ahmed
I am very cognisant of that fact. We will discuss in our interministerial meetings how we can involve the profession early in that regard.
While the vast majority of funeral directors already operate with professionalism, the actions of a small minority have undermined public confidence. We are determined to ensure the security, dignity and care of the deceased across all settings. That is why we are committed to setting out the Government’s decision on regulation in our full response to the Fuller inquiry phase 2 report in summer 2026.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023.
The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025. It is one of the most significant and ambitious bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. India is of course one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century and is likely to become the third largest global economy by the end of this decade. Our trade with India is already worth £47 billion a year, up 15% year on year, and it is of course a market with huge and growing demand for imports, presenting major opportunities for British businesses and procurement.
However, India’s markets are also behind some of the highest trade barriers in the world, locking out many British businesses. The deal we have secured knocks down many of those barriers and goes well beyond India’s agreements with other countries. Indeed, it opens the door for British businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of Government procurement.
The procurement chapter will unlock around £38 billion a year of contracts in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction, infrastructure and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to compete for those contracts. Alongside that, we are gaining access to India’s procurement portal, providing a line of sight for British businesses on a huge and growing market. Under the terms of the agreement, British businesses will have access to procurements above £478,000 for goods and services, and £5.3 million for construction services.
We have also gained exclusive treatment for UK bidders to be treated as class 2 suppliers under the Make in India policy. This will apply if at least 20% of the product or service is from the UK or India. That will give British companies a significant competitive advantage, as it goes beyond anything negotiated by others. We have also achieved commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, and we have agreed requirements for the publishing of notices and awards of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to challenge should the chapter’s rules not be followed correctly.
Our agreement is also significantly stronger than the political agreement the EU has now reached with India. In particular, we have negotiated unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, something the EU has not obtained. The EU also does not have any agreement relating to class 2 status under the Make in India policy.
Those are the benefits of the agreement legislated for in the regulations; I will turn briefly to the process for introducing them. As Committee members will know, the regulations were laid on 19 January in order to bring the trade agreement into force as quickly as possible while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny under the proper process. They will update schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023, implementing in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations in the agreement. Suppliers entitled to benefit from it will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Act, which will provide them with equal access and rights in UK public procurement as are afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreement requires India to provide comparable access to UK suppliers.
The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under the agreement apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial application of these regulations in relation to contracts under the 2023 Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. It also extends to Scotland and Wales, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority or regulated by the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government, with whom we have been in discussion, are making a separate SI to implement this agreement. It was laid in the Senedd on 10 February and is scheduled for debate on 10 March and due to enter into force on 31 March, the day after these regulations.
The Scottish Government are implementing the agreement separately under their own legislation, which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 7 January and considered by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 4 February. The Scottish Parliament approved the SI on 18 February, and it will enter into force on 24 March. The territorial application of this SI in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market. It covers access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year worth at least £38 billion per annum. It is good news for British businesses and our economy, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting these regulations.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. The Minister will be aware that we have some concerns about part of the UK-India agreement, but those concerns do not apply to the provisions on public procurement, and as such we support the measures in the regulations.
In effect, the regulations add the UK-India agreement to schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. That will mean that suppliers from India that fall within the scope of the agreement will be entitled to participate in relevant UK public procurement processes on the same basis as UK suppliers.
We are proud of many of the changes brought in by the last Government through the Procurement Act to boost the UK economy, including the move from the EU’s most economically advantageous tender system to our own, broader, most advantageous tender system. That subtle change of language has massive real-world implications. It lets contracts reflect real value and not just price. Instead of the rigid focus on the lowest price under the previous EU-derived rules, under our new procurement framework we can consider value more holistically, including social and local benefit; instead of restrictive procedures, there is more competitive flexibility, so that buyers can design the process; and instead of it being difficult to exclude bad actors, as was the case under the previous system, robust powers are in place to debar suppliers on national security grounds. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that those powers will still apply under the regulations.
Importantly, buyers can now give significant weight to bids that create jobs in their specific region or the sector for which they are responsible, and for the first time, public bodies are publishing key performance indicators for major contracts. If a supplier fails to deliver for the public, it can be held to account and potentially barred from future work. Given those positive changes, it makes sense to apply the new system to procurement covered by the UK-India trade agreement.
Of course, due to the transitional provisions currently in place, some procurements continue to be governed by earlier legislative frameworks, including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. That is one of the reasons why we agree that the regulations before us, which will ensure that the procurement chapter of the UK-India agreement can also apply to procurements still conducted under those earlier regimes, are necessary.
In practice, that means that economic operators benefiting from the agreement will be entitled to the same treatment as UK suppliers in procurements carried out under framework agreements, dynamic purchasing systems or qualification systems that remain subject to the previous rules. The amendments will apply only to procurements commenced after the UK-India agreement enters into force; procurements already under way will not be affected.
The Government have indicated that a full impact assessment has not been produced on the basis that the regulations are not expected to have a significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors. Given the scale of public procurement in the United Kingdom, it would be helpful if the Minister provided some clarity on a few points.
First, what assessment has been made of the value of procurement opportunities in the UK that will now be accessible to Indian suppliers under the agreement? On the flip side, can the Minister further lay out what reciprocal access UK businesses will gain to public procurement markets in India, and what practical support will be available to help UK firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to take advantage of those opportunities? Thirdly, could he clarify the expected timetable for the agreement to enter into force and, therefore, for these provisions to begin applying in practice?
The regulations are, in many respects, technical in nature, but they form part of the broader implementation of the UK-India trade agreement and therefore could have significant implications for access to public procurement markets, both here in the UK and abroad, so it is right that the Committee carefully scrutinises how they will operate in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair this evening, Sir Desmond. While the Liberal Democrats welcome the overarching free trade agreement and are in favour of opening up trade in the face of Trump’s trade wars, we believe that the agreement between the UK and India could have gone further in a number of areas, in particular with respect to services.
During a speech in a debate on the free trade agreement, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) argued that its economic benefit is small—only 0.13% of GDP by 2040—compared with the estimated economic impact of Brexit, which some say is 6% to 8% of GDP. As much as some of us might enjoy it, I do not propose to relitigate our leaving the European Union via the First Delegated Legislation Committee this evening, but my hon. Friend made the point that the EU secured better tariff access to India—96.6% compared with the UK’s 92%—which suggests that larger trading blocs have greater negotiating power.
Importantly, my hon. Friend raised concerns that India exports petrochemicals refined from Russian oil to the UK, exploiting a sanctions loophole. The EU has already closed that loophole, but the UK has not yet done so. Could the Minister provide an update on that situation and, if the loophole permitting the export of Russian-derived products remains in place, say when it will be closed?
Chris Ward
I am grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been carried out.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly mentioned that the regulations build on the Procurement Act passed under the last Government. That is a good thing, although we will set out plans shortly to improve it. He is quite right that nothing in the regulations affects the national security powers, and that the regulations tidy up contracts completed prior to the Procurement Act—that is why they are important.
On business engagement and impact assessment, this is really about getting a foot in the door of the Indian market for UK businesses, and it is very hard to model the impact of that at this stage. It is a large and growing market, with huge demand for imports. Until we gain access, as we have done, to the procurement portal and are established in the market, it is hard to know the exact material economic benefits, but obviously we hope that this will be a first step in that. As I say, it is a foot in the door that is greatly welcomed. I should point out that the Department for Business and Trade is working incredibly hard on business engagement in India. We have a team on the ground there to try to maximise this and capitalise on it as much as possible, and they are working really closely with British businesses to make sure that they can do that.
In terms of application, the regulations come into force on 30 March. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process has been completed on the broader trade deal, so this will align with that. As I said, our aim is for the agreement to come in as quickly as possible.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about services and the ambitious nature of the deal, we estimate that the agreement is worth around £5 billion a year to the UK economy. For an individual trade deal, that is very significant; as I say, it is more ambitious than a lot of the deals that have already been completed, and it is the first type of deal like this that the Indian Government have agreed.
While none of us is in the mood to relitigate Brexit, or talk through that too much, I will make two minor points. First, Britain has negotiated a stronger deal than the EU. As I said, the EU has not gained the same arrangements around the Make in India policy and treatment of suppliers as class 2, and it has not gained access to the procurement portal in the same way that we have, so our deal is materially better. Secondly, I gently say that if the Liberal Democrats want to enter a new customs union, they should know that any free trade deal that we did on that basis would not be an independent free trade deal; it would be a trade deal agreed by the EU, and it would be on qualitatively inferior terms, because the EU has just negotiated its deal and ours is stronger. There is a consequence to the position that the Liberal Democrats take. I hope that helps; if there are points that I have missed, I will write with further detail.
In conclusion, this agreement is a major milestone in our relationship with India, a vast and growing economy that we hope British businesses can contribute to as much as possible. Implementation of the procurement deal is a big step forward for us, and I hope colleagues will join me in approving the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing
(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
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 728677 relating to type 1 diabetes testing for infants.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the petitioner, Mr John Story, for starting the petition and telling us the devastating story of what happened to his daughter Lyla, who tragically died when the warning signs of type 1 diabetes were missed. I also congratulate him on gathering over 120,000 signatures from across the United Kingdom on a topic that I know is incredibly important to him and many others: in my North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, there were 204 signatures.
The petition, which is called “Funding so all infants are offered Type 1 Diabetes Testing in routine care”, states:
“Fund mandatory offer of testing for Type 1 Diabetes in babies, toddlers, and young children as a routine part of medical assessments at the point of care.”
The petitioner met me to further explain the intent of the petition, which includes legislating so that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines 18 and 17 ensure that type 1 diabetes testing is carried out when any symptoms appear, and including information on type 1 diabetes in the red book for babies. His campaign for Lyla’s law also asks for public awareness campaigns, to help parents to recognise the signs of type 1 diabetes, and for increased accountability in primary care. The aims of the proposed law include the introduction of a “test, don’t guess” framework to guarantee timely access to care and resources and stop children reaching the point of life-threatening DKA, diabetic ketoacidosis.
The red book for babies is a personal child health record of information such as weight, height, vaccinations and necessary medicines. There is also a newborn blood spot test offered by the NHS, which tests for 10 rare conditions but not for type 1 diabetes. NICE provides guidelines and quality standards for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, and general practitioners are expected to follow the advice in those guidelines. However, it is important to note that they are not legally binding—a point that the petition addresses.
Guideline 18 provides guidelines on type 1 and type 2 diabetes for the diagnosis, treatment and care of children and young people, while guideline 17 provides the guidelines for adults. Guideline 18 states that clinicians should be aware of the signs of type 1 diabetes, and that children and young people who are suspected to have it should be referred immediately to confirm the diagnosis and provide any necessary emergency care. The petitioner’s ask is to ensure that every parent, health visitor and doctor understands that excessive thirst, frequent urination, unexplained weight loss and fatigue are not just a bug or a virus; they could be type 1 diabetes.
There is currently no national screening programme for type 1 diabetes. However, it is important to highlight an ongoing diabetes screening study called ELSA: early surveillance of autoimmune diabetes. While preparing for the debate, I met Professor Parth Narendran, a professor of diabetes medicine and consultant at the University of Birmingham, who leads the ELSA study. A University of Birmingham article states:
“Currently, over a quarter of children aren’t diagnosed with type 1 diabetes until they are in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a potentially fatal condition that requires urgent hospital treatment.”
The hope of the study is that screening children for antibodies could reduce those emergency diagnoses. After a similar pilot programme in Lombardy, Italy became the first country in the world to mandate national screening for type 1 diabetes in children.
The Government response to the petition addresses screening by saying:
“The UK National Screening Committee advises the NHS on screening programmes and, in 2019 concluded that more research and evidence for the benefits of screening for autoimmune type 1 diabetes was required.”
On the ELSA study, the response advises that
“NHS England is working closely with researchers…to ensure that emerging evidence is considered in the development of future national guidance”
on type 1 diabetes screening programmes. It also refers to NHS England’s close work with Diabetes UK, which is leading a “four Ts” campaign to raise awareness of the signs of type 1 diabetes.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Does my hon. Friend agree that the ELSA study proves the need for wider screening, because of the 17,000 children screened, seven were already living with undiagnosed type 1 diabetes severe enough to require immediate treatment and a further 160 had early-stage type 1 diabetes? The study results from Birmingham show that screening needs to be rolled out across the country to save lives.
Irene Campbell
I agree with the points that my hon. Friend raises. The research and emerging information from the ELSA study should be considered as soon as possible.
In Diabetes UK’s campaign, the four Ts stand for “toilet”, “thirsty”, “tired” and “thinner”. Recognising those symptoms is key to the campaign.
In preparation for this debate, I met representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who advised me that after hearing Lyla’s story, they urgently reviewed their curriculum and made sure that their continuing professional development resources adequately covered type 1 diabetes symptoms in children and followed NICE guidelines. They also said that they are working with NHS England colleagues on the availability and use of point-of-care capillary blood testing for type 1 diabetes. That is a rapid finger-prick glucose test.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alec. With NHS England set to be abolished, how does the hon. Member suggest the Government ensure that awareness for testing for type 1 diabetes continues? Does she agree that it should not be left to fall by the wayside or be picked up by organisations such as Diabetes UK?
Irene Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The rapid finger-prick glucose test is readily available and can be administered quite easily.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is laying out, in a very careful and considered way, the importance of the screening process and the ease with which it can be implemented to avoid more tragic stories like Lyla’s. Does she agree that mandatory screening is essential, because most children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes have no family history of the condition, and it would be the quickest and easiest way to ensure that we do not have any more unnecessary tragedies?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Again, I refer to the Minister’s response. This is a very important issue, and it is crucial that we get it right.
There can be barriers to diagnosis if there is the appearance of another illness, such as a cold or tonsillitis, that can make diabetes more difficult to recognise. Young children are often unable to fully express themselves in relation to symptoms, which can be problematic. There must be more awareness of that possibility. Tragically, as we have heard today, some cases can be missed.
The RCGP said that a GP may not ever see another child in their practice with undiagnosed type 1 diabetes, and that it is a rare occurrence. Time pressures were also commented on. The appointment length is inadequate to deal with potentially more complex issues. As GPs look for the most common diseases in the first instance, they might not think that a glucose test is necessary. It is important to highlight the fact that GPs have the broadest medical specialty. However, the recent RCGP survey found that 64% of members say they do not have enough time to undertake training or continuing professional development alongside their practice work. In addition, the average GP cares for more than 2,300 patients, which is 16% more patients than in 2015, and in deprived communities that figure is significantly higher.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank the 143 constituents who signed this petition. I am representing my constituent David. His son fell unwell, but the GP surgery did not recognise the symptoms and he had to be blue-lighted to a hospital the same evening. He has now recovered—in fact, he has now raised £500 for Breakthrough T1D and Diabetes UK. David wanted me to give a special thank you and shout-out to the children’s unit at Poole hospital and the children’s diabetes team at University Hospitals Dorset. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need all GP surgeries around the country to recognise the symptoms and to take all necessary action when they are detected?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Yes, I agree.
The survey also found that 73% of GPs report that patient safety is being compromised by their workload pressures, and 58% said that they do not have enough time during appointments to adequately assess and treat patients. It is concerning to hear that a high number of GPs do not have time for professional development and quality development. While the number of patients GPs are expected to see rises, the pressure is higher and patient satisfaction is poorer.
Another important point to note is that the NICE guidelines are from 2015. They could be reviewed to recommend that type 1 diabetes be tested for much earlier, and that an infant need not have all the listed symptoms in the guidelines before testing, as the four Ts on their own are not very sensitive at picking up type 1 diabetes. NICE guidelines could prioritise earlier testing of glucose, making checks immediate and not postponed.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In South East Cornwall, 177 residents signed the petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the first warning signs appear, we must ensure access to simple tests, including a finger-prick test, that can save their lives? I want to recognise a local family: Alison and Mylor have travelled here today to make the case directly. On behalf of all residents in South East Cornwall, I thank my hon. Friend for making this incredibly important debate happen.
Irene Campbell
I agree with what my hon. Friend says. As I say, I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how we can make progress.
As we have heard, DKA is a life-threatening complication of diabetes, which is caused by extreme insulin deficiency. We urgently need to change and reduce the rates of DKA. One issue is that it is difficult to know exactly how many children have been missed, discharged and reassured after presenting with these symptoms who will then return for later diagnosis.
As well as young children, adolescents have high rates of presenting with DKA, which can be compounded by factors such as deprivation and ethnicity. That must also be taken into consideration.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Some 17,600 people in Wales are known to be living with type 1 diabetes. Like England, we do not yet have a national screening programme. In 2018, the Cardiff and Vale university health board introduced a series of quality improvement initiatives to support earlier diagnoses. As a result, it has recorded the lowest average incidence of DKA over the past six years compared with the rest of Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that this approach should be adopted across all health boards in Wales and throughout the rest of the UK?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Yes, I agree. That sounds like a very good way to take this forward.
The petition and the surrounding conversation can serve as a call for change, not only for young children and infants but for all undiagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes who are at risk of their condition leading to dangerous complications. In the words of the petitioner,
“Lyla was bright, full of life, and had her whole future ahead of her. But in a matter of days, everything changed. She became unwell, and like so many parents, we trusted the system to protect her. That trust was misplaced. By the time her condition was recognised, it was too late.”
I look forward to other hon. Members’ contributions and to the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. I welcome members of the public to the Gallery. I know that this is an emotional subject that people care deeply about; I hope that they find today’s debate informative. I remind hon. Members to speak through the Chair. If they wish to speak, they should bob to catch my eye.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I welcome the Minister to her place; the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes had a positive and constructive relationship with her predecessor, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and I hope that that will continue.
I am grateful to the petitioners and to the petition’s creator, John, who is in the Gallery. He has been tirelessly campaigning in memory of his daughter, Lyla. His courage in speaking out and pushing for change has brought national attention to the urgent need to improve the way we recognise and diagnose type 1 diabetes. Earlier today, a group of cross-party MPs and of health professionals and families handed in a petition to Downing Street on this matter.
About 400,000 people in the UK live with type 1 diabetes. That includes tens of thousands of children. It is most commonly diagnosed in childhood, but can develop at any age. Crucially, it cannot be prevented at the moment and is not linked to lifestyle. There is nothing a child or their parents could have done differently. Despite our understanding of the condition, too many people are still diagnosed only when they are already dangerously ill. Too often, the warning signs are missed.
As we have heard, the classic symptoms are known as the four Ts: thirst, tiredness, thinning, and needing to go to the toilet more frequently. They are well known and simple to check. A quick finger-prick test can measure blood glucose and confirm whether urgent action is needed, but too many families find themselves making repeated visits to healthcare professionals before a diagnosis is made. In many cases, by the time that type 1 diabetes is identified, the patient is already experiencing diabetic ketoacidosis. DKA is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition caused by dangerously high blood glucose levels and the build-up of ketones in the blood. It frequently requires emergency hospital treatment. More than one in four children in the UK diagnosed with type 1 diabetes are diagnosed when already in DKA. This is an issue of health inequalities, too. We know that among children under five, and among those from deprived backgrounds, the proportion can be even higher.
These are not just statistics. Behind every number is a child, a family and a moment of trauma that could all too easily have been avoided. Lyla Story’s case tragically illustrates that. In the days before her death, Lyla showed the classic symptoms of type 1 diabetes. Her parents sought medical help and she was seen by a GP, but the symptoms were attributed to another illness. Her condition deteriorated rapidly, and sadly she passed away after developing diabetic ketoacidosis.
Since I met John months ago, he has sent endless examples of other families across the country. The same story has rung true time and again. This is not just one example; it is emblematic of our current systemic failure. There is an urgent need to improve awareness among healthcare professionals and ensure rapid testing when symptoms appear. They must be tret as a priority. NICE guidelines already state that children suspected of having type 1 diabetes should be referred immediately to a specialist paediatric diabetes team, but we know that, in practice, signs are sometimes missed or not acted on quickly enough. Ensuring that every GP practice has access to relevant glucometers and that the staff are confident about recognising the four Ts is one of the most simple and effective ways we can reduce those missed opportunities. Education and training can make a real difference. At a roundtable held by the APPG for diabetes earlier this year, we heard how quality improvement work in Cardiff has demonstrated that targeted education for primary care teams can significantly reduce emergency diagnoses.
Alongside improving diagnosis, we are entering a new and exciting phase in our understanding of type 1 diabetes, with the possibility of identifying the condition before symptoms even begin. Research has shown that the immune attack that eventually leads to type 1 diabetes produces autoantibodies in the blood long before symptoms appear. Those markers can be detected through screening, and studies such as ELSA have demonstrated that childhood screening is feasible and can identify children at risk before they become unwell.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, for the first time. My hon. Friend has touched on training and the need for awareness. One issue is that very often even people with type 1 diabetes, because of the lack of awareness, are not aware of the symptoms as they begin to react or their insulin is very low. Does he agree that what we also need is a general awareness of type 1 diabetes among the public?
Tom Gordon
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of diabetes awareness. I completely agree that we need to do more to raise those symptoms with the general public. Everyone knows the key signs of some health conditions—heart attacks or strokes, perhaps—but sadly, type 1 diabetes is not one of those. We can do more in the House to put the issue at the front of the public’s mind; I am optimistic that we can do that across parties, given the diversity of colleagues in this Chamber. Screening offers enormous potential. It will allow families and clinicians to monitor the condition closely, prepare for treatment and, we hope, avoid the trauma of an emergency diagnosis.
I turn to some personal experience. When I was just 13, we were on a family holiday in Turkey. My little sister, who was nine at the time, collapsed by the pool. People do not often think much of it if a growing child loses and gains weight or is thirsty, particularly when abroad in severe heat. My mum had no idea that my sister was a type 1 diabetic; only when she collapsed by the side of a pool and was rushed and blue-lighted to hospital in Turkey did we find out that she was critically unwell and experiencing DKA.
I will never forget that holiday. Fortunately for my sister, everything turned out okay. We got her back to the UK and got her the support that she needed, but it was an incredibly frightening experience for our family and a stark introduction to how suddenly type 1 diabetes can present when it goes undetected. That is one of the reasons why this issue matters deeply to me, and part of the reason why I went on to study biochemistry and a master’s in public health. What can we do? I will turn to what should happen next, but first I encourage any colleagues in the Chamber who are not already members of the APPG for diabetes to join.
I want to press the Minister about a number of areas: first, on awareness of the four Ts, which we have already heard about but needs strengthening across the health system. Training for healthcare professionals, in particular those who work in primary care, should ensure that symptoms of type 1 diabetes are recognised immediately and acted on. Secondly, finger-prick blood-glucose testing should be standard practice whenever a patient presents with symptoms suggestive of type 1 diabetes. NICE guidance should make that expectation explicit, not simply implied.
Thirdly, every GP practice should have the equipment ready to carry out such tests quickly and with confidence. Fourthly, awareness—including of the four Ts—should extend beyond the healthcare system to the personal child health record, or red book, and digital resources for parents, which would help families recognise those warning signs and seek testing earlier. Fifthly, there should be stronger oversight to ensure that learning takes place when diagnoses are missed, including a clearer role for the Care Quality Commission and national improvement initiatives, too. Finally, the NHS should continue to explore what role screening programmes could play in future. Research under way, such as that of the ELSA study, will be crucial in building the evidence needed to support any future national screening programme.
Type 1 diabetes cannot currently be cured, but deaths from undiagnosed type 1 are preventable. Through better awareness, faster testing and continued research, we can ensure that fewer families experience the trauma of delayed diagnosis. If we ended up with a Lyla’s law, we would be honouring the memory of children such as Lyla and the determination of family members such as John, who are campaigning so powerfully for this change.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Alec—for the first time as well. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this important debate.
Let me tell the Chamber about Gracie, a little girl from the historic village of Newton-le-Willows in St Helens, in the north-west of England. In November 2018, Gracie was only one year old when she was rushed to hospital. Only days earlier, she had been excited about her first Halloween party, dressed as cowgirl Jessie—a very enjoyable day was had by all. Gracie’s parents thought that she simply had a cough and cold, but within hours she became desperately ill. By the time her parents got to her GP the next morning, Gracie was lethargic, vomiting and soon became unresponsive. A quick finger-prick test in the hospital revealed the truth: undiagnosed type 1 diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis. Doctors later told her parents that Gracie had been just 15 minutes away from dying, just like that.
Thankfully, Gracie survived, and today she is thriving, but her family’s story had not ended there. They had to fight to access the life-changing diabetes technology that helps to keep little children like Gracie safe. They are still fighting hard to change the law so that access to this technology is no longer determined by postcode but is available to all who need it. Gracie’s story has a happy ending, but many families are not so fortunate. That is why I join colleagues today in calling for funding so that infants can be offered routine testing for type 1 diabetes.
It is right to recognise that the Government have not ignored this challenge. NHS England has established a national task and finish group bringing together leading clinicians, researchers and experts to assess the opportunities and challenges for a national diabetes screening programme. The early surveillance for autoimmune diabetes or ELSA study is exploring the feasibility and the benefits of screening for type 1 diabetes, from newborns all the way to late teenagers. The recent findings of the first half of the study reveal that a type 1 diabetes autoantibody childhood screening programme is workable in the real world. I welcome that work and thank those involved in getting this far. However, I hope that evidence from studies like ELSA will reinforce the lesson from Gracie’s story: that early detection saves lives.
Gracie’s story is a happy one, but too many others end in tragedy. We have the opportunity to prevent this, to detect the disease earlier, to protect children sooner and to spare families the trauma that Gracie’s parents endured. We must act now to ensure that Gracie’s story is remembered as a warning, not repeated as a tragedy. I do not think the country can afford not to go ahead.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by paying tribute to Lyla Story, a little girl whose death, aged two, from undiagnosed type 1 diabetes has brought us here today. I wish I could have been giving her a tour of Parliament rather than talking in this capacity, but her name will go down in the history of Parliament, in Hansard, because of the dedicated work that has been done. I pay tribute to her parents, Emma and John, who are with us in the Gallery and who have campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of this condition. I commend their courage and determination in the face of such grief. I think they have much greater strength than many of us would have in a similar situation.
If I had been asked about diabetes five years ago, on 9 March 2021, I would probably have said that my auntie had it, and that it was due to poor diet. If I had been asked the same question on 21 May 2021, I would have given a completely different answer. The change is that I was diagnosed as type 1 diabetic at the age of 33. In the space of 24 hours, from going for a blood test for something innocuous, my world entirely changed, and I was rushed into A&E to be given emergency care.
Like many people outside this Chamber, I had little to no knowledge of type 1. The concept of the four Ts—“tiredness”, “thinner”, “thirst” and “toilet”—were unknown to me. The fact that I started losing weight quite quickly was a bonus, I thought. I did not realise what the signs meant. The fact that 400,000 people in the UK have type 1 was news to me, and that more than one in four children with type 1 diabetes are diagnosed when they are in diabetic ketoacidosis was shocking.
What is diabetic ketoacidosis? It has been mentioned a few times today, and it is a complication that develops when the body lacks sufficient insulin, leading to high blood sugar levels and the breakdown of fat and muscle for energy. This produces harmful chemicals, known as ketones, that make the blood acidic, which is what proves fatal.
The petition before us today seeks to make testing for type 1 diabetes in babies, toddlers and young children a routine part of medical assessments at the point of care. John Story is also seeking to have the NICE guidelines on type 1—NG17 for adults and NG18 for children—updated to include performing a finger-prick test on site at the initial GP appointment, with blood glucose tested using a glucometer. That would occur when a child or adult presented with any symptoms consistent with type 1 diabetes. He would like to see a “test, don’t guess” approach, which we have seen be quite effective for meningitis—we know the signs—and sepsis, so I fully support this concept.
NICE has been receptive to making these changes, but ultimately it will be for the relevant NHS commissioning bodies to put the NICE recommendations into practice. We therefore have to look to NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to take up this campaign around increased visibility and testing of diabetic ketoacidosis. I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune): with the disbandment of NHS England, what will we be doing in that regard?
Peter Fortune
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. I think we all here agree that we need to do more to ensure that those with type 1 diabetes get the support they need. While we are here, does she share my concern that 90% of people diagnosed with diabetes are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and the total cost of that care in the UK is about £11 billion? Alongside the important support that we give to those with type 1 diabetes, we should be doing more and taking action to ensure that people do not develop type 2.
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that 90% of cases are actually type 2. That is probably also why we fail to understand the true signs of type 1, because there is real confusion and conflation of the two. I think it would actually give clarity if they were named slightly differently.
My hon. Friend is also right that a tsunami of cases of type 2 will be hitting us in the years to come, and we have to do a lot more to raise awareness of that, whether that is about diet or by sharing the technology. Many of us are trying to be visible in wearing the technology and the patches, such as FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom. I think that is very good for removing the stigma and helping people to understand what we need to do in the future. We definitely need to see that tech rolled out for type 2, as well as for type 1. It can still be a bit of a postcode lottery for type 1 at this stage, which is something else that we have to work on.
We must not just rely on some of the jabs that have recently become popular. They are a means of helping people to lose weight, which can be a significant part of type 2 diabetes, but they may not be the answer. There are events going on at the moment, saying that we should exercise some caution and make sure that any jabs that are taken are actually legitimate and proper, and not counterfeit. That is a sad side of this: people are seeking medical treatments that could also be harmful.
To go back to type 1, I have managed to secure today that I will introduce a 10-minute rule Bill on Tuesday 14 April to make provision for a universal national programme of screening for type 1 diabetes in children, building on all the work that John has been doing. I am working with medical professionals and charities, including Breakthrough T1D—as it is now called—and Diabetes UK, to look into the Italian model that was mentioned, in the hope that we can one day establish a programme that would catch type 1 before symptoms appear, transforming how we diagnose the condition in the future and helping people to prepare earlier.
A lot more research is needed, because the key thing is the age at which someone can be diagnosed. We are working on three potential age ranges at which there would be repeat tests. That is vital and fundamental for the future, to make sure that we do not have one in four children being diagnosed when in a state of DKA.
In the meantime, I reiterate what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said: we want to see the four Ts built into training and education for all healthcare professionals. The four Ts are very important, but that does not necessarily mean that someone has to have every single one of those symptoms. I did not obviously show the signs of all four Ts, but when I had an HbA1c of 95—[Interruption.] That reaction! To put that into context, a normal person might have an average HbA1c of 20, while the threshold for diabetes is 48; I was at 95 at that stage. My ketones at the point of diagnosis were 2.7. At 3, you are at risk of going into DKA, and anything higher—I understand that Lyla may have been at 6 at the point that she was diagnosed—is critical. Clearly, I was very ill, but I had not picked up on all of those signs; I was not aware. Nevertheless, it is important that we have the four Ts in mind, at least as a baseline.
We also want to make sure that all GP practices actually have the finger-prick test—the glucometer—available. Numerous practices have been contacted and they do not always have that, which I think is quite shocking. As a baseline, we also need to make sure that provision is there.
As John has been campaigning hard for, we want to see the NICE guidelines updated to make sure that this is in the mindset of all our medical practitioners. We also want to see it in the personal child health record—the red book—and within the digital Best Start programme. We the CQC’s role in diagnosing type 1 in primary care to be clarified and strengthened—for example, inspections could assess whether staff receive appropriate training.
We want local commissioners to commit to learning from incidents where type 1 is missed. We want NHS England—or whatever the equivalent is when that is disbanded—to work on this further, and we want the Department of Health and Social Care to review opportunities for national initiatives to drive improvements, such as the Getting It Right First Time programme.
Everyone should rest assured that there are many fantastic representatives in Parliament who are type 1, and we will continue to fly the flag: my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who sitting in front of me, is type 1; Mr Speaker is type 1; and, of course, Baroness May in the upper House has been a fantastic advocate over the years. I hope that we can also work with some more celebrity figures, whether that is Nikita on “Strictly Come Dancing”, the actor James Norton, the rugby player Henry Slade or the comedian Ed Gamble. There are figures out there, and we just need to make it much more visible and approachable.
Type 1 diabetes is not a scary condition—although it is a very difficult one, don’t get me wrong. We live with it 24 hours a day, whether we are too hot, too cold, tired, stressed or whatever. From what we are eating to when we are exercising, there is a lot we have to think about, but it is completely manageable with the right support. I want to end my speech with the memory of Lyla and say thank you to John and Emma for their efforts. I say to everyone: please remember those four Ts—“thirst”, “toilet”, “thin” and “tiredness”.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. I will now set a two-minute limit, because I will be calling the Front-Bench speakers at 7 pm and I am keen to get all colleagues in.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) on securing time to introduce the ten-minute rule Bill. If she wishes me to be part of her team, I am more than happy to do so.
First, let me express how utterly inspirational it is to see a family who have suffered so much heartache turn that grief into something that should mean no one else ever needs to lose a child in similar circumstances. Knowing about the debate, a parent in my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme shared with me the experience of their child, who became acutely unwell with symptoms that, at first, appeared to be nothing more than a stomach bug. When they arrived at A&E, an astute and brilliant nurse carried out a simple finger-prick test for glucose that showed dangerously high blood glucose levels, and the child was rushed to emergency treatment for DKA.
The family were later told that, without that quick check and the treatment that followed, the outcome could have been far worse. The child spent several days in hospital recovering, and is now beginning to adapt to life with type 1 diabetes. Five months on, I have to say that he is doing exceptionally well. I have met him in the past; he does so much in the community, and he manages his condition like an absolute star.
That account underlines why this issue matters. The early symptoms of type 1 diabetes can look very similar to other common childhood illnesses; vomiting, dehydration and a child becoming increasingly unwell may not immediately point to diabetes, but they could be signs of a serious and fast-moving underlying condition. That is why I ask the Minister to find every way possible to raise awareness of type 1 diabetes through all levels, using all the levers of Government.
I am conscious of time, so I will jump to the fact that we need to ensure that this basic pin-prick test can be used consistently and in a planned way. That reasonable and proportionate step could spare families the trauma of seeing their child become critically unwell before they are diagnosed, or families having to endure the very worst. Around Christmas, I read an article in which Lyla’s dad mentioned that Lyla would definitely have got a sticker—
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I join Members across the Chamber in paying tribute to Lyla Story, and I extend my deepest condolences to her family. No parent should ever have to endure the loss of a child. The courage and determination shown by Lyla’s parents, Emma and John Story, in relentlessly campaigning to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedy is nothing short of extraordinary.
With more than 120,000 signatures nationally, including 165 from my own constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, the petition reflects a deep and urgent concern among the general public that no parent should go through what Lyla’s parents did. We have heard about the symptoms and the consequences. Diabetes UK estimates that about 35,000 young people and children have diabetes, 96% of whom have type 1 diabetes. We have heard that one in four cases are not detected until it is too late.
I will jump to my request of the Government, which, supporting John and Emma’s campaign, is to have a national public awareness campaign explaining the four Ts across TV, radio, social media, schools, nurseries, surgeries, pharmacies and health visitor packs. Countries that have run sustained awareness campaigns, such as Italy, reduced DKA at diagnosis from approximately 40% to under 10%.
My final request—I do not have much time—is to mandate the rule that children presenting to a GP with any symptoms of diabetes should receive at finger-prick blood glucose test. Although that is in the NICE guidance, it is not enforced.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank Lyla’s family for their courage.
Some 95 of my Edinburgh North and Leith constituents signed this important petition, and I thank them for sharing their experiences. In particular, I want to share the story of one mum who told me about the devastating consequences that diabetes had for her family. She told me about her son Nick, who sadly died of this terrible disease aged 28. Nick’s initial diagnosis at 16 was dismissed by the doctor he went to see. It was only the family’s knowledge of what was happening that ensured Nick got to see the specialist he needed. Nick’s mum told me that, in his 12 years as a diabetic, he carried his type 1 diagnosis as lightly as possible, despite having to give himself more than 25,000 injections in that time.
Families such as Nick’s hope that by supporting the petition, our Government will take these vital steps towards making sure that life is made safer for children and adults living with type 1 diabetes. I share that view, and hope that the Government pay close attention to the experience of families across the country. I also urge the Scottish Medicines Consortium to consider similar changes for Scotland, and hope that the Scottish Government ensure that improvements are made for type 1 diagnosis and care.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, and I pay tribute to the members of the public present, who no doubt represent thousands of people online tonight.
The Lyla’s law campaign is a powerful reminder of the devastating consequences of missed or delayed diagnosis for type 1 diabetes in children and young people. It calls for improved education and guaranteed routine testing for children showing early symptoms before they reach diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition that requires emergency hospital care. Many families and parents learn about their children’s condition only once they have reached this potentially fatal stage. Not only is that traumatic and dangerous, putting a child’s life at risk, but it creates avoidable costs and puts strain on emergency healthcare services. Families should not have to wait for those serious complications to occur for a diagnosis to be made.
Despite this, the UK Government claim that there is still “insufficient evidence” to support routine mandatory testing for type 1 diabetes in babies, toddlers and young children. That is why the petition is so important. It calls for existing NHS guidance, which recommends the immediate testing of children and young people showing symptoms of type 1 diabetes—the fours Ts, which have been mentioned—to be formally legislated for. Current guidance alone is clearly not enough, and a standardised approach for all GPs and doctors is urgently needed.
A member of the Insulin Pump Awareness Group in Scotland recently wrote to me mentioning that they often wonder whether their own diagnosis 29 years ago would have been picked up had they not been made aware of the four Ts symptoms through family.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My West Dunbartonshire constituent Janice shared with me the very personal story of her daughter, who three years ago became so unwell that she was admitted to hospital. She was desperately ill, but she survived. The signs had been there, but they were missed, with the diagnosis coming at the very last moment, in an emergency setting. Will the hon. Member join me in commending the work of Diabetes Scotland and its efforts to improve testing, screening and early diagnosis in Scotland?
Seamus Logan
I completely agree with the hon. Member and endorse his suggestion.
This topic is personally important to me, not only because so many family members have been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes but—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) referred to—because of the premature death in 2022 of my nephew Nick Logan from complications arising from his original diagnosis at the age of 16.
Italy made history in 2023 by becoming the first country to introduce nationwide screening for the early detection of type 1 diabetes in children. In 2021, Scotland also led the way by being the first country to offer C-peptide blood tests to everyone with diabetes to address misdiagnosis. Although that may not be the same as a routine screening programme for type 1 diabetes, it demonstrates how routine testing can be implemented.
Childhood type 1 diabetes rates in the UK are among the highest in the world, ranking fifth globally for children aged 14 and under, according to the International Diabetes Federation. In conclusion, it is essential that the UK Government take a more targeted and strategic approach to improving the care and diagnosis of children and young people showing type 1 diabetes symptoms. That starts with the implementation of routine testing—
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role.
Earlier this year, I was contacted by Michelle, the mum of a bright little boy called Toby who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was just 20 months old. Michelle told me that when she was a child, she happened to overhear a conversation between her mum and the mum of her best friend who had just been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. That meant that Michelle recognised Toby’s symptoms, but, if she had not heard that conversation, she might never have made the connection.
Michelle took Toby to Cannock Chase hospital and raised her concerns about some of his symptoms, such as thirst and heavy nappies, with the doctor. He said that Toby just had an ear infection, but Michelle trusted her gut and insisted on a test. She was then told to take him to A&E due to his extremely high blood glucose and ketone levels, and it was there that he was diagnosed with type 1. Not all parents will have that knowledge. Not all parents will know what to look out for, nor should they. Michelle told me that, in many ways, they had been one of the lucky families. It was because she had recognised the symptoms and pushed for a test that Toby avoided going into diabetic ketoacidosis.
I want to pay tribute to Lyla and her parents, as others have, for campaigning tirelessly in their daughter’s name. As a dad myself, I cannot begin to imagine the pain that they must have been through, and I hope that through raising awareness of stories such as Lyla’s and Toby’s, we can bring about change.
A single finger-prick blood glucose test is cheap and takes seconds. In fact, when I met three-year-old Toby, he showed me that he can already do it himself. Toby has thankfully had excellent care from the team at New Cross hospital, who are helping his family navigate their new way of life, but sadly, that was not the case for Lyla, or for so many families. That is exactly why we in this House need to fix this.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Alec. I welcome the Minister to her place; it is great to see her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this e-petition debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the 240 of my constituents who signed it. I also thank the Story family for submitting the e-petition and for all the work that they do to raise awareness of the importance of early diagnosis and type 1 diabetes in memory of Lyla.
Prior to this debate, I was honoured to speak with Welsh campaigners Beth Baldwin and Emma Hopkins from Rewrite Peter’s Story—and Beth is here today in the Public Gallery. Beth’s son Peter suddenly and unexpectedly died aged 13 in 2015 from diabetic ketoacidosis as a result of undiagnosed type 1 diabetes. Beth had taken Peter to the GP with flu-like symptoms. After being diagnosed with a chest infection, Peter was prescribed antibiotics and sent home. Less than 24 hours later, Peter was fighting for his life. The first responder who was called to the house by Beth, on seeing Peter, gave him oxygen and performed a finger-prick test. His blood sugar was extremely high, and he was rushed to A&E. Unfortunately, he was already in diabetic ketoacidosis, and died a few days later.
Peter’s death was preventable. Instant blood glucose finger-prick tests are easily available and take seconds, but each year hundreds of children are hospitalised with diabetic ketoacidosis because of delays in diagnosis. Each year, 10 of those children end up dying. Concerningly, 40% of all child diagnoses occurred only once they reached critical care.
I am very pleased to hear about the campaigning of Lyla’s family and Peter’s family, and once again I want to thank them all for their work in drawing attention to these important issues. We must move swiftly to extend awareness and training on type 1 diabetes, and to ensure medical guidance is robust and that all primary care sites have the necessary testing equipment. We cannot afford to lose any more lives.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank John, Lyla’s father, for starting the petition. It was signed by 227 of my constituents in North West Leicestershire, and I would like to share as many of their experiences as I can in the time available. Throughout these stories, I heard over and over again the four Ts —“toilet”, “thirsty”, “tired” and “thinning”. In all the emails I have received on the matter, the one consistency has been families having to advocate for their children to get the care that they so obviously needed.
Jade, mum of Harry, said:
“Harry is not your ordinary child, he has a long list of disabilities, and he is nonverbal autistic. Harry could not tell me how he was feeling…but he lost so much weight.”
After weeks of trying to see a GP, she finally managed to get a doctor to take his blood sugar levels. Harry’s blood sugar was at 30 millimoles and he was in DKA, with ketones so high that he was on the verge of cardiac arrest. Jade said that day will haunt her forever.
Mark’s story with his daughter Katrina is similar. Katrina was diagnosed at two and a half years old. Although, unlike Harry, she did not suffer from DKA, it was a traumatic experience. Katrina was a healthy child, and when she started having night terrors, waking up drenched in sweat with heavy nappies and craving pasta at 11 pm, they knew that something was desperately wrong. The nurse recommended a urine test, and Mark got a phone call while his daughter was in nursery asking him to take her to the hospital immediately. She was admitted for 10 days in hospital.
A third constituent shared that her son was diagnosed with type 1 in May last year, just weeks before his seventh birthday. Fortunately, he was diagnosed early, and it was a non-emergency situation. It should not be a life-threatening situation just to get a diagnosis. Too often, healthcare professionals miss the key symptoms. When symptoms are missed, sadly, children like Lyla have their lives cut short. Screening for type 1 is crucial in infants so that we can help save lives.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is incredible to see that more than 121,000 people signed John Story’s powerful petition, which has enabled today’s debate. I am here to give two clear messages.
My first message is to apologise to local campaigners, particularly Mandy Hudson, who wrote to me about the need for this testing. I wrote back to indicate my support for the campaign, but I also gave information about the Government’s investment in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. That caused unnecessary hurt to families and sufferers of type 1 diabetes. Such is the divergence between the two conditions—their causes, symptoms and treatments—that some campaigners told me that they wished it had been given a completely different name. The stigma and lifestyle cause of type 2 is irrelevant to the sufferer of type 1 diabetes. Following my correspondence with the families, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health personally to reiterate my support for simple testing, but also to lodge a plea for separate messaging and communication plans for each disease.
My second message is the story of yet another family who fell victim to the lack of testing for and knowledge of type 1 diabetes in children. I met Jack Harvey, dad to little Albie Harvey, who is now a 20-month old toddler in Shrewsbury. A few months ago, he became very unwell and was diagnosed by the GP with tonsillitis, but did not respond to antibiotics. His parents met three GPs and spoke twice to 111 over the course of 10 days, before taking Albie to A&E, where he finally got his blood sugar test. His sugars were 39.9 and his ketones were 6.9. Luckily, he was blue-lighted to Telford, his life was saved and he is now receiving excellent care under the diabetic team at Shrewsbury.
I hope that the campaigners who have come all the way to London know that our Ministers are listening to the debate. Our new NHS plan is all about prevention and primary care. I am hopeful that we will listen to their message.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to you for allowing me to take part in the debate, Sir Alec. I apologise for my late arrival; I had a five-hour delay to my flight today, which is all part of the joys of highland living. I particularly wanted to take part as a consequence of representations I received from my constituent Gina Tait, who, but for the grace of God, could have found herself in the same situation as Lyla’s parents, with the same consequences. The fact that she did not was because she was simply not prepared to take no for an answer.
Gina told me that after her daughter had been seen the first time, by a GP in Britain, she was left feeling that she was somehow a pushy parent. Then, when she was on holiday in Morocco, she took her daughter to see a GP there. Again, she was told that there was nothing particularly wrong, and was nearly fobbed off with antibiotics for tonsillitis. It was only when she insisted for the third time that her daughter was diagnosed. Gina was not a pushy parent. She was a good mother who knew her own child and, as she says, “something just felt wrong”.
As well as Lyla’s law, which I 100% support, we need a campaign here and now so that parents have better awareness of the symptoms—the four Ts to which reference has been made. In that way, parents can act for themselves and take better control of the healthcare that is there for their children. I am delighted to see this petition debate today, and I am grateful to you, Sir Alec, for allowing me to take a brief part in it.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Alec. I am grateful to everyone who made the petition and the debate possible. In the short time available, the best service I can provide is to represent just some of the 181 Northfield constituents who signed the petition, in their own words. My constituent Charlotte said:
“As a child, at the age of 10, I was misdiagnosed with a stomach bug by my GP. I was later on that same night in a coma… My parents told my GP that I was showing signs of the 4 Ts—toilet, thirsty, tired and thinness. That same night, I nearly lost my life. The doctors and nurses prepared my parents for the worst, but thank God—I survived the coma, and was blessed to still be alive.”
Sadly, these are not just cases that have occurred in the past. Only a few short years ago, another constituent had to take her young child to accident and emergency. In her words,
“The A&E doctor ran the usual diagnostic tests and said: ‘Go home, continue the penicillin, and let them rest.’ I refused. Something in my gut told me this wasn’t right. The doctor then agreed to do a glucose finger prick test, which showed dangerous blood glucose and ketone levels. If I’d have taken him home that day then they wouldn’t be with us. That haunts me, and I never want another family to live through the trauma that we did.”
I am sorry to my other constituents whose stories I cannot recount in the few minutes available, but the common thread that unites them is some pre-existing awareness of type 1 diabetes. Children’s chances in life should not hang on that probability.
Extensive reference has been made in this debate to the ELSA study, undertaken and led by the University of Birmingham and across the city. The two-year results of that study show that a national screening test programme is feasible, with high levels of acceptance and returns. I warmly welcome the Minister to her place. When she responds, I will be grateful if she can update the House on the process by which the external advisory committee could reconsider the case for a new infant screening programme.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and to have the opportunity to debate this incredibly important issue.
As a mum, I cannot begin to imagine the pain of Lyla Story’s family after she died last May from undiagnosed type 1 diabetes, less than 24 hours after a doctor diagnosed her with acute tonsillitis. It is an absolute tragedy that Lyla’s life was cut so short, and it is clear that change must happen. Every child must get the care that they need, when and where they need it. Every child should expect the best possible opportunities to grow up healthy and to exercise, play and eat well.
Charities such as Diabetes UK have been instrumental in raising awareness of the common symptoms known as the four Ts, to which many hon. Members have alluded today: “toilet”, “thirsty”, “tired” and “thinner”. However, children are too often rushed into intensive care and hours later face a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis. DKA can mean a coma, organ failure and a traumatic hospital stay. If it is not treated quickly, it can be fatal.
No child or parent should have to face that terrifying reality when the tools are at our fingertips. NICE guidance is clear: health professionals should know the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes, and any child suspected to have the condition should be referred on the same day to a multidisciplinary paediatric diabetes team to confirm the diagnosis and provide immediate care.
The Liberal Democrats believe that early diagnosis of long-term health conditions is essential, offering the best opportunity for those suffering from type 1 diabetes to live healthy, long and fulfilling lives. I welcome the Minister to her place; will she confirm what steps have been taken to ensure that medical professionals are confident in identifying type 1 diabetes in children to avoid a traumatic late diagnosis? Research shows that patients who see the same clinician for most of their care have fewer hospital admissions and lower mortality rates. I therefore implore the Minister to take forward the Liberal Democrat proposal to guarantee a named GP to all those with type 1 diabetes to help improve their long-term care once a diagnosis is achieved.
Another key issue with type 1 diabetes is that we do not know the exact cause of the disease. It is essential that the Government drive research so that we can establish the evidence needed for a viable and effective national screening programme. I urge the National Screening Committee to take on board all new evidence as it emerges, not least from the ongoing study of screening children aged three to 13, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
The Government must also take steps to facilitate medical research in the UK to make progress on paediatric type 1 diabetes testing and other conditions. Will the Minister consult the Chancellor about whether she will consider reversing the employer national insurance contributions hike to support the life sciences sector and boost research and development funding to end this information desert?
The Liberal Democrats are clear that no child should die because of a missed or late diagnosis. The UK needs to be a world leader on research, diagnostics and patient experience. I think of Lyla and the many other children whose lives could have been saved, and I ask the Minister to pay attention to the many calls in this debate to ensure that no family spends a lifetime grieving.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I congratulate the Minister on her new role. It is a very important role in the Government, and I know that she will do it with great care and thoughtfulness.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing this important debate. I also give condolences to Lyla’s family and commend them on their bravery and their courage. I pay tribute to their work to prevent the same tragedy from happening to other families.
When one becomes a doctor, one gets trained in resuscitation. Many people are familiar with the resuscitation ABC—“airway, breathing, circulation”—but the full version is ABCDEFG: “airway, breathing, circulation, don’t ever forget glucose.” Sadly, some people do, as we have heard today. Every doctor is taught the signs of diabetes mellitus, what to look for and when to test sugar. I am hesitant to legislate medical guidance, because that still requires the awareness of the guidance’s existence. Changing the guidance in law instead of simply in practice may also reduce flexibility as evidence-based judgment comes to the fore. What is the Minister doing to increase awareness among doctors and wider clinical teams, as well as families and the wider public, so that we do not see cases of tragedy and near misses like those that we have heard about today?
Diabetes type 1 can present at any age, but it commonly presents in primary school and the early years of secondary school. Detection before it develops is challenging, and presentation is often very acute in children. It is an autoimmune condition, so antibodies are developed by the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, creating a deficiency in insulin, which is the cause of the illness.
The ELSA study, which has been mentioned, is looking at how we can detect that before a child becomes sick. It will look at 70,000 children. It starts with a simple finger-prick test, similar to that for sugar. It tests for three antibodies; if the person has any of those, they get a second test for four antibodies. We know that if they have two or more of those antibodies, their chance of becoming diabetic in the next 10 years is 75%. We also know that a medication called teplizumab, which was licensed in August 2025 for children over eight years old, may be able to prolong that time. There may be opportunities for further awareness and investigation for early diagnosis, but also for further drugs to be developed, which can delay the onset of diabetes in people who are susceptible to it. The analysis for the first 17,000 patients showed that 75 children had one antibody and 160 had two antibodies.
One of the challenges is determining the best age to test. When did these antibodies develop? What do they develop in response to? Does the test need repeating? If so, how often? I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) for her ten-minute rule Bill, which will provide leadership on those very important questions.
I also want to ask the Minister about diabetes treatment. For those who are diabetic, blood sugar control is a lifelong preoccupation, as my hon. Friend described. This is not just about the short-term risks of hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, although those are serious enough; the long-term complications from poor diabetic control include heart failure, strokes, amputation and blindness. The latest report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health showed that there were 33,437 children in England with diabetes mellitus, of whom 93.3% have type 1. These children have regular health checks, but only 66% of the over-12s receive those health checks. What is the Minister doing to increase the proportion? Haemoglobin A1c, or HbA1c, is a chronic measure of what the sugar level has been over time. It is 70.8 in black children, compared with 63.1 in white children and 63.9 in Asian children. What is the Minister’s understanding of what causes that disparity and what is she doing to improve the HbA1c in all children?
Technology can really help. The latest figures from an RCPCH study in this area, from 2023-24, show that continuous glucose monitoring of children increased from 49% to 79%, insulin pump usage increased from 45% to 56% in a year, and the use of the hybrid closed loop system increased from 15% to 36% in just one year. Such devices really improve diabetic control. What are the Government doing to increase the rollout of these technologies?
No one in this House wants to see any child become very sick or to see any family suffer the heartache that Lyla’s family have suffered. I pay tribute once again to Lyla’s family. This debate, the petition and the media reporting of this debate will all raise awareness, and I have no doubt that that will contribute to saving the life of some child somewhere in our nation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how she will increase clinician awareness and widen public awareness, improve research into screening and new treatments, improve early diagnosis, and roll out the best technologies and treatments to improve diabetic control for patients with diabetes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship from the Dispatch Box, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, following the petition related to funding for infants to receive type 1 diabetes testing and routine care. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part and for all the heartfelt speeches that we have been privileged to hear.
I am not surprised at all that the petition received 120,000 signatures after it was started, following—as we know—the tragic death of two-year-old Lyla Story from diabetic ketoacidosis mere hours after seeing her GP. I was deeply affected when I heard that a child so young had been taken so cruelly by a condition as common and manageable as type 1 diabetes. I thank and pay enormous tribute to Lyla’s parents, John and Emma Story, who have campaigned so passionately and powerfully at a time of such unimaginable grief. It is truly inspiring, and we hope that it will help to ensure that no other families will suffer as they have. I am so sorry, and I offer Mr and Mrs Story my deepest sympathies. No child or their family should be let down in this way.
We have started to make improvements to raise awareness, and this debate forms a very important part of that. During World Diabetes Day in November 2025, NHS England made a big push to raise awareness of the four Ts, which, as we have heard today, are the main symptoms of type 1 diabetes: thirst, tiredness, thinning, and an increased need to go to the toilet. This work was channelled via social media and a cascade to clinical networks, as well as by updating the nhs.uk pages to make them clearer. A RightCare toolkit was also published by NHS England, which is designed to support integrated care systems to design, plan and deliver high-quality treatment and care for children with all types of diabetes.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister to her place. I should declare that I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of three, so I cannot begin to imagine the pain that Mr and Mrs Story, and other affected families who are in the Public Gallery or watching this debate online, have felt—particularly my constituent Levi, who lost her beloved son Eli at the age of two after five misdiagnoses of viruses and infection. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that future guidance will be drafted to emphasise to clinicians that infections and viruses can be not only a symptom, but sometimes a trigger of type 1 diabetes, so that clinicians will have, we hope, the understanding to avoid the tragic losses that we have heard about today?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank the former Secretary of State for Health for her important intervention. I was not aware that she was type 1 diabetic herself, and the case of Levi that she mentioned is so pertinent to what we are discussing. Mr Story has been working with NICE, and that guidance is currently being updated. As the right hon. Member says, it is so important to get that information out there, so that all GPs are brought up to date and know that infections and viruses can be a trigger, so I thank her for that intervention.
The RightCare toolkit that is being brought forward also contains important information for clinicians in setting out what good quality diabetes care looks like for children and includes guidance on timely and accurate diagnosis. However, we recognise that more needs to be done, and that is why NHS England is working on how we can better support NHS staff to diagnose patients as quickly as possible and raise awareness of symptoms for parents and families.
Tom Gordon
The Minister is talking about how the toolkit will outline for GPs what good diabetes care looks like. That independent advocacy and scrutiny function often came from Healthwatch, which will be abolished in the changes to the NHS and rolled into DHSC. Can she outline how we will ensure scrutiny of services such as diabetes care, which have the patient voice at their heart?
Mrs Hodgson
If I may, I will write to the hon. Member on his important point, rather than giving a possibly unsatisfactory answer off the top of my head.
The NHS is exploring how IT can be better used to support GPs in making more accurate diagnoses. That includes how existing electronic patient record—EPR— systems could be used more effectively to provide prompts for GPs to consider type 1 diabetes when particular symptoms are added. I can update the House that clinical leaders in NHS England are also working with digital diabetes education providers to develop a primary care healthcare professional education module.
While we are working on options to improve type 1 diabetes diagnosis, a requirement for a mandatory finger-prick test for those presenting with possible symptoms of type 1 diabetes is difficult to enact and could not be delivered quickly. I hear the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) in her excellent speech—many others also made this point—about how all GP practices should have the necessary equipment and finger-prick testing kits, and several hon. Members raised the issue of NHS funding for point-of-contact testing kits. I can reassure them that there is good clinician access to those tests. What we need to do is ensure that their use is at the forefront of clinicians’ minds when the symptoms present, which is exactly what Mr and Mrs Story called for in their petition.
One Member raised the abolition of NHS England. I can reassure Members that, as part of that change process, policy functions will transfer into the Department as appropriate. Clinicians follow clinical guidelines set out by NICE, which are advisory and not mandatory. They are not mandatory because they are designed as evidence-based advice to inform rather than to replace clinical judgment, allowing for tailored care for individual patients. Guidelines cannot cover every unique patient scenario, and clinicians must therefore maintain responsibility for treatment decisions.
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Before entering this place, I worked for Breakthrough T1D, and one thing that came up all too often was that clinicians did not feel that they had the funding to give people the treatment they needed. The Minister makes the point about giving them independence, but does she acknowledge that if they do not have the funding to do that, the guidance falls at the first hurdle?
Mrs Hodgson
That might be a fair point on some treatments more widely, but funding is not an issue for the finger-prick test—it is very affordable for the NHS, and I am told that funding is not the issue on the point we are debating today. I am pleased that NICE has been able to respond very quickly to Mr and Mrs Story. It has engaged with them in detail and listened to their concerns about how the guidance could be clearer.
I am very pleased that NICE has recently said it will update the guidance and guidelines on the diagnosis and management of type 1 and 2 diabetes in children, to raise the prominence of the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis in children with undiagnosed diabetes. I understand that the conversation Mr Story is having with NICE is ongoing, and that NICE is also considering an update to the adult guidance in due course. I know that Mr Story has raised further recommendations with NICE to improve that guidance. I am sure NICE will be considering it very carefully.
I would like again to put on record my admiration for the huge effort and determination of Mr Story in campaigning to raise awareness and advocating for improvements. The updating of NICE guidance is tangible proof of his efforts; his time has not been wasted.
I recognise that the immediate issue raised is point-of-care testing, but I should update the House in saying that, more broadly, we are also funding the delivery of research to develop and test novel approaches for diagnosing type 1 diabetes earlier and more accurately through the NIHR. That includes an investigation of the use of a new home test for type 1 diabetes in children and young people. Studies are also identifying ways to improve the diagnosis of type 1 and 2 diabetes based on genetics, making prediction more accessible and more effective.
We are also supporting the delivery of research into type 1 diabetes treatment, again through the NIHR. That includes supporting a new UK-wide type 1 diabetes cell therapy clinical trials network. The aim is to ensure all people with the condition gain access to the latest cutting-edge treatments as early as possible. The NIHR’s research delivery network is also supporting the delivery of a study that aims to identify infants at risk of developing type 1 diabetes, and to study new treatments with the aim of preventing the development of the condition.
In addition, following the publication of NICE’s guidance recommending the use of hybrid closed loop systems as a treatment option for type 1 diabetes in children, the NHS began a five-year roll-out of HCLs in 2024. For those who are not familiar with that technology, an HCL acts as an artificial pancreas that lets a person’s insulin pump talk to their continuous glucose monitor. I am sure that adults in particular with type 1 diabetes are very aware of HCLs, but the use of HCLs in children under 19 has now increased from 36% in 2023-24 to 70% in 2025-26. That is significant progress in making that life-changing technology available to more children and young people.
Returning to the issue of diagnosis, the NHS is exploring how IT can be better used to support GPs in making more accurate diagnoses. That includes how existing electronic patient record systems could be used more effectively to provide prompts for GPs to consider type 1 diabetes when particular symptoms are added. I can inform the House that clinical leaders in NHS England are working with digital providers of diabetes education to develop an education module for primary care healthcare professionals.
A few Members mentioned screening, so I would like to take this opportunity to set out the Government’s position. Although we know that screening for antibodies would sadly not have helped Lyla, screening tests may help to improve our ability to identify those who are most likely to develop type 1 diabetes in future. We are guided by the independent scientific advice of the UK National Screening Committee, as it is vital that screening programmes are evidence-based and evidence-led. The committee does not currently recommend screening for type 1 diabetes, due to a lack of evidence.
However, the committee received a submission, via its 2024 open-call process, to consider screening for autoimmune type 1 diabetes through blood testing. Once NICE has published its recommendation on the drug teplizumab, which is expected this year, the National Screening Committee will consider whether a fresh review of the evidence for type 1 diabetes screening should be undertaken.
In addition, NHS England is looking carefully to see what further improvements might be made to the red book and to support increased awareness for parents and families so that they can see what the symptoms of type 1 diabetes are. I know that was an important part of the petition.
In closing, I thank all those present for taking part in this very important debate, as well as our constituents—all 120,000 of them—who took the time to sign the petition and press us all on this very important matter. I hope that the work that is currently being taken forward across diagnosis and awareness shows the seriousness with which this issue is being taken.
I am pleased that John and Emma Story will be meeting the Secretary of State for Health tomorrow to discuss this further, along with their constituency MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who is here for the debate. I am sure that will be a very emotional and powerful meeting for Mr and Mrs Story. I wish them well and, in closing, pay tribute to them again for everything they have done in Lyla’s name to try to ensure that no other family follows in their footsteps.
Irene Campbell
I thank the Minister for her response. The petition and the surrounding debate focus on a very important and sensitive area: the importance of timely diagnosis. I thank Mr John Story again for his tireless campaigning on Lyla’s law and for taking the time to meet me to tell his story. I hope, as he does, that no parent ever again has to go through what he and his wife Emma have gone through.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who has supported the petitioners in her capacity as the local MP and will be attending tomorrow’s meeting with the Secretary of State. I also thank the Royal College of General Practitioners; Dr Rachel Besser, a consultant at the University of Oxford who is leading the T1 early research programme and undertaking work on screening for childhood type 1 diabetes; and Dr Parth Narendran, who leads the ELSA study at the University of Birmingham. Each of those experts kindly took the time to meet me and answer questions on this multifaceted clinical topic.
Finally, as ever, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee for all their help in organising this debate and the related meetings.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 728677 relating to type 1 diabetes testing for infants.
Written Statements
Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
RB Investco Ltd, which previously sought to buy Telegraph Media Group Holdings, is in the process of selling its call option to do so. On 19 February 2026, I gave RB Investco permission to derogate from the pre-existing Public Interest Merger Reference (Telegraph Media Group Limited) (Pre-emptive Action) Order 2024, in order to sell its call option to the Daily Mail and General Trust. This permission was granted without prejudice to any decision I might have made following the outcome of the investigations by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority that were triggered by the public interest intervention notice I issued on 12 February 2026 in relation to the same prospective transaction.
On Friday 6 March 2026, I was informed by representatives of RB Investco that the existing deal with DMGT was no longer in prospect and that RB Investco intends to accept instead an offer from the German media company Axel Springer.
Under the terms of the 2024 order, transfer of the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group Holdings is only permitted with the prior written consent of the Secretary of State. On 6 March I also received a formal request from the representatives of RB Investco to allow RB Investco to derogate from the 2024 order in order to sell its call option to Axel Springer.
I will thoroughly assess the proposed new deal under the public interest and foreign state influence media mergers regime, in my quasi-judicial role, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002.
I remain acutely aware that the ongoing uncertainty is detrimental to the stability of the Telegraph, and particularly for its staff, and it is of paramount importance to me that a resolution is reached without further delay.
I will update Parliament again at the earliest appropriate moment.
[HCWS1380]
WaterSure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I am announcing proposed reforms to the affordability support scheme WaterSure—the first significant update to the scheme since 1999. This Government are committed to a fair, affordable, and accessible water system and we are acting to protect vulnerable families from rising bills.
WaterSure provides vital support for households with essential high-water usage, whether due to a medical condition or because three or more children live at home. More than 260,000 households currently save an average of £325 a year through the scheme.
We are introducing four key reforms to strengthen WaterSure which we intend to bring forward through a statutory instrument. These reforms will extend support, and remove unnecessary barriers:
First, we are widening eligibility to households receiving non-means tested disability benefit—Personal Independence Payment, Disability Living Allowance, and Attendance Allowance—where a medical condition leads to high essential water use and household income is below an income threshold of £25,745—the income profile of a representative Universal Credit household with a disability. Over 50,000 additional households could benefit.
Second, we will ensure every WaterSure customer receives the strongest level of protection available by requiring water companies to apply the best discount possible for recipients, whichever is lower between the company’s average metered bill, or overall average bill. Around 130,000 households are expected to save more as a result.
Third, we are introducing a new single-occupier bill cap to correct a historic unfairness where single disabled households with high essential water use could not benefit from the existing average-household bill cap, despite similar medical needs. Over 50,000 individuals living alone with a disability are expected to save a further £100 per year.
Finally, we are removing the option for companies to require a medical practitioner’s certificate for conditions not individually listed in regulations. All companies already accept broader evidence, such as appointment letters or prescriptions. This change ensures that applicants are not deterred by unnecessary costs.
This Government are rebuilding a water system that is fairer, more transparent and more responsive to the needs of vulnerable customers. These reforms to WaterSure are an important step in delivering our mission to put consumers first and restore trust in our essential services.
[HCWS1386]
UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
The Government and the European Commission agreed in May 2025 to pursue a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that will make it easier, cheaper and quicker to move food, plants, animals and related goods across our borders.
British businesses throughout the agrifood and related sectors currently face unnecessary costs, burdens and delays when trading with our closest and largest market. The agreement will address these issues:
Businesses will save money. Those trading with the EU—both exporters and importers, large and small—will benefit from less money spent on complex paperwork at the border. Routine border checks by port health authorities that currently apply to dairy, fish, eggs and red meat imports will be removed, reducing fees, costs associated with queuing and delays, and lowering the risk of spoilage.
Trade will flow faster. Fresh produce will reach supermarket shelves more quickly. Supply chains will become more resilient, strengthening food security here and in Europe. And for the first time since Brexit, agrifoods will move without physical checks and excessive paperwork between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Markets will be unlocked. Trade in products such as fresh sausages and burgers, certain types of shellfish and seed potatoes will resume, supporting British businesses to expand their production. Consumers on both sides of the Channel will have greater access to the high-quality products they value and will ease pressures on food price inflation.
Negotiations are expected to conclude in the coming months, and we are aiming for businesses to be ready for, and benefit from, the deal from mid-2027.
Businesses of course need clarity, time and support to prepare. The agreement will require all businesses affected to align with relevant elements of EU SPS legislation, and this may necessitate adjustments to, for example, processing methods, certification and labelling requirements, IT systems, and other aspects of compliance and assurance. This will apply to all businesses in the relevant sectors, regardless of whether they export to or import from the European Union. We are committed to providing timely, sector-specific guidance as soon as negotiations allow.
To that end, we are today publishing details on which legislation is in scope of the agreement, the broad changes this will entail and the sectors that will therefore be affected. We are also stating clearly our ambition for businesses to be able to benefit from the deal in mid-2027.
We know that some sectors will need more time and support than others to be ready and are today launching a call for information so that businesses can tell us what support and guidance they need. We will use that information to co-design and deliver support and guidance with businesses through to mid-2027. This will be further supported by a new stakeholder advisory board.
Businesses can already begin taking steps to get ready: engaging with trade bodies, signing up for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alerts, and considering how potential changes may affect their operations.
The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will mark a major stride in resetting and modernising our relationship with the EU, grounded in our shared interests, common challenges and practical co-operation. It will deliver real benefits for British businesses. By preparing now, businesses can ensure that they are ready to make the most of those opportunities from day one.
I will continue to update the House as negotiations progress and as further guidance becomes available.
[HCWS1381]
Fraud Strategy 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Hanson of Flint, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
Today the Government publish their fraud strategy 2026, outlining their response to tackling to most common crime in the UK.
Fraud affects millions of people and businesses every year. It causes severe financial losses and emotional harm, and it undermines confidence in our economy and our digital systems. These crimes are often committed by transnational, organised crime groups who are becoming more sophisticated. These criminals are leveraging technology, exploiting global networks and adapting faster than ever, and this requires an equally sophisticated response. The fraud strategy 2026 sets out our plan to tackle fraud. Working alongside law enforcement and industry, it is built on three pillars: disrupt, safeguard and respond.
First, we will disrupt fraud before it reaches victims by reducing criminals’ access to the tools they use to reach victims. To achieve this, we will launch the Online Crime Centre—a new capability that will bring together law enforcement, intelligence agencies and industry expertise to identify and dismantle fraud networks. We will also work with industry and regulators to shut down some of the most frequent avenues for criminals, including those that abuse the telecommunications networks, social media and online advertising. With the majority of fraud having an overseas element, we will also strengthen international disruption efforts and build a global coalition including by sponsoring the 2026 Global Fraud Summit, hosted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and Interpol.
Secondly, we will safeguard UK citizens and businesses by reducing vulnerability and building resilience among individuals and businesses. We will expand proactive policing initiatives and use advanced data models to identify fraud hotspots and deploy targeted interventions, especially to the most vulnerable. We will also provide clear, accessible advice to help people recognise fraud, protect their personal information and take action before harm occurs. Building on the success of the “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign, we will scale up our national communications effort to deliver consistent, impactful messaging across multiple forms of communication.
Thirdly, when fraud does occur, we must respond with the support and justice that victims are entitled to. We will standardise victim support services and ensure each victim receives consistent care, regardless of where in the country they live. Following its launch this year, the new Report Fraud service will replace Action Fraud with a new, modern and user-friendly platform that simplifies reporting and provides timely updates, offering greater intelligence for law enforcement to act on. We will also explore the use of civil powers to complement criminal proceedings so that we can respond more swiftly and deliver faster, more effective justice for victims.
This strategy represents our efforts to fight fraud alongside partners. Delivering against the commitments in the strategy will make the United Kingdom a harder place for criminals to target and a safer place to live, work and do business.
The fraud strategy, Cmd 1523, has been laid before the House and is also available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1383]
Economic Crime Information Sharing
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Economic crime is a significant threat to our national security and to the prosperity of the UK. To effectively prevent, investigate and disrupt economic crime, it is vital that public bodies and private sector entities are able to share and exploit data. Where an organisation has access only to its own information, it is unable to spot criminal networks operating across sectors, businesses and jurisdictions.
In recent years, Government, law enforcement and the private sector have made significant progress to enhance information-sharing capabilities, having launched in 2015 the UK’s joint money laundering investigations taskforce, which has evolved into a multi-layered capability that now includes public-private threat groups and time-limited cells that address specific economic crimes. More recently, also underpinned by section 7 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the National Crime Agency and financial sector partners have created a dynamic data-led arm of public-private partnership that integrates banking data with law enforcement data to target poly-criminality, known as data fusion.
However, it is clear that the legislative landscape remains complex. Regulations operate differently across sectors, there are operational challenges in joining together separate datasets and, more broadly, there is often a lack of confidence and trust to share information due to the threat of legal challenge.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing a call for evidence on economic crime information sharing. This call for evidence focuses on identifying legal, operational and cultural barriers to effective data sharing for the purposes of tackling crime, as well as opportunities to strengthen the system through reform.
I invite individuals and organisations to share their views with Government, including law enforcement, regulators, prosecutors, businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector, technology platforms, telecoms providers, online marketplaces, and others that hold valuable data relevant to economic crime threats.
A copy of the call for evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1382]
Social Cohesion Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government have published “Protecting What Matters”, which has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper, setting out initial steps to strengthen social cohesion in the UK.
Our first duty as Government is to protect our country. That means fighting back against hostile actors from home and abroad and bringing those of us who are proud of the UK together in pursuit of a safer, stronger, more prosperous country.
As a nation we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together. But the foundations on which this country has been built, from which our principles of compassion and community were originally drawn, have been rocked.
Economic shocks, austerity, technological change, demographic changes and the rise in extremism have each made people feel as if they have lost a sense of control over their lives, their country and their community. They have reacted not just at the ballot box, but through online echo chambers exacerbated by malevolent algorithms, and in the polarisation of public life leaving us more detached from one another and less resilient.
The threat this presents to our cohesion is not academic. People from different backgrounds getting on together is not a nice-to-have, it is a fundamental precondition to the Britain we have come to expect and one that is needed for Britain to thrive in the 21st century.
This plan is what patriotism means to this Government. And if you say or imply instead that patriotism has anything at all to do with the colour of someone’s skin or their religion, then you are wrong, and we will fight you. We choose to celebrate our national successes and historic achievements, we choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times, and we choose to take on those who try to divide us.
Our “Protecting What Matters” plan sets out our initial steps:
Confident communities: Recognising that communities thrive when there are strong connections between people from all walks of life, we will invest in the spaces and structures that bring people together and restore a sense of pride in the places we live. Headline policies include:
Committing up to £5.8 billion across almost 300 places, including up to £800 million over 10 years to a further 40 areas where social cohesion is under pressure, as part of the Pride in Place programme.
Investing £500,000 to fund additional community-led, school-linking projects, on top of the local authorities already funded.
Stronger oversight of home schooling to ensure all children receive a suitable education and meaningful opportunities to meet, learn and play with their peers.
Cohesive communities: Cohesive communities not only bring people together but create the conditions for them to integrate and live full lives. This publication clarifies our shared responsibility to manage the pace of change in our communities, support integration and remove divides within communities, encouraging people to come together and foster a shared sense of belonging and understanding. Headline policies include:
Setting clear integration expectations for communities, focused on stronger social connections, shared identity, a shared language and participation in work.
Mandating that citizenship is taught in both primary and secondary schools in order to highlight the relevance of the democratic process and constitutional principles such as the rule of law, as well as raise awareness of threats to democracy
Developing a social cohesion measurement framework to provide clearer, consistent metrics to measure local cohesion, and developing a cross-Government integration strategy underpinned by strong collaboration with local and strategic authorities
Tackling religious hatred through actions including rolling out training across the civil service, further protective security funding for faith communities, and ensuring hate crimes are prosecuted with the full force of the law.
Acting on the recommendations of Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges, and on the recommendations of Lord Mann’s review of how the healthcare system deals with antisemitism and other forms of racism.
Adopting a definition of anti-Muslim hostility that focuses on protecting individuals. With levels of anti-Muslim hate crimes at a record high, this non-statutory definition will serve as a tool to improve understanding, reporting, and wider approaches to tackling anti-Muslim hostility. It will support wider efforts to tackle religious hatred and build safer, more cohesive communities, while crucially ensuring everyone’s rights to freedom of expression are protected. Copies of the definition have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Resilient communities: Citizens have a right to expect that the Government will foster the conditions in which connection, pride, and confidence can flourish. Underpinning all of this is keeping people safe both online and offline, and stopping those who seek to undermine our shared values by radicalising others into committing acts of extremism. Community cohesion is therefore critical to our national security. Headline policies include:
Embedding the Government 2024 extremism definition across Government, working closely with frontline partners such as the police, recognising that a consistent understanding of extremism is essential to tackling it effectively.
Publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report setting out the nature and scale of the current threat facing the UK and Government action to counter its activity and influence.
Strengthening Charity Commission powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the power to shut down charities and suspend trustees.
Strengthening measures to counter extremism in university campuses, including monitoring of non-compliance with the Prevent duty.
Enhancing our specialist disruptions unit to detect, expose and counter extremist influence across the UK.
Expanding the reach of our visa taskforce to stop extremists entering the UK.
Boosting media literacy and ensure greater transparency for online platforms.
I hope the House will support this action plan because its aims and policies are long-term, but we will be unwavering regardless, because we have already made our choice: in place of division, we have chosen unity.
We know that the real Britain has made that choice too. The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fetes to bring their kids together. The real Britain is where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club, with the same passion as they would support their nation in the world cup. The real Britain is where councillors and officers fight for the place they call home, day-in, day-out. The real Britain is out there—it might not be as loud or as brash as those who seek to divide us, but it is far, far greater in number. Real patriotism is about backing them up. Real patriotism is on their side.
[HCWS1389]
Supported Housing Advisory Panel
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Supported housing helps people to live as independently as possible in the community. With good quality care or support and the right accommodation, some of the most vulnerable people in society can thrive.
I am delighted to confirm that the Supported Housing Advisory Panel has now been formally established, marking an important milestone in delivering the requirements set out in section 1 of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.
The panel will play a vital role in offering valuable insight and expert advice on the implementation of the Act, helping to ensure that the changes introduced have a meaningful and positive impact on the quality of supported housing. In addition, the panel will provide guidance on wider issues affecting supported housing, contributing to stronger oversight and improved outcomes for residents.
Further details about the panel, including its full membership, can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/supported-housing-advisory-panel
I very much look forward to working with the panel and to hearing their insights as this important work progresses.
[HCWS1388]
Patrick Finucane Inquiry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 11 September 2024, I announced the establishment of an independent statutory inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane in February 1989, under the Inquiries Act 2005. This decision was in response to the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court, which found that the previous investigations into the murder had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights.
Today, the Government have published the terms of reference for the Patrick Finucane inquiry. This follows the appointment of the right hon. Sir Gary Hickinbottom as Chair of the Patrick Finucane inquiry and the Baroness O’Loan and Francesca Del Mese as assessors to the inquiry, which I announced on 13 June 2025.
The terms of reference have been developed following formal consultation with Sir Gary, as required by the Inquiries Act. Sir Gary, in turn, consulted the family of Patrick Finucane who provided very helpful feedback and observations. I would like to thank Sir Gary and the Finucane family for their engagement and feedback throughout the process.
Patrick Finucane was brutally murdered in his home in Belfast in front of his wife, Geraldine (who was also wounded), and his three children. This was a barbaric and heinous crime. I commend the tireless campaign of Mrs Finucane and her family over the course of 37 years in seeking answers about the brutal murder of their loved one, and I am pleased that the inquiry will now finally be able to get under way.
I am satisfied that the terms of reference, as set out below, will enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the ECHR.
I have placed a copy of the terms of reference in the Library of the House.
The Patrick Finucane inquiry is now formally established. Its terms of reference are attached.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-09/HCWS1387
[HCWS1387]
Intelligence and Security Committee: Cloud Technologies Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On Monday 5 January, I received the Intelligence and Security Committee’s closed report on cloud technologies.
I thanked the Committee for their diligent work and for the independent and robust oversight they provide.
The Government shared a formal closed response to the report with the ISC on Friday 6 March.
[HCWS1385]
General Lighthouse Authorities: Light Dues 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
A safe, efficient and innovative maritime sector is fundamental to the United Kingdom’s economic strength and global competitiveness. The general lighthouse authorities are central to this ambition. Through their maintenance of essential aids to navigation and their rapid response to new wrecks and emerging hazards, the GLAs safeguard some of the busiest sea lanes in the world and enable the smooth and reliable movement of the goods that the UK’s economy depends upon.
This high standard of maritime safety is the result of the contribution of the shipping industry through the light dues system. Light dues ensure that the GLAs’ services are funded directly by those who benefit from them, without requiring support from the UK Exchequer. However, like many essential services, the GLAs are facing increasing operational costs and pressures. Without action, these pressures could compromise their ability to deliver the resilient and modern navigational infrastructure that maritime users rightly expect.
To support the high-quality service on which the maritime sector relies, I have decided to increase the light dues rate by one penny, to 46p per net registered tonne for 2026-27, and by a further penny, to 47p for 2027-28. These modest adjustments will provide the stability and certainty that the GLAs need to plan and deliver their critical programmes of work.
Light dues will continue to be reviewed annually. This ensures that the GLAs remain firmly focused on delivering an efficient, value-for-money service while upholding the safety and reliability that underpin the UK’s reputation as a world-leading maritime nation.
[HCWS1384]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this draft order, laid on 2 February 2026.
The statutory purpose of the Construction Industry Training Board, or the CITB, is to secure better training provision across the construction sector. The 2023 independent review of the industry training boards, led by Mark Farmer, reaffirmed their continuing value in addressing persistent and structural workforce challenges. Crucially, the review concluded that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for securing the level of skills investment that the industry requires.
This statutory instrument gives effect to the CITB’s levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the CITB’s primary funding source and, without this order, the board cannot raise mandatory assessments on in-scope employers. Levy funding enables the CITB to deliver essential support to tackle skills shortages and market failures across England, Scotland and Wales. Although views in the sector can vary, the levy proposals continue to command strong employer support. These proposals are the result of detailed consultation and a robust consensus process. In spring 2025, the CITB consulted all 14 prescribed organisations, or sector federations, alongside a structured survey of non-represented employers. Over 67% of levy-paying employers supported the proposals, representing almost 72% of levy value—well above the thresholds for consensus to be achieved.
Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I will return to the findings of the Farmer review. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to consult industry on bringing together the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to create a single unified body, supporting the combined skills needs of construction and engineering construction. This reflects a key recommendation of the Farmer review, accepted by the Government subject to further scoping. It builds on existing ITB collaborations such as the Sizewell C charter: a joint commitment by the ITBs, local authorities and Sizewell C to ensure a skilled and inclusive workforce for delivering this vital nuclear power station.
The consultation will launch shortly and the views expressed by industry will inform a decision on how to proceed. No outcome can be prejudged and the earliest that any change could take effect is April 2027. Any future levy arrangements arising from reform would come before Parliament in the usual way. Until then, maintaining the CITB’s ability to operate effectively makes approval of this statutory instrument essential.
To turn to the levy proposals, this SI maintains current levy rates. Despite a 36% increase in employer demand for CITB services since 2021, rates are held steady to support businesses navigating difficult trading conditions. The order also raises exemption and reduction thresholds to protect small and micro-businesses from levy pressures linked to wage inflation. Employers with wage bills up to £149,999 will be exempt, while those with wage bills between £150,000 and £499,999 will receive a 50% reduction. Approximately 69% of eligible employers will therefore continue to pay no levy, with a further 15% paying a reduced rate. All these employers remain eligible for CITB support.
The CITB estimates that the levy will raise around £243 million per year to invest in supporting skills needs. In the most recent year, the CITB supported over 30,000 apprentices and 20,000 vocational qualification achievements and provided nearly £130 million in grants, including £60 million for small and micro firms. It also committed up to £40 million for fast-track training and apprenticeships in areas of high demand for homebuilding skills.
This funding directly underpins broader economic priorities. The construction sector contributes over £211 billion annually and employs more than 2 million people. Yet its fragmented nature, characterised by high self-employment and complex supply chains, makes voluntary, industry-wide investment in skills unlikely to occur. Without a statutory levy, the workforce needed to deliver the UK’s economic ambitions simply would not materialise at the required scale. If this order were not approved, the CITB would be unable to collect levy in 2026, impacting apprenticeships, qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of an industry fundamental to growth, housing delivery and national infrastructure.
The UK requires an estimated additional 240,000 construction workers by 2029, with particular pressures in infrastructure, repair and maintenance, and homebuilding. Agreeing this order is therefore critical to delivering the Government’s commitment to 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament and to supporting major infrastructure and clean energy projects across Great Britain. The proposals have the full support of the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who, like industry, recognise the importance of maintaining the CITB’s ability to raise and invest levy income. For these reasons, I commend the instrument and I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her helpful and informative remarks. Skills and training are crucial for Britain, struggling to keep her place in a very competitive global market, and this board is a great and important player in British skilling. It is a good measure and I think that £243 million are involved somewhere in the helpful notes that the department has offered us.
I have some questions that I think might be answered by officials. Very briefly, what is the current grand total of construction apprenticeships for the latest year available? Are there graduate apprenticeships in this industry, and in what numbers? Is the department satisfied with its health and safety record, given the nature of the industry that we are considering?
I find that this proposal brings memories which I think are relevant to anyone considering the future of this great industry. It was the case that, in the early 1980s, big changes were made in these boards. I recollect that, in the other place, the Secretary of State, James Prior, was helped by a Parliamentary Secretary by the name of Morrison.
Time and again, after 10 pm and with three-line Whips, we had orders to abolish board after board—to the point where, although the Opposition of whom I was a part always voted against abolition in this instance, the Government usually had their way. All that was left of these training boards were the great engineering board and the construction industry board. It seems that the start of the problems that Britain now faces around skills and training relates to the decisions taken by the then Government in voting that always happened after 10 pm and went on until midnight. The Government of the day had a good majority, so they got their way.
When I was in the other place, I found that builders were very much against what was proposed in having these issues put on them. I found that, in an era of mass unemployment in the early 1980s, it was very obvious that the apprenticeship boards were being closed down. Even the great companies of Courtaulds, BAE and British Steel pretty well decided not to have apprenticeships. The bottom line was: what was to be made if there were to be any chances of what I would call advantages from the great loss to Great Britain and to our young people? If we look back to those years—the late 1970s and, in particular, the early 1980s—there were great problems.
I hope that the questions I have asked will be answered before the end of the debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones; his long and extensive memories of the issues here really highlighted the depth and length of the problem that is the background to this statutory instrument.
I thank the Minister for her introduction, which was very clear. I also commend the impact assessment—my plaudits go to the people who prepared it—because it is far better than those that we see for many of these SIs. It sets out a picture of an industry, the construction industry, which is in deep trouble when we need it to be tackling the incredibly poor quality of housing stock in particular and building stock more generally, for which the building in which we are standing might be taken as a symbol. We have here an SI whose proposals, to quote the impact assessment, “include little change” for 2026 compared with 2025. The problems are much broader; an industry training levy can tackle only so much.
I have some questions for the Minister; I will understand if she wants to write to me rather than respond from the Dispatch Box. Paragraph 13 of the impact assessment highlights the heavy reliance on subcontracting and self-employment. This is associated with very poor levels of mental health in the construction sector. The figures on suicide and attempted suicide among employees in the sector, who are often on very low wages and in very insecure employment, are deeply concerning.
That is a huge human problem, but it is also a huge problem for the workforce. As the impact assessment says:
“The industry is very cyclical, with drops in output and employment when there is an economic downturn”.
I recall being at a National Insulation Association conference, in 2011, I believe, when it basically said that the industry was closing down because government funding for it had stopped, and that all its most skilled people were going off to do something else and probably would not come back when there was an uplift.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in thanking the Minister for introducing this order and setting out its purpose so clearly. I confirm at the outset that the Opposition support it.
As the Minister outlined, the order enables the Construction Industry Training Board to continue raising the levy for a further year in order to support training across the construction sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, reminded us, the levy system has a long history, originating in the Industrial Training Acts of 1964 and 1982. The system exists to address a well-recognised challenge within the sector—namely, without co-ordinated action, investment in training and skills can fall far short of what is required. This is particularly important at a time when the construction industry faces significant workforce pressures. The sector employs around 2.6 million people, yet, as the Minister explained, thousands of additional workers will be required each year to meet future demand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, identified one or two key questions. I join her in expressing concern about the mental health aspect that she outlined; it raises deep concern and needs to be addressed. In addition, if we are to have a strong and sustainable skills pipeline, the noble Baroness was right to draw attention to paragraph 87 of the draft impact assessment and the need for a pipeline that will be diverse and wide-ranging to ensure that we deliver wider economic and infrastructure priorities. The work supported by the levy clearly plays an important role in that effort. Grants for apprenticeships, qualifications and short course training, as well as initiatives such as the travel to train grant and the new entrant support scheme, provide valuable support to employers and learners right across the industry. It is also encouraging to see that a large proportion of the support reaches the vital small and micro-businesses that form such a significant part of the construction sector.
While we support the continuation of the levy, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few points, as well as answering the specific questions that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have asked. First, given the scale of the projected workforce shortfall in construction, how confident are the Government that the current level of the levy will be sufficient to meet the sector’s future skills needs? Are there ongoing discussions with the Construction Industry Training Board about how the levy and its associated programmes might evolve to respond to these pressures?
Secondly, one of the long-standing challenges in construction is the industry’s aging workforce and the difficulty of attracting new entrants. Can the Minister say a little more about how the Government see the levy supporting efforts to bring more young people into construction careers? The noble Lord, Lord Jones, reminded me that he and I used to face each other across the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, when I was the Minister and he was the shadow—a reverse of what had happened a little earlier when he was the Minister and I was the shadow. We have a combined wish to see an increase in apprenticeships. The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, came up with the concept of a new form of apprenticeship and I was happy to play a part, with my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, in launching the modern apprenticeships. It would be helpful to know from the Minister exactly what is happening with the need to increase those modern apprenticeships and their availability.
Finally, given the high proportion of small and micro-businesses in the sector, will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that these firms are able to access the support available through the levy as easily as possible?
With those brief questions, I reiterate that we support the order and the continuation of the levy. Ensuring that the construction sector has access to the skilled workforce it needs will be essential in the years ahead. The mechanisms such as this levy have an important part to play in that effort, so I am happy to support the Motion.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by saying how grateful I am for the contributions to this debate and for the thoughtful scrutiny. I have learned a lot from my noble friend Lord Jones about the background and I thank him for his input on that. It is important that we all understand where we have come from and where we are hoping to get to in this important debate. All the contributions have highlighted the scale of the challenge facing us. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, outlined, this is one of our most economically vital sectors, responsible for £200 billion of output and the employment of over 2 million people. The future of our economy and our ability to grow depends on this.
As shown in the tenor of the contributions today, we need to make sure that over the coming decade we have a stable and collective system of investing in training, as well as looking at new initiatives. What we can all absolutely say is that market forces alone will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs, whether in meeting the demand for new homes or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite rightly said, for the complex issue of retrofitting, which sounds straightforward but we know is not—it is exceptionally challenging. Against the bedrock of the need for economic growth, the transition to net zero is a fundamental driver in our ability and our attempts to make the progress that we need to.
There is a focused skills strategy now. It recognises that the construction industry is at its centre and, as has been raised by all, it must benefit and bring support for all sizes of business. It is that unique make-up of the sector that provides opportunities but also presents enormous challenges. We have to make sure that where we offer training it is of the highest quality. It is not just about young people; it is about retraining and upskilling the existing workforce to make sure that they can progress in their careers.
Specifically, I say to my noble friend, there were 24,470 apprenticeships in construction for the year 2024-25, representing 7% of all starts. I am afraid that we do not have the number of graduate apprenticeships, so I cannot answer that specific question.
I will move on to the wider package of support. From a personal perspective, having worked in this space in my previous role, I know that the initiatives aimed at supporting the mayoral authorities are fundamental, making sure that the approach can be delivered locally as well as being supported from the centre, and having a real understanding of the local jobs market, environment and training needs and the relationships that need to be built to do that.
The Government are delivering major investment to strengthen construction skills and the wider skills system. The £625 million construction skills package includes £100 million to expand the construction skills boot camps, £98 million for industry placements and around £100 million to establish 10 technical excellence colleges, boosting opportunities for young people through a £90 million uplift for construction courses for 16 to 19 year-olds and £75 million for adult retraining. This recognises the immediate needs and the fact that we need to bring new young people in and make the whole area attractive to young people. We have been through a phase where it has not been so attractive, but the opportunities are enormous.
Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations make targeted amendments to the Procurement Regulations 2024 so that key parts of the Procurement Act 2023 operate effectively in practice. They strengthen transparency in a proportionate and deliverable way, and they make a small number of practical improvements to support the smooth operation of the new regime.
Public procurement is how the state translates policy into delivery. It is also where public trust can be won or lost. Transparency is, therefore, not optional. It is a necessary discipline that helps ensure value for money, strengthens accountability, and supports confidence among suppliers and the wider public. After all, this is about public money—taxpayers’ money.
The principal purpose of this instrument is to implement Section 70 of the Act. This requires quarterly publication of information about individual payments over £30,000 made under public contracts. These regulations specify the information that must be published and how it is to be published on the central digital platform so that the payment can be linked to the relevant contract and supplier record. This is designed to allow Parliament, the public, suppliers and contracting authorities to “follow the money” in a meaningful way, seeing what was bought, from whom and what was paid under the contract.
The instrument also closes an important gap by ensuring that suppliers awarded notifiable below-threshold contracts are registered on the central digital platform and have a unique supplier identifier. This is light-touch in practice but important in its effect. It improves traceability across the market, strengthens confidence that procurement data reflects real supplier identity, and supports better understanding of SME and voluntary sector participation.
The instrument also completes the move away from Contracts Finder, a legacy publication route whose functions are being consolidated into the central digital platform. This reduces duplication and confusion for suppliers and authorities, and supports a single, coherent source of procurement information—an important part of making transparency meaningful.
Taken together, these regulations are practical and focused. They implement contract-linked payment transparency, as Parliament intended; close a key data gap on supplier identity for below-threshold awards; and simplify publication by consolidating on to a single platform. For these reasons, I hope that your Lordships will support these regulations, and I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is the “Baroness Anderson and Baroness Finn show” again, I am afraid.
We welcome these regulations. Section 70 of the Procurement Act 2023, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, created new reporting requirements for procurement payments over £30,000. The purposes were clear: to improve transparency; to strengthen accountability; and to make it easier for the public to see how taxpayers’ money is being spent. These regulations implement those commitments by specifying the information that must be published and ensuring that it is made available on a central digital platform. That is a sensible and important step.
Transparency is not an administrative afterthought. It is a safeguard. Publishing clear data on payments—including the contracting authority, the supplier, the value of the payment and the date—enables scrutiny, improves financial discipline and supports better value for money. We particularly welcome the move to align reporting requirements across central and local government. A consistent approach reduces confusion and ensures that transparency does not depend on postcode.
However, I would welcome brief clarification from the Minister on two points. First, on implementation, can the Minister confirm that the central digital platform is fully operational, and that contracting authorities have received clear guidance on data standards and reporting formats? Transparency is meaningful only if the data is accessible and consistent. Secondly, on proportionality, although these requirements are reasonable, what assessment has been made of the administrative burden on smaller contracting authorities? It is important that transparency does not inadvertently divert resource from front-line delivery.
Subject to those two questions, we support these regulations. They deliver on clear commitments to open procurement, to better scrutiny and to ensuring that public money is spent in a way that can be properly examined.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the problem when there are only two of us, as we are getting used to, is that I do not necessarily have time to answer all the questions, but I will give it a go. As ever, I thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the points that she has raised. Unless something is about to appear in front of me like magic, I may have to clarify for her in writing, but I promise to do that swiftly. I believe that, yes, the platform is ready, willing and able—with slight modifications due to be put in place, it should be fully up to speed by the end of the year. As for the administrative burden on smaller authorities, we have made sure that everything that can be done to support them is being done. I will write to the noble Baroness with details of that.
These regulations are about making transparency under the 2023 Act operable and meaningful. The core point is that payment transparency works best when payments are linked to the contract and supply a record on the central platform, enabling scrutiny that is joined up rather than fragmented. The additional provisions are tightly connected. They close data gaps that would otherwise weaken transparency and they ensure that the system works in practice during outages and in urgent protect-life situations. The overall model remains proportionate and deliverable. It is quarterly, prospective from 1 April 2026, and early central government experience suggests that initial reporting volumes are manageable. On that basis, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and commend the regulations.
Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to speak slightly slowly so that my officials have time to swap out, because they are two different teams. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023. The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025 and is one of the most significant bilateral trade agreements that the UK has completed since leaving the European Union.
India is one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century. It has the highest growth rate in the G20 and is likely to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2029, but India’s markets are also behind some of the highest barriers in the world. The deal that we have secured goes well beyond India’s offering to other countries, opening the door for UK businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of government procurement. Some noble Lords present may have attended the Lords debate on the UK-India trade agreement last week, when a variety of policy issues pertaining to the agreement were discussed. Today’s debate is focused solely on the procurement chapter of the agreement.
India spends an estimated 20% of its GDP, or £500 billion, on public procurement. Given that India’s nominal GDP was estimated to be £2.74 trillion in 2022 and is projected to reach £7.06 trillion by 2035, this is a phenomenal opportunity for UK suppliers. The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market, covering £38 billion-worth of contracts a year in such sectors as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction and infrastructure, and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to access India’s procurement portal. British businesses will have access to India’s covered entities in respect of procurements above £478,000 for goods and services and £5.3 million for construction services.
We have gained exclusive treatment under the “Make in India” policy. UK bidders will be treated as class 2 suppliers under “Make in India” if at least 20% of their product or service is from the UK or India, giving UK suppliers unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market not available to other foreign suppliers. We have also reached commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, requirements for the publishing of notices and awarding of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to bring a challenge if the chapter’s rules have not been followed correctly. The agreement that this Government have secured was a momentous achievement. Others have been trying to get a deal like this for years and failed, but this Prime Minister, along with the then Business Secretary and Trade Minister, delivered.
We are clearly leading the way, as the EU and India have now reached political agreement on their own trade agreement, where it seems that the UK deal was used as a baseline. However, we retain first-mover advantage, including unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, which the EU has not obtained. As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the CETA was laid in Parliament on 21 January 2026 and cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 5 March. This SI was laid on 19 January 2026 to bring the CETA into force as quickly as possible, while allowing for the necessary parliamentary scrutiny, to allow businesses to take advantage of the agreement and deliver growth across the country.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and for clearly setting out their purpose. As she explained, these regulations amend the Procurement Act 2023 to add the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement to the list of specified international agreements in the Act. In doing so, they give effect in domestic law to the procurement provisions contained in that agreement. Under the World Trade Organization’s agreement on government procurement, the United Kingdom is required to ensure that countries with which we have concluded relevant trade agreements are given non-discriminatory access to public procurement markets. These regulations are therefore a technical but necessary step to ensure that the United Kingdom meets those obligations.
While we support the regulations, it is worth briefly reflecting on the wider context in which they sit. The UK-India agreement was long anticipated and presents significant potential opportunities for trade between our two countries. However, we have concerns about some of the provisions in the agreement and about what was not included.
The inclusion of services in any agreement with India was widely regarded as a central objective of the United Kingdom’s negotiating position. It is therefore disappointing that a number of key services sectors, including the legal sector, appear not to have secured the level of market access that had been hoped for. Given the strength of the UK services economy, that omission represents a missed opportunity. Similar concerns were raised during the debate in the other place, where it was noted that securing stronger outcomes for services had been a central priority during earlier negotiations.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the operation of the double contributions convention within the agreement, which may mean that companies employing Indian workers in the United Kingdom are not required to pay employer national insurance contributions on their salaries. Although labour mobility provisions are a common feature of modern trade agreements, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how the Government intend to ensure that these arrangements operate fairly and do not inadvertently disadvantage British workers.
I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on the point raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the timing of this instrument. As the committee observed, the regulations were laid shortly before the treaty itself was formally laid before Parliament, meaning that the scrutiny periods for the treaty and its implementing legislation run in parallel. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for adopting that approach and reassure the Grand Committee that Parliament will have had sufficient opportunities to scrutinise both the agreement and the legislation required to implement it?
Finally, Ministers have suggested that the procurement provisions of this agreement will open up significant opportunities for UK businesses by providing access to India’s federal procurement market. That is clearly welcome, but it would be helpful to hear how the Government intend to support UK firms, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, in navigating and accessing those opportunities in practice.
With those brief remarks, I reiterate that these regulations are a necessary step to give effect to the procurement provisions of the agreement. Nevertheless, we will continue to take a close interest in how the wider deal operates in practice and whether it ultimately delivers the benefits that British businesses and workers were promised.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this has been part 2 of the “Finn and Anderson show” today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the points she raised. I was a little disappointed that she did not manage to get in a reference to those celebrating this deal—not least the people of Scotland, who are delighted about access to the Indian whisky market; it has been life-changing for that sector.
I will respond to some of the specific questions the noble Baroness asked me. I will reflect on Hansard after the debate, and I am sure she will pick me up on anything I miss.
On the double contributions convention, the UK Government already have similar agreements in place covering Chile, Japan, South Korea, the 27 EU member states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Barbados, Canada, Israel, Jamaica, Mauritius, the Philippines, Bosnia-Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey and the USA. We know how to do these agreements and we are effective at them. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government also operated within this space. There is little to be concerned about.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that our focus should be on how we support businesses so that they can access the benefits of this procurement chapter. It is vital that we ensure that British businesses can utilise the benefits of this chapter if we are to reap the economic rewards of this unprecedented access to India’s market. The Department for Business and Trade has a significant presence in India, with one of the biggest in-country overseas teams in the world, behind only the US and China. This consists of sectoral experts who work directly with UK companies to help them enter, grow and expand into the Indian market. Alongside this, the team has staff focusing on trade policy, market access, investment promotion, and marketing and communications, under the leadership of HM trade commissioner for South Asia. The DBT works in partnership with Foreign Office teams in India, who also have objectives to support UK economic growth.
On the timing of the instrument, as part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, the Government are required to lay a relevant treaty, alongside an Explanatory Memorandum, for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified—unless either House adopts a Motion that such a treaty should not be ratified—subject to any additional procedural steps required by the treaty also being concluded. Although it is not a legal requirement for treaties to have completed the process set out in the CRaG Act prior to implementation in domestic law, it has been an informal convention to lay before Parliament the implementing legislation after the treaty in question has undergone the initial 21 days.
Exceptionally, in this case, the CETA was laid in Parliament on 21 January 2026 and formally entered the CRaG process shortly after the draft instrument was laid before Parliament on 19 January 2026, in accordance with the affirmative procedure. The CRaG process concluded on 5 March. This approach has been necessary due to the Government’s desire to bring the CETA into force as quickly as possible, while allowing necessary parliamentary scrutiny, to allow businesses to take advantage of the agreement and to deliver growth across the country.
I hope I have answered all the noble Baroness’s questions. To conclude, this historic agreement marks a major milestone in the UK-India relationship and is one of the most significant bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. Implementation of the CETA is a key step in opening up new markets and opportunities for British businesses and exports, delivering economic growth across the country. This is especially true in respect of the procurement chapter that we have been discussing, which unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market.
Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to introduce these regulations, which will take effect from 31 March 2026. This statutory instrument is technical, relating to the preparation and administration of vaccines.
In autumn 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to support the rollout of the Covid-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. Three of these amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and are due to lapse on 1 April 2026.
These regulations look to retain several provisions within those amendments—which have been utilised in the Covid-19 and influenza programmes for five years—as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. They are designed to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as on the wider lessons learned during the pandemic and in recent polio and MMR vaccine catch-up programmes. I will briefly set out what each of these regulations does, and what amendments this instrument will make to them.
Regulation 3A(1) and (2) of the 2012 regulations enable trained healthcare professionals, or staff under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals, to conduct the final stage of assembly and preparation of Covid-19 vaccines without additional marketing authorisations or a manufacturer’s licence being required. This enabled bulk assembly of Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Given that we are no longer in a pandemic and have taken a more targeted approach to recent Covid-19 vaccination campaigns, this instrument allows these provisions to lapse from 1 April 2026.
Regulation 3A(3) and (4) permit holders of a wholesale dealer’s licence who do not hold a manufacturer’s licence to relabel Covid-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. This instrument retains these provisions as permanent legislation and expands them to include any vaccine against an infectious disease, which will helpfully support flexibilities in the supply chain now and in the future.
Regulation 19 allows Covid-19 and influenza vaccines to be moved between different NHS service providers at the end of the supply chain, without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. This instrument retains these provisions as permanent legislation and expands them to include any vaccine against an infectious disease, with relevant safeguards in place to regulate its use.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument, and I express Green Party support for it. I echo the comments of the Minister in the House of Commons, who said that,
“after clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/3/26; col. 8.]
We need to say that and keep saying it, particularly in the current era. I am glad that, through this SI, the Government are making sure that we prepare ourselves for the next pandemic, because we know there will be one. I shall speak briefly about the vaccination situation and some of the changes relating to vaccination that occurred in our health system during the Covid pandemic. I have a question for the Minister; if she cannot answer it now, I will entirely understand and appreciate a reply in writing.
In her introduction, the Minister said that we are no longer in a Covid pandemic, but we are still seeing the extensive spread of the Covid disease. I declare an interest as someone who has the financial wherewithal and ability to have had—and will continue to have—regular vaccinations against Covid, although I am not in one of the Government’s target groups. I want to address this because we saw the development of a great deal more private medicine during the pandemic. Private clinics were set up, running Covid tests and offering vaccinations. We have seen a profound change in the ecology of the vaccination system.
In the context of this SI, I have looked at NHS travel vaccines. Typically, the NHS offers vaccination against hepatitis A, typhoid fever, diphtheria, tetanus and polio, if not previously received, and cholera. These are available for certain destinations, but a number of travel vaccines are not covered by the NHS, including for yellow fever, hepatitis B, Japanese encephalitis, rabies and meningitis ACWY. Many noble Lords will have seen the recent tragic case of travel-acquired rabies—the most hideous disease—acquired from the lick of a puppy on a beach, I believe.
My question is about vaccination as we move increasingly into an ecology where some people are able to afford to protect themselves against a wide range of risks, for travelling but also even if they are not travelling. I randomly selected a provider and saw that there is a huge range in prices. Vaccination against dengue fever and Japanese encephalitis costs £125 for each, and for typhoid it costs £40. I wonder whether the Government are taking into consideration the availability of these crucial health measures. Some people are able to afford a broad range of protection but some may not be able to afford or have access to protections that could keep them healthy and, eventually, save the NHS a great deal of money.
Through this SI, we are making sure that we are able to react quickly in crisis situations, but it would be interesting and important to hear from the Minister about whether we are looking at the broader ecology of all this. What are we are doing for public health in the new, increasingly privatised medical arrangements that we are seeing?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Vaccination remains one of the most effective public health interventions available to us all. The flexibilities introduced during the pandemic enabled the rapid deployment of both Covid-19 and influenza vaccines at scale. It is understandable that the Government now seek to make certain arrangements permanent and extend them to other infectious diseases.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support a vaccination system that is resilient, agile and capable of responding to future public health requirements. Expanding the role of community pharmacies and broadening the vaccinator workforce may well assist in that aim, provided that safeguards are robust. However, it would be wrong to wave this past without scrutiny, as temporary powers become permanent.
The introduction of a permanent vaccine group direction mechanism is a significant change. Flexibility must be matched by clarity. If a patient experiences a serious adverse reaction following vaccination under a vaccine group direction, where does the ultimate legal and clinical responsibility lie? Is it with the authorising body, the supervising clinician, the employer or the individual vaccinator? It would be helpful to have that clearly set out by the Government.
On workforce scope, the regulations expand the occupational health vaccinator provisions and align them with professions able to operate under a patient group direction. Can the Minister clarify the criteria used to determine inclusion? Were decisions based on professional registration, competence in administrating injectable medicines, workforce capacity or other considerations? I am sure all noble Lords agree that consistency and safety are paramount.
On public confidence and uptake, greater flexibility does not automatically mean higher vaccination rates, so how will the Government ensure that these changes actually translate into improved uptake among eligible and vulnerable groups? What benchmark will the Government use to evaluate the success of the measures?
A full impact assessment has not been produced. Although the stated impact may be minimal, these are system-wide changes. Reporting under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act occurs on a two-year cycle. Does the Minister consider that sufficient, or will interim data on safety, workforce, deployment and uptake be made available?
These are important questions to answer, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do indeed support a framework that is safe, proportionate and future-proofed, but one which has been properly stress-tested.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for participating in this debate. I appreciate the welcome for these measures and the acknowledgement of their importance from the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will turn to some of the questions. I will, of course, be very pleased to write to noble Lords on anything I am unable to answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of provision of Covid-19 vaccinations and remarked that Covid is still very much with us; I am not quoting her directly but that is what I took from what she said. In answer to that, this is a big change, but it is now a relatively mild disease—I stress relatively—for, I stress again, most people. It can still be unpleasant, but I am glad to say that the rates of hospitalisation and death have reduced significantly since the pandemic. These proposals, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, are very much about building on the successes that we saw in the Covid-19 and the flu vaccination programmes. As I mentioned, they are about taking that best practice and ensuring that we have a vaccination system in the future.
The noble Baroness also asked about private vaccination services. It is still the case, of course, that the NHS offer of vaccination is there for all those who are at higher risk of serious outcomes; there are a number of such people and we want to ensure they are properly looked after. Private provision is also available, as the noble Baroness said, as with some other vaccines. The availability and price of any vaccines provided through the private market is a matter for the private sector and not something that we seek to regulate.
On travel vaccines, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, a number of such vaccines are available free on the NHS through GP surgeries. These are against polio, typhoid, hepatitis A and cholera. These vaccines are free because they protect the public against those diseases that are thought to carry the greatest risk if they were to be brought into this country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
One of the vaccines on the list of those that are only available privately is against typhoid. There was a publication last week, I believe, looking at the spread of antimicrobial resistance to typhoid and the fact that antibiotics that we have been using against typhoid for decades are now increasingly not working. Can the noble Baroness assure me—again, I will understand if she wants to write—that the Government keep this constantly under review? Drug-resistant typhoid would be very serious; 10 or 20 years ago we might have thought that we could just treat people, but that may no longer be the case.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that effectiveness is kept under review. I know that she was not questioning this, but I also re-emphasise that typhoid vaccinations are available free on the NHS from GP surgeries. It is important to give that reassurance.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked where ultimate legal and clinical responsibility lies. An appropriate person has to be responsible for ensuring that only fully competent qualified and trained health professionals are individually authorised to use the most recently approved version of the VGD. That authoriser is usually a clinical manager or service lead. Authorised health professionals working under VGDs must understand their legal and professional responsibilities before they use VGDs. This follows the same principles set out in the NICE guidance. In that respect, I say to the noble Earl that this is not a new situation, but I accept it is quite right to ask about that.
The noble Earl also asked how we will ensure that changes translate into improved uptake. He will know our commitment to stabilising and improving uptake across the vaccination system, including, importantly, among those in underserved communities and groups that have historically lower vaccination rates. We have set out actions to improve uptake in our 10-year plan, as well as in our strategy Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life. We are also taking a multipronged approach, if I can put it that way, to improving vaccination uptake. That includes exploring whether there are other settings, such as community pharmacies and health visitors, who can assist in this. We also seek to continue to deliver clear messaging on the risks of disease and the benefits of vaccination. Importantly, we are investing in better digital services and data so that we know where we can target our efforts.
With regard to the question about community pharmacies having the necessary training and equipment if there are, unfortunately, adverse reactions, all providers and trainers have to ensure that those who are involved in vaccination have the right, high-quality training that enables them to deal with such reactions. I should say—I hope that this is a reassurance—that the amendment does not change the training expectations of those staff. Also, they are consistent: it does not matter where the service is being delivered.
A full impact assessment covering these amendments was carried out in 2023. It considered that making the relevant parts of the regulations permanent and expanding them is unlikely to create any significant additional impact. The amendments delivered by this SI are not controversial and do not reach the cost to business threshold; as such, a de minimis assessment was carried out and published on GOV.UK.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that, in amending these regulations, the Government are seeking to maintain important safety measures while increasing the effectiveness of the system’s supply chain and workforce. With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and questions.
Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the provisions of these draft regulations relating to roadworthiness testing are to be made under the powers conferred by Sections 41(1), 41(2), 41(5), 45(1), 45(2), 45(7), 46(7), 47(5), 49(1), 49(2) and 51(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The measures concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs are to be made under the powers provided by Section 14(3) of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
These regulations will amend roadworthiness testing, drivers’ hours and tachograph rules for zero-emission vans weighing over 3.5 tonnes, up to and including 4.25 tonnes, which I will hereafter refer to as 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans. The regulations will align the regulation of these vehicles with the regulation of internal combustion engine vans weighing over 3 tonnes, up to and including 3.5 tonnes, by making three key changes.
First, they will move 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero‑emission vans from the heavy vehicle testing regime into the class 7 MoT testing system. Secondly, they will amend the timing of the first roadworthiness test by changing it from a first test one year after initial registration, with annual testing thereafter, to a first test three years after initial registration, with subsequent annual testing. Thirdly, they will move 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans from the assimilated drivers’ hours rules into the Great Britain drivers’ hours rules. Unlike the assimilated drivers’ hours rules, the GB drivers’ hours rules do not require the use of tachographs to record driving time, meaning that tachographs will not be required to be installed in 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans.
Domestic transport is the highest greenhouse gas-emitting sector of the economy, accounting for 30% of emissions in 2024. Road freight acts as a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the number of vans on the road has consistently increased over recent years. Van traffic in 2024 was 9.5% higher than in 2019. Removing additional regulatory burdens will support van operators in switching from internal combustion engine vans to zero-emission alternatives. This will help reduce transport emissions and the move towards net-zero transport.
I note that 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans are technically classified as heavy goods vehicles because they have a maximum authorised mass of over 3.5 tonnes. However, they are used for broadly the same purposes as internal combustion engine vans under 3.5 tonnes and in many cases are visually indistinguishable from them. By aligning the regulatory requirements of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans, with up to 3.5 tonne internal combustion engine equivalents, these regulations are expected to drive the uptake of zero-emissions options and support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the growing van fleet.
These regulations are part of a wider suite of government action to drive the switch to zero-emission vehicles. This includes the zero-emission vehicle mandate, which sets sales targets for manufacturers applying to both cars and vans, with a headline target for vans in 2026 of 24%, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Greater flexibilities were added to the mandate in October 2025 to support manufacturers in reaching these targets.
The Government are supporting the uptake of zero-emission vans via the plug-in van grant, which offers a maximum discount of £5,000 for vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes, and through grant funding for charge points. In addition, in June 2025, regulations were introduced allowing the holders of a category B driving licence to drive zero-emission vans up to 4.25 tonnes without any additional training. The same regulations also provided the equivalent towing allowances for 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans as is available to their internal combustion engine counterparts.
These amending regulations will therefore provide additional regulatory consistency for operators switching to using a 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission van. At present, these vans are required to undergo a heavy vehicle test every year from first registration. These tests are carried out by staff from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency at authorised testing facilities. These regulations will mean that 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans are tested via the class 7 MoT test, which is currently used to test 3 to 3.5 tonne vans, with a first test three years from registration. The private sector class 7 MoT testing network is larger than the network of authorised testing facilities, providing greater choice for van operators. Combined with a later first test and a lower test cost, this will reduce the administrative burden on operators choosing to make the switch to a zero-emission van.
Moving 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans from the assimilated drivers’ hours rules into the GB rules will also provide regulatory consistency for van operators, as internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes are already in scope of the GB rules. The GB rules do not require the use of tachographs to monitor driving time, removing an additional cost currently experienced by zero-emission van operators. The extra administrative burden for fleets, where drivers regularly switch between different types of vans and therefore different sets of drivers’ hours rules, is also removed by these regulations.
Both the roadworthiness testing regime and the drivers’ hours rules are in place to support road safety, and this has been an area of focus during the development of these regulations. Class 7 MoT testing is already used for vans with similar dimensions to 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans. While they are heavier, these vans may come with features such as regenerative braking that can support safer driving.
The daily driving limit under the GB drivers’ hours rules is only one hour longer than the limit under the assimilated rules, and the daily duty limit of 11 hours will restrict drivers from working long hours on other non-driving tasks. Following the implementation of these regulations, road safety data will be closely monitored. Both the number of collisions and their severity will be analysed to understand the impact on road safety, if any, of these regulations.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
I have been advised that we are expecting back-to-back votes on Amendments 369 and 369A to the Crime and Policing Bill, which are currently under discussion in group 1 in the Chamber. The Minister is on his feet, and it is quite possible that we will be interrupted before very long. If we are interrupted for two votes, the Committee will stand adjourned for 20 minutes from the time the Division Bell rings.
Lord Pack (LD)
This is a welcome statutory instrument, particularly given the importance of growing the zero-emission sector and its potential role for reducing the health and environmental impacts of our transport systems.
As I have on other occasions, and perhaps will again in the future, criticised other SIs for either not reflecting previous consultation responses or taking too long to appear after a consultation, it is only right to acknowledge that, in this case, the SI definitely does reflect the broad results of that earlier consultation and indeed has appeared at a much speedier pace than many other SIs. Even so, it has been a year since the consultation concluded, so I hope the department will continue to look at ways of speeding up the turnaround of its legislative work.
Reducing the regulatory burden is certainly welcome where it can be done safely and without undermining other policy objectives or causing other problems. With that in mind, I have three questions that I hope the Minister can give reassurance on.
First, as the Minister has touched on already—and as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, highlighted in its report on the SI—once the powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June this year, which is now only a few weeks away, there are no primary powers available to further amend the assimilated EU retained drivers’ hours and tachograph regulations. If it turns out that further legislative change in that area is needed or would be beneficial, that gap in the department’s powers could become a problem.
It was welcome that the Minister mentioned that the department plans to address this at the earliest opportunity. I hope she does not mind me pressing to see whether it is possible to get something a bit more specific than that, as that could cover anything from days to centuries, given the pace at which some items proceed in this place.
Secondly, given the improved safety features we are seeing on zero-emission vehicles, the move towards heavier vehicles—which this SI is part of—should not, I am sure we all hope, turn out to be at the expense of overall road safety. It is likely, for the reasons the Minister gave earlier, that the SI gets this balance right and rightly encourages zero-emission vehicles without endangering road safety. However, as they are generally heavier, it is important to be sure that we are getting this right. Can the Minister provide a bit more detail about the plans the department has to keep this situation under review?
I ask that because when the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations came through the system last year and were scrutinised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department very much focused on how zero-emission vehicles are no more likely to be in an accident than other vehicles. It gave—I think it is fair to say—relatively little consideration to the risk that, even if there are not more accidents involving zero-emission vehicles, their typically greater weight might mean those accidents are more severe in nature.
That focus on the frequency rather than severity of accidents unfortunately continues in the Explanatory Memorandum for this statutory instrument. It is absolutely fair to say, and it is very welcome, that in response to questioning from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department engaged more directly with the issue of the severity and not merely the frequency of accidents. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to be clear about the department’s commitment to tracking whether increased weight causes any safety issues that need further action to address, and in particular what data will be published, and with what frequency, to make sure that we can be confident that these changes are working.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, there is the Northern Ireland angle and the divergence we will see in tachograph requirements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Government’s approach, as I understand it, rests heavily on saying that this will not be a problem, because the number of relevant zero-emission vehicles which currently travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fairly small. There is, though, a potential tension between a policy that is designed overall to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles in use, yet also depends in part on the number of those vehicles in use between Great Britain and Northern Ireland being and remaining small. As the Minister mentioned earlier, there are certainly powers and responsibilities that rest with the Northern Ireland Executive in that area, but if we are changing rules for Great Britain that may have an adverse knock-on effect for Northern Ireland, that is obviously our responsibility as well. I hope the Minister can reassure us that monitoring will be done of the number of relevant zero-emission vehicles travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I hope that on all three points, the answers will be such as to reassure everyone that the result of this statutory instrument will be a welcome, safe and practical growth in the use of zero-emission vehicles.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pack, but also quite annoying, because he has made about three-quarters of my speech, and with his customary effectiveness and clarity.
I too start by emphasising the importance, as it seems to us, of the fact that almost through carelessness, the Department for Transport is going to lose, in a very short space of time, its legal ability to make amendments, not just in this area but, as the Minister herself said, in a wide number of areas of policy. We will be left in a position where it will be possible to make these often technical adjustments only by primary legislation.
This date of June 2026 has been in the diary now for something like three years. I seem to remember a case, a long time ago, of George Bernard Shaw writing a letter to the Times, which began “Saturday morning, despite occurring at regular and predictable intervals, always appears to take the staff of Baker Street station by surprise”. We are in a very similar position here. June 2026 has been in the diary for a long time, yet here we are.
Just think through the practicalities: everyone assumes, I think rightly, that we are approaching the end of a parliamentary Session and we will then have a Prorogation, a King’s Speech and a State Opening. Before we know where we are, we will be in June and the Government, on behalf of this department, will still have no legislation to table to give themselves the range of powers they normally need. That is not just carelessness, it is a dereliction of duty, and the Official Opposition will be holding the Government fully to account. I can hardly believe that I am saying this, but it is what is actually happening, although the department could have planned for it a long time ago.
As for future transport legislation, we know that the Railways Bill will be arriving from the Commons after Prorogation, in the new parliamentary Session. Is that the instrument that the Minister has it in mind to amend in order to give the powers—I see some potential scope issues in that regard—or will a new and separate Bill be brought forward, and on what timescale? We need to know these things and it is ceasing to be a joke.
The second aspect relates to the question of Northern Ireland. What we are seeing here, and this applies to the remainder of my remarks, is that the commitment to net zero is now taking over and becoming responsible for all sorts of problems and costs, not merely financial. One of them, because the vans we are discussing are mostly used for commercial purposes, will be a disruption to trade and the provision of services—artisanal services, plumbers, whatever—between one part of the United Kingdom and another because we have chosen to do this.
The Minister appeared to say that this is not a problem arising from the Windsor Framework; it is entirely because the power involved rests with the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that is the case, what contact and what effort has the department made to co-ordinate this action and decision with Northern Ireland, so that these unnecessary barriers do not arise? Will the Minister tell us what discussions have therefore taken place?
Those are the immediate topics. What is the timetable, what is the practical proposal for resolving the legislative gap, and what contact occurred between the department and the Northern Ireland authorities to try to ensure that these measures went ahead in tandem and that this rupture—this unnecessary rupture, as it now appears—in trade between different parts of the United Kingdom did not take place?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was just coming to the point of saying that—as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, pointed out—we are now seeing personal safety and road safety being sacrificed on the altar of net zero. It is undoubtedly the case that heavier vehicles have a greater impact when an accident takes place. I am not claiming, nor did the noble Lord claim, that they are more likely to have an accident but they will certainly have a greater impact. This is exactly the same physics that lies behind the argument that speed limits in city areas should be cut. The impact is a function of the speed times the mass. If you increase the mass, you are putting back—so to speak—what you have gained by reducing speed limits in cities. That is what the Government are doing. They are playing recklessly with personal safety on the road, including that of vulnerable users in particular, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as those driving other motor vehicles.
There is a further point that was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pack: the effect on the roads themselves. The roads in this country in many places are breaking up. It is not simply a matter of potholes now but of another complete dereliction by the department. In many cases, the base of the road is being damaged because maintenance is being neglected. It is no good the Government saying they put a certain amount of money into it—which is what they always say when this point is brought up—because it is not having an effect on the roads. The roads are breaking up. A lack of maintenance means that the effect is not simply on the surface—the potholes—but on the base. Very often you can see that on many rural roads, which are breaking up, and a huge bill is being stored. Part of that is to do with heavier vehicles.
Some of those heavier vehicles—all the heavy SUVs and so on—are heavier for reasons that I do not personally approve of. Another reason is that we are actively encouraging heavier vehicles, and doing so through measures such as this one. We did it through the amendments to the driving licence provisions, which we dealt with late last year. Now we are doing it in relation to the testing regime and the drivers’ hours rules for vans. The Government are driving forward, and they are very much driven by net zero, with no regard for the consequences for personal safety and road surfaces—and now, of course, we need to add the bridges.
I say on a personal note that, years ago, I used to have some responsibility for Albert Bridge as a local councillor, and I see that it is now closed. At that time, we spent quite a lot of money bringing Albert Bridge up to a standard where it could bear and be safe for 3-tonne vehicles—that would be the weight limit. Now that 3-tonne limit is almost of historical interest, so another bridge across the river in London is being taken out of use. What is the Government’s plan for this? There is no plan for any of this. They have not thought about any of these things; they just drive ahead recklessly with net zero.
Although this measure appears to have a purely technical character, it is very significant in a number of respects that I have set out in my speech. The Government need to start taking these things seriously, because otherwise they will be abandoning their transport-related duties. That is something we will constantly highlight and oppose.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Moylan, for their comments on this important area of work. Some of the points raised have come together from both noble Lords, if from slightly different angles, so perhaps they will forgive me if I cover them together.
One of the major themes coming through was the concern about the devolved Administrations and divergence. Just to reiterate, the regulations apply in Great Britain only; to reinforce that, this policy area is devolved to Northern Ireland and the officials in the Department for Infrastructure there have been updated on the regulations. I want to reassure noble Lords that the department in Northern Ireland is currently considering the potential impact the introduction of this legislation may have on regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is considering the impact of proposals that have been presented by the European Commission on drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements, which mirror the changes in these regulations—I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, picked up on some of the details around this.
I can only repeat that decisions on changes in Northern Ireland will be for Northern Ireland Ministers. While officials in the DfT and Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure are working together to manage the impact of these measures on GB operators for the change in vans that regularly travel to Northern Ireland, we want to minimise the impact on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
In the meantime, drivers of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans will need to ensure that their vehicle complies with the applicable law while operating in Northern Ireland, including ensuring that they are meeting testing requirements and that their vehicle is fitted with a tachograph. For further reassurance, I can inform noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, speaks regularly to her counterpart in Northern Ireland to make sure that they are kept appraised of progress.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to answer my specific question? What contacts took place between her Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland, prior to the tabling of this secondary legislation, with a view to ensuring that the legislative gap did not exist—in other words, that they could proceed in harmony?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think the noble Lord will understand that I cannot be specific at this point about the exact detail. I am happy to write to him to make sure that he is fully apprised of the contact between the two areas.
On the road safety theme that has been picked up, I reassure noble Lords that there is no data to suggest that there is likely to be an increase in the collision rate following the introduction of these regulations. In fact, some van operators have indicated that they experience a lower collision rate with their 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission van fleet compared with the equivalent diesel vans. This may be due to features such as the regenerative braking that I mentioned earlier, whereby braking energy is captured and can be reused, reducing wear on brakes. It is also important to note that, although heavier, in most cases these vans are the same physical size as the diesel vans they replace.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before Parliament on 26 January 2026. This Government remain fully committed to ensuring that households, particularly those on low incomes or at risk of fuel poverty, can live in warmer, more energy-efficient homes that are affordable to heat. At the heart of this endeavour lies the new warm homes plan, a comprehensive and long-term strategy to reduce energy bills, alleviate fuel poverty and enhance energy security. We have committed to investing £15 billion—the biggest-ever public investment to upgrade British homes and cut energy bills. Of this amount, £5 billion is allocated to support low-income households.
The energy company obligation—ECO—has played a key part in helping households to reduce their energy bills. The energy company obligation was first launched in 2013. Since its launch in 2022, ECO4 has delivered slightly over 1 million energy-saving measures to approximately 300,000 households. The scheme places an obligation on the larger energy suppliers to deliver energy-efficiency improvements to vulnerable and fuel-poor households that result in measurable bill savings.
While ECO4 has delivered a significant volume of home energy-efficiency improvements, it has not been without challenges, as set out recently by the National Audit Office, among others. There have been widespread, systemic issues in the delivery of solid- wall insulation, which we have taken urgent steps to tackle. We are bringing forward comprehensive reforms to the retrofit consumer protection system to make it stronger, more transparent and more accountable so that this cannot happen again. We expect all installers to ensure that households receive timely and high-quality remediation of any non-compliance identified.
Given these systemic issues and inflation that is still too high, we have taken the considered decision not to replace ECO4, therefore easing pressure on household energy bills. This, in combination with the Government funding 75% of the domestic cost of the legacy renewables obligation, will remove around £117 of costs on average from household energy bills across Great Britain.
This statutory instrument introduces a small and necessary change to the existing scheme by extending the end date of ECO4 by nine months from 31 March to 31 December 2026. This extension provides obligated suppliers with additional time to meet their existing targets and, most importantly, it allows them time to focus on remediation of non-compliant installations. I emphasise that the instrument does not change targets, impose new obligations, or increase supplier costs or consumer bills.
As I conclude, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and for not drawing it to the special attention of the House. The changes made by this instrument, which is in essence a very simple one, are limited but important. By extending ECO4, we are ensuring a stable period of delivery and an orderly closure to the scheme, and are safeguarding consumers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond on the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order. While appearing to be only a minor adjustment today, this SI is important, as it involves the need to protect the most vulnerable in our society from poorly insulated homes and fuel poverty.
The ECO4 scheme has been a fundamental component of our national strategy to address the dual crisis of fuel poverty and the climate emergency. We have always supported its ambition to reduce the costs of heating for low-income households. This amendment seeks to extend the scheme’s duration by nine months to 31 December 2026. The reasons for doing this require a little bit of scrutiny. The Government say that this extension is necessary for the remediation of non-compliant installations and to ensure the orderly closure of the scheme.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for his introduction of this statutory instrument. This order extends the energy company obligation end date by nine months to ensure an orderly transition for consumers and suppliers to help meet existing targets. This extension was determined following consultation and following the calls of business. On that basis, we on these Benches support the order.
The ECO was established to help households reduce energy consumption and lower heating costs. Since it was launched in 2013, around 4.4 million measures have been installed in 2.6 million properties, up to the end of September 2025. ECO4 is the latest version of that scheme, beginning in 2022. It has meant that approximately 949,800 measures have been installed in around 281,000 households.
It is of course right that, where there were non-compliant installations, installers fund the repair work, overseen by Ofgem and insured by further on-site audits. We have already committed to working cross-party to ensure that affected households receive the remediation they deserve. We understand that the Government now seek to end this scheme and replace it with their warm homes plan to provide loans and grants to households instead; indeed, they have claimed that this will result in a £150 cut from the average household bill.
However, although the end of the ECO scheme means that households will no longer pay the levy through their energy bills, the new plan will be funded through taxation. There is no clarity, therefore, that this will end up saving taxpayers money in the long term; indeed, the new taxpayer funding initiative, coupled with rising energy costs—particularly now—and already high installation costs, mean that it looks increasingly unlikely that the Government will be replacing the ECO with an improvement. Have the Government made any assessment of how much taxpayers will save overall? To what extent are these projections reliant on projected energy costs, which will now be redundant? Oil prices are already 50% higher than in the OBR’s projection last week.
I appreciate that these questions are about issues that are outside the Minister’s control, but they have ramifications for the Government’s policy. Is it really wise to push forward with tax-and-spend green policies, which will likely do little to reduce costs, at a time of global instability? I understand that these are also developing events and that they do not directly relate to the functioning of the ECO.
Returning to that, it would be helpful to clarify how much money taxpayers will now be expected to pay to cover the cost of this new extension period. As I have stated, I support the extension to ensure an orderly transition, but the public must know what they will pay. I restate our support for this order to help consumers and suppliers but, more broadly, we remain concerned that the Government’s plan will, ultimately, not save taxpayers money. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their constructive contributions to this afternoon’s debate; I hope to respond to their points in a similarly crisp and succinct fashion.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked how much taxpayers will pay for the extension of the ECO. The answer is: nothing. The ECO will continue exactly as it has previously, except it will be extended by nine months. There will be no new obligations, only the continuation of obligations that are already in place. Of course, there will be an opportunity to make sure that the remediation that will be necessary for a number of treatments is carried out in good time, and will be sorted out and finished by the time the ECO comes to an end.
Of course, the ending of ECO4 will in itself save bill payers a considerable amount of money. Indeed, as the noble Baroness knows, ECO4 is, in effect, an obligation on energy companies, which they passed on to customers in the form of bills. Alongside the cost of some other legacy obligations, such as the renewable obligation, the removal of that obligation and the end of ECO4 will remove, as I said, around £117 of costs on average from household energy bills across Great Britain.
It is true that the new warm homes plan is underwritten from general taxation, but it is a substantial transfer from direct customer bills to general taxation, with the resulting saving that I have outlined. The warm home scheme is a far more far-reaching programme over a longer period, with a substantial investment of up to £15 billion in it. In the long term, that will be judged by the difference between what has been put in it and what has resulted from the energy savings coming about as a result of the warm homes plan— this will, obviously, be further savings to customers’ bills—as well as by the efficiency with which the warm homes plan is put into place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the arrangements for remediation in properties that the Government consider should be undertaken during the period of the extension of the ECO4 programme for nine months. As I am sure he will know, the NAO report considered that almost all of the external wall insulation measures had major issues requiring remediation; to put that into context, that is about 40,000 treatments, as compared with the 1 million-plus treatments that there were in ECO4 overall, but external wall insulation was a particular problem for the scheme. To a lesser extent, that applies also to internal wall insulation: 29% had major issues requiring remediation, and the NAO considered that a smaller number of treatments had possibly falsified claims attached to them.
Part of the task of this extension is to ensure that those remediations, which are down to the installers to put right, can be done during the period of the ECO extension. The noble Earl raised the possible issue of what the position is if we have got to the end of the period of extension and some of the remediations have not been done. I emphasise that these remediations are being done by obligated installers, first, but also under a strengthened trust mark arrangement for oversight, with increasing audits, site inspections and various other things as regards non-compliance detection and enforcement. So, the people who have to do that remediation will be known about, clearly, and Ofgem has taken the action of writing to all of the people who are possibly in a position where they can have remediation undertaken in order to offer them the opportunity to go on a register for remediation.
This is driven to some extent by installers and to some extent by customer demand for that remediation, and it is backed up by a strong code that makes sure that it gets done. Even if that strays beyond the end of the extension of ECO, it is not the end of the story as far as that remediation is concerned. It will be done. If it is in danger of life and limb it has to be done immediately, but if it is less serious, as it were, it has to be done during the course of that extension.
We think the Government have a good belt-and-braces position as far as those remediations are concerned, and that ECO can come to an end in an orderly fashion. That is quite important in terms of the issues that both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness mentioned about whether there is a cliff edge between what is happening with the end of ECO4 and the beginning of the warm homes plan. Among other things, this extension will mean that there is less of a cliff edge. Indeed, in conjunction with industry, the Government are active in holding round tables to enhance the ability of industry that has invested in ECO4 to transition to activity under the warm homes plan. I hope that it will not be such a cliff edge as the noble Earl mentioned and will run reasonably smoothly—if not necessarily entirely smoothly—into the warm homes plan itself, and therefore a lot of the investment that various companies have put into ECO4 can be realised through the warm homes plan.
Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) 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 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) 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, this instrument makes consequential amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 following Parliament’s decision in the Employment Rights Act 2025 to create the Fair Work Agency, and brings together the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC’s national minimum wage enforcement teams. It ensures that officers performing the same GLAA-derived criminal enforcement functions will continue to have access to the same investigatory tools under the same statutory thresholds and safeguards once they sit within the new agency.
Where the GLAA is currently named in the Investigatory Powers Act, these regulations update that reference so that the Department for Business and Trade, in so far as it relates to the Fair Work Agency, is listed instead. All of the underlying safeguards in the IPA, including the statutory requiring purpose, the minimum 12-month sentence threshold and the requirement for necessity and proportionality, remain exactly as Parliament originally set them.
I fully appreciate that the powers to acquire communications data are intrusive and must be used only when necessary and proportionate. These powers concern the who, when and where of a communication—that is, subscriber details, timings and location data—but not the content of any call, message or email. They do not reveal what a person said or wrote. They remain significantly less intrusive than interception, yet they are vital tools in tackling the most serious forms of labour exploitation, where victims are often too frightened, too isolated or too controlled to come forward with evidence.
It may help the Committee if I explain the scope of these powers. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, communications data authorisations will be able to be given to the FWA only for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. This is defined in primary legislation, and one of the key elements is that the offence must carry a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment; that statutory threshold remains unchanged. We need to ensure that the Fair Work Agency can continue to investigate the same serious exploitation offences, including unlicensed gangmastering and modern slavery, that the GLAA handles today. Those offences already meet the existing statutory definition of serious crime, and therefore fall within the same communications data authorisation framework, applying the same necessity and proportionality tests and the same independent scrutiny as before. The threshold, authorisation process and full oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner remain exactly the same.
In transferring these functions to the Fair Work Agency, we have ensured that the safeguards that apply under the Investigatory Powers Act will continue in full. Communications data applications will remain subject to independent scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, including routine inspections and case sampling. The established single-point-of-contact system will continue to play its gatekeeping role, with an accredited specialist assessing every request to ensure that it meets the statutory crime purpose and satisfies the stringent tests of necessity and proportionality. Requests will still require authorisation by a designated senior officer at the appropriate grade and will continue to be submitted for approval by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, with only limited provision for urgent internal authorisation.
The Fair Work Agency will operate in full compliance with the communications data code of practice, ensuring that standards of record-keeping, error reporting and handling of sensitive material remain exactly as they are today. In short, the framework of safeguards that Parliament has already put in place remains completely unchanged. The change made by this statutory instrument is the updating of the public authority’s name, ensuring continuity of capability following Parliament’s decision to transfer the GLAA’s enforcement functions to the Fair Work Agency.
The GLAA has always used these powers sparingly. Historically, the number of communications data applications has been modest and focused on a small number of the most serious investigations, often concerning organised criminal exploitation, threats of harm or potential trafficking. That discipline of “last resort” use and that culture of necessity and proportionality will continue in the Fair Work Agency.
On implementation, the Fair Work Agency will bring together three regulators into a single recognisable body, making the system easier for workers to navigate and clearer for responsible businesses. This consolidation will not dilute expertise. Existing GLAA specialists will continue to carry out GLAA-derived criminal enforcement with the same training, oversight and legal powers. Early operational arrangements, including access controls and internal governance structures, will ensure that only appropriate officers can apply for or authorise investigatory activity.
On transparency, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to report annually on the use of these powers, providing Parliament with a clear overview of how these powers are exercised. In addition, I can confirm to the Committee today that the Fair Work Agency will report on its use of the Investigatory Powers Act powers in its annual report. This will allow Parliament to see clearly that use continues to be confined to GLAA-derived criminal investigations, just as today. We will reflect this commitment in the Fair Work Agency’s framework agreement and in its enforcement policy statement, in line with good practice.
This statutory instrument is essential housekeeping. It prevents an unintended and undesirable drop in capability during a period of organisational transition and ensures continuity in tackling serious labour exploitation while keeping all of the guardrails that Parliament put in place firmly intact.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before us is, on the face of it, a technical one. As the Minister explained, it ensures that enforcement officers of the new Fair Work Agency inherit the same communications data powers, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, that officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority held before them. However, the creation of the Fair Work Agency is the moment at which this Committee confers covert investigatory powers on a body whose structure, resourcing and operating principles remain, to a troubling degree, undefined.
I turn first to what I regard as the most fundamental concern: the departure from the settled policy of targeted, sector-specific enforcement. The GLAA was created for a reason. It was designed to address the specific and acute vulnerabilities of workers in agriculture, food processing, shellfish gathering and related sectors—industries where the risk of exploitation and labour abuse was demonstrably high and where ordinary enforcement mechanisms were plainly insufficient.
The Fair Work Agency sweeps that away. It appears that it will have a broad mandate to inspect any business in any sector at any time. That is a significant departure; we were given no adequate explanation for it during Committee or Report on the Employment Rights Act 2025. On what evidential basis have the Government decided that the enforcement problems, which were previously confined to high-risk sectors, now require a body with universal reach? What assessment has been made of the risk that this broader mandate will dilute the quality and focus of enforcement, rather than improving it? The Minister just mentioned a framework agreement, but am I not right in saying that this Committee has not yet seen even a draft of it? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that aspect.
This matters acutely for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are already facing more than £600 million in costs flowing from the Employment Rights Act—costs that are, in large part, administrative in nature, such as in record-keeping, compliance processes and reporting obligations. These activities will now fall within the Fair Work Agency’s line of sight. These businesses, many of which are without dedicated human resources functions or legal support, will be exposed to an agency that is armed with powers of entry, powers to seize documents and electronic records, and now, through this instrument, powers to obtain communications data covertly. What guidance will be issued to ensure that enforcement action against small businesses is proportionate? What safeguards exist to distinguish a genuine, minor administrative error from deliberate wrongdoing? Will businesses that make honest mistakes face the prospect of document seizure, substantial financial penalties and the full weight of this agency’s investigatory apparatus?
Businesses have said that they want any action taken against them to be proportionate, and that the Fair Work Agency should function primarily as a compliance partner, not as a punitive instrument. The Minister has said that she shares that aspiration, and I invite her to say how that aspiration will be given legal and operational effect.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his series of questions on this matter. To come back to its core, the statutory instrument has a strictly limited purpose to ensure that the same investigatory powers currently applying to the GLAA transfer smoothly to the new Fair Work Agency. The Fair Work Agency will enforce the legislation listed in Schedule 7—not all employment legislation. On day one, the Fair Work Agency will take the same remit and powers of current regulators, subject to existing and enhanced safeguards, which will continue to apply.
On the noble Lord’s question about going wider, as I mentioned, this applies only to serious crimes under the legislation that have a minimum 12-month sentence threshold. This is a very limited series of offences—the most serious that we encounter in the labour market today. He also asked when the framework agreement will be published. It will be published on 7 April alongside the statutory instrument.
The noble Lord questioned the culture of and approach to enforcement and recalled that we have previously discussed the interests of small businesses and micro-businesses and the culture of enforcement more generally. We have thought about how the Fair Work Agency will go about its work. The idea of a single enforcement body will make it easier for small employers to understand their obligations and get the right guidance early. The agency is focused only on taking firm action against the small minority of rogue employers who exploit workers, and the idea is to ensure fair competition for responsible businesses. That is the approach we are taking. This statutory instrument is about transferring those legal powers that are currently housed within one agency to another.
On resourcing and funding, the budget for the Fair Work Agency will be set out in the usual way through the department’s allocation processes. Given that the Fair Work Agency will have additional areas of remit under the Employment Rights Act, it will have a larger budget than its predecessor organisations combined. We will communicate that budget when the organisation is set up. On the question of the transfer of employees, all staff will transfer under the Civil Service equivalent of TUPE—that is the model that will be used.
I reinforce that the protections will remain in place. This is about ensuring that the powers for very serious crimes are transferred to the Fair Work Agency, so that it has the means to pursue those limited but serious offences under the full oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. This SI is essential to enable that smooth transition, and I commend it to the Committee.
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 today, of the noble Lord, Lord Suri, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
I must also notify the House of the retirement, with effect from Saturday 7 March, of the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. I should like to recognise the noble Lord’s long service to the House.
Stamp Duty: Periodic Tenancies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bailey of Paddington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether periodic tenancies draw more tenants into Stamp Duty Land Tax lease returns than fixed-term tenancies; and what legislative or other steps they intend to take as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are aware that the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which abolishes fixed-term tenancies, may in some very rare circumstances bring more tenancies into the stamp duty land tax regime. We are working closely with His Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC to ensure that no tenant is brought into paying stamp duty on the rent they pay as a result of the Renters’ Rights Act, and we will update Parliament shortly.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Will any guidance be issued by HMRC or anybody else to tenants, landlords and agents to let them know whether their tenancy will come under stamp duty land tax and they have to issue some kind of return to HMRC? Many tenants are very worried that this will happen to them, and lots of agents have no idea that this is coming.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I want to reassure tenants and landlords that very few tenants will be affected by this in the first year. A tenancy must have extremely high rents or have been running for a very long time under the previous system to even approach the stamp duty threshold in the first year. HMRC’s assessment is that this will be a very small number of cases. We intend to ensure that even in those rare instances, tenants do not face a stamp duty land tax charge as a result of these reforms. We will work with HMRC to make sure that clear and accessible guidance is available for both tenants and landlords.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, one of the ways in which we meet the concerns that the noble Lord has raised is by increasing the housing supply. Can my noble friend the Minister give us an update on the social and affordable housing programme that the Government are supporting?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very pleased to give the House an update on the social and affordable housing programme. We have now published its prospectus, and the Government have put in £39 billion of funding to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. The core objective of that new programme will be to maximise supply, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme at social rent. That will be around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime. We published the guidance in November 2025, and we are now calling on all registered providers to review the details confirmed and to prepare large and ambitious proposals. We want to see the social landlord sector really embrace this. The bidding process opened in February, and we look forward to receiving some good bids.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Renters’ Rights Act places the full weight of delivery and its success on two public bodies—the courts to provide timely justice and local authorities to provide enforcement. Can the Minister please reassure the House that on 1 May, when these additional rights are switched on, both the courts and councils will have sufficient capacity and resources to deal with this additional workload, given that, at the moment, court delays are still long and council enforcement capacity varies according to your postcode?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We had much discussion about this during the passage of the Act, and we are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to implement the reforms. Work is progressing well to ensure that the courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload that the reforms may generate. Work is also progressing on the new digital end-to-end service for resolving all possession claims in the county courts in England and Wales. Ultimately, the Act should reduce demand on the county courts, because possession claims will be able to be brought only where there is a valid reason for the landlord to do so.
The noble Baroness is quite right about local authorities. We are helping councils to build their enforcement capacity and get ready for implementation. We have provided new burdens funding, and we have funded the Operation Jigsaw network of local councils to deliver bespoke training on the Act.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, many noble Lords across the House raised concerns about its impact on the private rental market—with landlords leaving the market, seeking to raise rents and using Section 21 before the implementation of the Act, which does little to stop rogue landlords. Does the Minister consider the reports of Labour donor Asif Aziz’s company Criterion Capital issuing large numbers of Section 21 eviction notices, if true, a rational response to the Act or the action of a rogue landlord?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, the basis of the Renters’ Rights Act was made under the previous Government. We wanted to make sure that we tackle the issues in the housing market and have done so with a very effective piece of legislation. On mass evictions, the latest Ministry of Justice landlord possession action statistics published in February showed a 17% reduction in county court Section 21 landlord-accelerated possession claims in quarter 4 compared with the same quarter in 2024. We have given a strong message that responsible landlords have nothing to fear from the reforms; they will have access to a wide range of possession grounds where they are needed.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Government told us last year that there would be a consultation on creating a new ISA product to support first home buyers in early 2026. Can the Minister confirm the timeline of that consultation and clarify whether there will be any changes to the existing lifetime ISA, which is helping first-time buyers significantly?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am currently working across the sector on a wide range of support to provide the framework that first-time buyers will need in order to take the practical steps to access the market and to build up confidence. That work is going very well. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty up to £300,000 and can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. Further steps will be announced in due course.
Crown Estate: Wales
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the activities of the Crown Estate on (1) the Welsh economy, and (2) household budgets in Wales.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The recently passed Crown Estate Act ensured that the Crown Estate can continue working in the best interests of Wales and the wider United Kingdom. The Crown Estate is key to the £1.4 billion of economic growth and more than 5,000 jobs that the Government want to secure from floating offshore wind in the Celtic Sea. It works closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that the offshore potential of this emerging sector benefits Welsh communities onshore.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. However, the Crown Estate has removed the cap for offshore wind leases and is running uncapped auctions that force wind farm developers to pay extremely high fees simply to access the seabed. Can the Minister confirm that the fourth offshore wind leasing round generated more profit for the Crown Estate than all the previous rounds combined and that this system has inflated the cost of building offshore wind farms, with a consequent increase in electricity prices for household budgets in Wales? Is it not time for political oversight of the activities of the Crown Estate in Wales?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question, but on the point about oversight, a Crown Estate commissioner with special responsibility for Wales will be appointed in due course. As far as offshore wind is concerned, for Wales a priority is to deliver certainty. Retaining the current model avoids fragmenting a cross-border Celtic Sea market and preserves investor confidence at a sensitive point for floating offshore wind. Further devolution would risk fragmenting the energy market, undermining international investor confidence and disrupting activity elsewhere in the Crown Estate.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Is the Minister not aware of the reply given by a Minister in the other place to the MP for Anglesey, Llinos Medi, when the Government confirmed that they had no assessment of how many jobs would come to Wales from the new offshore wind projects in the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea? Is the Minister aware of the very real concern in Wales that these projects will be bypassing Wales’s supply chains, losing economic potential? Is it not necessary for power and authority over the Crown Estate to be transferred to the Welsh Government so that they get the priority that they deserve?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Offshore will create up to 5,000 jobs—on top of the 3,000 jobs that will be created by the building of small modular reactors on Anglesey. It will provide energy for 1.5 million households. We are aiming in the right direction. As far as the supply chain is concerned, we will be investing £50 million for a supply chain accelerator and up to £350 million for enabling port and supply chain infrastructure to come forward.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Have His Majesty’s Government asked the Crown Estate exactly how it helps to deliver their promise for a more environmentally conscious and greener Wales when it carries on handing out licences to marine aggregate dredgers to dredge in marine protected areas off Wales? Dirty seas deter tourists.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We have a very good relationship with the Crown Estate and work very closely with the Welsh Government. We will be appointing a commissioner to the Crown Estate to ensure that we have someone there who is prepared to look consciously at all the issues that affect Wales. We want to see a Welsh economy that is growing. One way of doing that is through investing in green industries, which I would have thought the noble Baroness would welcome.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is the Minister aware that people in Wales are convinced, following conversations with the Crown Estate, that the overwhelming majority of new skilled jobs created by offshore in the Celtic Sea will go to outsiders, not to people in Wales, and that the supply chain will use a few Welsh companies but primarily suppliers from outside Wales? Therefore, can he talk to us about what the Government are doing to build the supply chain and the skills in Wales and to make sure that Welsh companies have a definite percentage of the new business and opportunities that are on offer?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Crown Estate and the Government are particularly concerned about ensuring that we have investment in local supply chains, and we are going along with that in whatever we are doing. For example, as I have said, this £50 million is going to be invested in the supply chain accelerator. We are going to ensure that some of the money that will be generated from offshore wind goes into local communities. We are well aware of the issues, but we need to focus on the fact that we are heading in the right direction as far as green energy development is concerned.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, when the Crown Estate had this windfall from its offshore wind bonanza, it was reputed to have said that it wanted a lot of the money to go towards good causes. Given that this will mean an explosion of overhead power lines in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, what discussions have the Government had with the Crown Estate about spending some of that bonanza on, where possible, burying these power lines?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Government’s approach to burying these cables underground is well known, really, because, essentially, where we can do it, we will, in order to protect the local area. It is cheaper to put them overhead, but even if you bury them, there is still a lot of disruption to the local area with the kind of access you need to the cables themselves. It is not actually the answer to all our concerns. We know that we need to think about how we develop these pylons and whether we should lay the cables under the ground, but to do that is not the answer in all cases.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the events in the Middle East and the renewed shock to oil and gas prices show why we should be self-sufficient, which is why we should enormously welcome the development of offshore wind off the coast of Wales?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to think about energy security. One thing that is coming out of what is happening, tragically, in the Middle East at the moment is that, because oil and gas prices are set internationally, this impacts on every country’s economy. That is why we need to invest in the green economy, in nuclear, in wind turbines and in solar—so that we become independent. When issues such as this happen and when there are shocks to the international energy markets, we do our best to ensure that we are insulated from them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in my ministerial experience, the Crown Estate arrangements, in fact, worked pretty well. The Minister will be glad to hear that. But the more important question for the Minister today is: would Welsh households not have been helped by lower bills if Labour had not gone down the dangerous road of banning North Sea oil and gas? That looks even more irresponsible, with oil prices spiking because of the war in the Middle East.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Just to repeat my response to the previous question, we have to make sure that we are independent of these problems that we are facing. Rather than relying on fossil fuel, the prices of which are set internationally, we need to have home-grown green energy to ensure that we can resist these problems. I just want to point out one or two things about how we are helping people in Wales. We are cutting household energy bills, saving the average household £150. We have helped over 160,000 people with the minimum wage. We have increased pensions by 4.8%, and we have increased benefits for people out of work by 3.8%. The 700,000 pensioners in Wales are going to be better off because of this Government.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, when we had the misfortune of leaving the European Union, Wales lost a significant amount of money from its structural programmes. The then Government promised that that shortfall would be more than made up for; indeed, the phrase was “not a penny less”. We have been promised that that gap will be bridged from the prosperity fund, but the Welsh Government remain rather sceptical about that. Does the Minister recognise that there is a shortfall and are the Government prepared to do anything about it?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The best way to answer this question is to look at what we have actually done, with the spending review in 2025 and the spring forecast in 2026. The outcome of that points to additional funding, on top of the Barnett formula, et cetera, of something in the order of £1 billion to be invested in Wales. That is good for its economy and good for the people of Wales. If they want to see this continue, the best thing they can do is to vote Labour in May.
Independent Commission on Adult Social Care
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the independent commission is making strong progress, and its work is on track. Just last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set out early recommendations for the Government to consider and take forward. This was informed by the commission’s extensive work, which included engaging with people and their families and across political parties. Later this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will launch the national conversation and publish the phase 1 report.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said that the adult social care system was held together by “sticking plasters and glue” and said on the “Today” programme that the system was “horrendous”. She is due to complete the first part of her review this year—basically, looking at getting better value from the existing system—but the second part, which will look at the long-overdue reform of the adult social care system, will not be completed until 2028. That will be too late for this Government to pass the necessary legislation, making this Parliament the fifth to have ducked this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, completed her review of grooming gangs in four and a half months. If asked, she could complete the second part of this review by September 2027, which would give us adequate time for this to be done in this Parliament. Will the Minister ask her to do just that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand why the noble Lord pushes this point, and I am sure that we all share his view. It has also been said that there is not a lack of good ideas, but there has been a lack of good politics. That observation has been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is chairing an independent commission and she has made it clear how complex and deep-seated these challenges are, as the noble Lord described. The 2028 date is a “by” date; the noble Baroness may report sooner, but that is a matter for her.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, concentrates on workforce issues. I am sure that she and my noble friend agree that patients, families and carers do not care who is employing the social care worker, as long as they are getting support. Should we concentrate on a flexible workforce that works across both agencies without boundaries to meet the changing needs of the population?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is key in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. We need to better join up the NHS and social care workforces. We will have a workforce plan for the NHS in spring this year and we are also investing in developing our social care workforce to professionalise and respect it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, last summer, local authorities came under pressure from the Department of Health to make people and their families go through assessments for continuing healthcare. From the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on 4 March, we now know that ICBs were at the same time employing private companies to make sure that their CHC payments went down. Will the Minister undertake to review all the applications for continuing healthcare to each ICB throughout this financial year and publish the results, showing how many were accepted, how many were accepted on appeal and how many families were sent on a runaround between the different agencies?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
What the noble Baroness describes—people getting the runaround—is, of course, unacceptable, and we have discussed this a number of times. I would be pleased to take back her suggestion to the Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, for what it is worth, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on her initial findings, which illustrate all too well how serious the situation is. The problem will be made worse by things such as, as the Minister just reported, the NHS workforce plan that will be produced in the near future. That is welcome as far as it goes, but it illustrates the separation between NHS services and local authority services. The reality is that there are very few people using adult social care services who are not simultaneously looking to the health service for their continuous needs. Will we continue to do everything possible to bridge the gap between the two services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, indeed. We have three core foundations in place in our government objectives for adult social care, one of which is—to the point made by the noble Lord—strengthening the join-up between health services and social care services, because people need to experience more integrated, person-centred care. I am glad that the noble Lord welcomes the immediate actions, set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the Government must take on adult safeguarding, dementia and motor neurone disease. We are not wasting any time in taking those recommendations forward.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, picking up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Laming, when we were in government, we published a White Paper on an integrated national health and care service, to be available for patients from birth to their later years. When the new Government were elected, as was their prerogative, the Secretary of State talked about creating a separate national care service, but we have heard little since. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether we will have to wait until the next stage of the Casey commission, in 2028, to get any further details at all, especially on how it will work in tandem with our healthcare system, or can we expect any clues or hints before then?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord does not have to wait because, in addition to the work by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which, as I have said, is independent, she has set out immediate recommendations, which we are working on. We have already made commitments on the disabled facilities grant for housing, so that people can stay in their own homes. We have announced a £500 million investment in the first ever fair pay agreement, and we are uplifting social care allowances to support disabled people more than they ever have been. Those are just some examples, and I would be very happy to direct the noble Lord to other ways in which we are already taking action.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, in 2023, the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care encouraged a conversation not only between provider and recipient but with all those involved in care and support, to create rounded and fulfilled lives. That includes the voluntary sector, community groups and faith groups, which provide befriending and bereavement support and acts of worship in care homes. What plans does the Casey commission have to ensure that all parties participate in the national conversation mandated in its terms of reference?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I said earlier, that will be a matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. But I have every confidence that all the groups the right reverend Prelate referred to will be included, not least because the noble Baroness and the secretariat have already met, travelled widely and had many conversations, including with some 400 groups and individuals, focusing particularly on those with lived experience.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, 83% of adult social care is controlled by private equity. Its business model includes high prices, profiteering, low wages, asset stripping and tax abuse. It has profit margins of between 20% and 40% from adult social care. When are the Government going to end profiteering in this sector and ensure that social care is provided by not-for-profit entities only?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Various sectors have their role to play, and that includes the private sector, the voluntary sector and the public sector. As I have mentioned, we are building a national care service. It will focus on a high quality of care, greater choice and control for individuals and joined-up neighbourhood services, exactly as noble Lords request.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What can the Government do about bed blockers before the final report?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assume that the noble and learned Baroness is referring to people who are staying in unsuitable settings, such as hospitals, for too long because an alternative is not available. We are looking at reforming the better care fund, which assists a greater joined-up approach, and we are bringing in neighbourhood services so that people can be cared for nearer home. We are also harnessing technology—I have witnessed many good examples of that—whereby people do not have to be in hospital but can be at home, and the money we are investing so that people can improve accessibility within their own homes will also assist people to get back home.
British Business Bank
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria are used by the British Business Bank when investing in UK businesses.
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, the British Business Bank’s investments are aligned with its strategic mandate, which is agreed with the Government and sets the bank’s overall strategic direction. It includes four objectives, the first of which is to support our most promising businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors to scale and stay here. The bank is operationally independent and is responsible for undertaking its own due diligence and making investment decisions independently of government.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. The additional funding that has been given to the British Business Bank is welcome, but will it be encouraged to take higher risk stakes in some of our more innovative companies? Can we be assured that it has the expertise to make those critical judgments?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to ask about mandate and risk appetite. This is the direction that the British Business Bank is taking, guided by its new strategic mandate. It is increasingly taking bigger bets to enable innovative British companies to scale and stay in the UK. The Government have provided a one-third uplift to the BBB’s financial capacity to help it to do so. It is able to leverage deep industry expertise across its investment activities, including both direct investments and investments made through funds.
Lord Fox (LD)
My lords, as has been alluded to, as well as operating on a commercial basis the British Business Bank is expected to fill structural gaps in the capital market. As the sponsor of the British Business Bank, how does the Minister see its role in scaling up the UK defence supply chain? How will the British Business Bank help us to deliver the defence industry that we absolutely need?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The British Business Bank’s new strategic mandate explicitly talks about supporting businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, which, as noble Lords will know, includes defence. One of the things that we will be doing is looking at where the financing gap is, whether that is for R&D intensive or deep-tech companies, and at investing behind specialist fund managers or investment strategies that specifically support particular sectors. Using its mandate, and with the increased financial capacity, the British Business Bank will be able to support our defence industry supply chain here in the UK.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, what are HMG doing to help the UK businesses affected by the present Gulf war?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As was said earlier, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. It is unclear at present what exactly the long-term impact on energy prices and energy security will be. We are carefully looking at that. In the meantime, we have taken measures, including through the British energy-intensive industries scheme, to support energy prices for the most intensive users here in the UK.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the development bank has some eye-catching five-year targets, including funding the creation of 370,000 new jobs and crowding in some £26 billion of additional private capital. I welcome that ambition, but, for perspective, can the Minister say how the bank has performed over the last five years, particularly in the areas of job creation and gross value added?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I may have to come back on those precise questions. The British Business Bank produces annual reports and has recently published an impact report which addresses some of the questions that the noble Lord specifically asks around job creation. That is an important aspect of its accountability for the funding it gets.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the creative industries is a priority sector for the modern industrial strategy but not for the National Wealth Fund, as business structures seem to be better fitted to investment from the British Business Bank. Can my noble friend provide reassurance that the bank has the expertise and criteria that fit businesses such as those in the creative industries whose value lies in intellectual property, particularly while its protection is currently uncertain? In due course, can she share the comparative levels of investment made in the last two years in the key growth sectors?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to mention consistency with the industrial strategy. It was only in October last year that the Government gave the British Business Bank a new mandate, including to align with the industrial strategy’s priority sectors and making available £4 billion to support those areas. In setting out the priority sectors, the Government have outlined ways in which they expect the British Business Bank to meet that—for example, using specialist fund managers or tailored approaches for the specific financing and other requirements of those subsectors. Creative UK has committed to providing a single gateway to help those creative industries that need access to finance to navigate between the various sources of finance available from the Government.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I am a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee. We recently produced a report, Bleeding to Death, which I hope the Minister has seen, looking at the scale-up ecosystem of the UK and particularly the role of the British Business Bank. It concluded that we are in a doom loop. We do not have the scale or competitiveness, despite the extra investment in the British Business Bank. One of our recommendations was to bring different funds together, such as Innovate Finance, the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank. Have the Government looked at that recommendation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I said, we are helping businesses navigate the way—for example, through the business growth service, which enables businesses to access all the types of finance and support that they need, including UK export finance and other facilities with the Government. For the creative industries, Creative UK has committed to taking that role to help those businesses navigate the way through. On supporting businesses and the VC ecosystem, there is a lot of activity with the new investor pathways programme to provide £400 million of cornerstone investments into VC funds.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, to follow up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, I have the privilege of chairing the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and we published a report recently on the financing and scaling of UK science and technology companies. To achieve real economic growth, our report recommended that the British Business Bank should work much more closely with the National Wealth Fund and Innovate UK, and that it should focus on priority sectors and companies in the direction set by the Government’s industrial strategy, which has already been referred to. It is good that the Minister has confirmed that that is the direction being taken. Is the British Business Bank actively implementing this in conjunction with the National Wealth Fund? Is it prioritising science and technology companies and the identified sectors of the industrial strategy?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government’s statement of strategic priorities had as its first objective to support our most promising businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, and the digital and technologies sector is among the industrial sectors identified. When the next annual report comes out in a year, we will be able to tell exactly how successful that has been. However, we have seen, in the light of some of the direct investments made, that the British Business Bank has taken seriously the mandate to invest directly and is pursuing that pathway.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me how grateful we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for introducing the subject of the British Business Bank, particularly at such a key time? Does she agree that, rather than setting demographic targets for investment, we and the British Business Bank should be focusing on backing the most investable opportunities in order to maximise productivity growth and returns for the taxpayer?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s first point: my noble friend has given us a good opportunity to talk about this important institution. The new mission set by the British Business Bank is to drive economic growth by helping smaller businesses to get the finance they need to start, scale and stay in the UK. That is how we will grow a more productive economy here in the United Kingdom.
Iran and the Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the deployment of UK naval and air assets to the Middle East and the appointment of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as the Supreme Leader of Iran, what assessment they have made of the conflict in the region and the status of the UK’s security and diplomatic relationship with the United States.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I draw attention to my entry on the register of interests as an adviser to the Arab Ambassadors Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we condemn Iran’s strikes on its neighbours. They are unacceptable and threaten regional stability. Keeping people safe and defending national security is the Government’s first duty, and we continually assess potential threats to the United Kingdom. We continue to have discussions at every level with the US and others. American planes operating out of British bases and British jets shooting down drones and missiles to protect American lives is the special relationship in action. The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader suggests no change in direction from Iran.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, at a time when our Gulf partners are asking for de-escalation and diplomacy, and indeed the United States President has said that he does not require the UK’s intervention, we seem to be intervening and escalating. The Minister delved on the issue of national security, but what is the stated objective of His Majesty’s Government when it comes to resolving this conflict specifically? The Minister referred to the use of UK bases; bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s stated objective that our intervention is defensive and that the US is carrying out a military intervention that is offensive, how does she square those two key strategic objectives?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We want to see a swift conclusion to this conflict; that is in the interests of our Gulf partners, and they are very clear what they would like to see. We are involved in a defensive capacity, as the noble Lord says, because British lives and the lives of our allies and partners are at risk.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, what assessment has been made of the impact of the conflict on BBC Persian staff based in London? What can His Majesty’s Government do to help their security and safety?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any threats to BBC Persian service staff in London or anywhere else—but certainly any threats in this country—are completely unacceptable, and our security services and the police work hard to keep them safe. One of the atrocious things about the Iranian regime is the way it has sought to act in the way it has against journalists and those wishing to report the truth about what is happening in Iran.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, one of the consequences of the conflict has been President Trump seeming to clear India and other countries to break sanctions and buy Russian oil, which clearly changes the balance of the economy in the Ukraine war. Does the Minister agree that any political party, particularly His Majesty’s Opposition, which chooses unequivocally to support Donald Trump, is absolutely supporting this policy and letting Ukraine down?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right in that all these conflicts are interconnected in many subtle ways that often are not immediately obvious to those seeking to make political points in this country. It is obviously a matter for His Majesty’s Opposition to answer for their own conduct.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, in 2003 the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, met the chiefs of staff just before the invasion of Iraq and we discussed our plan of action. At that meeting, we asked: what is the plan for phase 4? We were told by the Prime Minister that the Americans had phase 4 all in hand. As regards beating a country such as Iraq or Iran in conventional fighting, we can do that—we jolly well should be able to do that—but the difficult bit is the next bit. I ask my noble friend the Minister: have we actually asked the Americans what their plan is now and where we are actually going? This is the most dangerous part of any of these actions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think we all remember the experience from 2003 and the decisions made around Iraq. Somebody who fought in Iraq—a Member of Parliament, Calvin Bailey, who was a wing commander in the RAF—said to me last week that there were two things that the British Government need to bear in mind before they take such a decision again: one is the legality and the other is what happens next. I think he is right. As a mother of boys of fighting age, I do not want to have to look into the eyes of anybody else’s mother and say that we had not done our work adequately ahead of making such a decision ever again.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, sadly, it was universally acknowledged that this conflict was more likely to occur than less likely, with predictable consequences for British interests in the region. May I ask the Minister: why was our military response so tardy and so incomplete?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I just do not accept that that is the case. We are just over a week into this conflict. Decisions were made rapidly at the outset. The initial request was declined—as is well recorded and well discussed—for reasons that have been explained, and I refer the noble Baroness to my answer to the previous question, which I hope explains why. The decision now is around defensive activity, and I think that that is the right position for the UK to take at this point.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, obviously the first duty is the protection of citizens, but what steps are the Government taking to help protect cultural property in Iran and the wider region? Iran, Israel and the USA are all signatories to the 1954 Hague convention, but UNESCO world heritage sites have already been damaged, and many museums are at risk during this conflict.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am an archaeology graduate and I completely understand why the noble Earl asks that question. He is right to draw our attention to this. It is tragic that, alongside women and children, the cultural heritage in many conflict zones suffers. It becomes a target because adversaries understand just how fundamental many of these sites are to the identity of a particular population. So I thank the noble Earl for drawing attention to this.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on her definition of “defensive operations”, given what the Deputy Prime Minister said at the weekend? Does “defensive operations” encompass using British weapons and bases proactively to take out Iranian missile-launching sites that could be used to target British military assets and British military personnel?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, but my noble friend the Minister for Defence was saying something while the noble Lord was speaking. I think he was trying to be helpful.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I was trying.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
He always tries to be helpful. Obviously, noble Lords would not expect me to comment in any detail on exactly what is being used, but we have F35s and Typhoons, which are being used to keep our citizens safe. We may have time for the noble Lord to ask the question again; if that was not quite what he was asking, I would be happy to answer him again.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are hearing from administrative figures in the United States, including the Secretary of War, that this is a crusade and that we are fighting a battle between Christianity and Islam. Can the British Government make it very clear that, to quote Tony Blair in his past days, we do not do God; that we think that any suggestion that this ought to be a battle between Christianity and Islam is horrifying and will lead to more than a regional war; that the aims have to be kept clear and limited; and that our support for the United States is also very limited?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is absolutely not the language that we are using. The actions that we are taking are defensive, as I have explained, and it is vital that we all take extreme care with the language we use around this conflict, not least because it can, and often does, find itself repeated and played out on the streets of the United Kingdom.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, can I probe the noble Baroness a little further on her answer to my noble friend Lord Harper? Initially, the UK denied the use of our bases for offensive strikes on Iran and then, 48 hours later, the Government permitted the use of the bases for defensive strikes. Can she explain the difference between striking Iran offensively and defensively please?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are vast books written about international law that the noble Lord may wish to consult. But, clearly, after Iran strikes civilian sites—hotels in Dubai where British nationals are staying, with their lives put at risk—then what we are doing to support the United States is clearly a defensive action.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that, for there to be any stability in the Gulf region and in the Middle East, there will have to be some kind of negotiated outcome on Iran’s nuclear activities, its missiles and its support for proxies? If that is so, what are the Government doing to discuss with the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France ideas that could be brought forward at some stage to achieve those objectives, other than by a collapse into chaos of Iran?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Experience tells us that, at some point, this becomes an issue of dialogue and negotiation. Who is involved, the nature of it, how it is staged and where it takes place are, as of today, not known.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches, and then we will come to other noble Lords.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
Could the Minister comment on the emerging evidence from BBC Verify that a US Tomahawk missile hit an Iranian primary school in Minab, where more than 168 people, mostly children, were killed? Are the Government liaising with the United States on this case and the issues that may arise from it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, we are talking to our partners in the United States about this and very many other issues. We have all heard these reports and, of course, when situations such as this occur, any loss of civilian life is deeply regrettable, whether they be Israeli, Iranian or anybody else.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we might not have declared war on Iran, of course, but Iran has certainly declared war on the West and on us, not just threatening Israel, our closest ally in the region, but organising terror attacks here in the UK, kidnapping British citizens and threatening our citizens and bases in the Gulf. Of course, it would be better if these things could be resolved by negotiation, but what evidence can the Government point to of the Iranians being able to be trusted because they have stuck to any of the agreements that they have made in the past?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I take that as a fair challenge. I am very well aware of the noble Lord’s views on this topic, and we have discussed them on many occasions—but the point that still stands as regards the United Kingdom’s position on this is that we must have clarity in international law, which we do for the actions that we are taking. However, we will also have to have a clear plan and a clear way forward.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the safety of British citizens, and I would like to talk about the safety of British citizens in Britain. As the House knows, 20 terrorist attacks from the Iranians have been stopped here—thank God—and the 21st is probably not very far away. We have all called for the IRGC to be proscribed, but the Government continue to hide behind some sort of legal processes. It has been done everywhere across Europe, and we are still slow—so can we do this? While we are thinking about that, we have the al-Quds march taking place next Saturday, which will be a march in support of the new ayatollah and the regime that the Minister does not like. What are we going to do to stop that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall speak to my colleagues at the Home Office about the march. Obviously, how that is policed and what is done about it is rightly a matter for the relevant authorities. On the IRGC, I remind the House that we commissioned a legal report on this, and the recommendation was that the UK Government do not at present have the ability to sanction the IRGC in the way that we would want to, and we are committed to making the necessary changes to allow us to do just that.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood that the tensions in Lebanon and what is happening in Iran will lead to a flood of people seeking safety in Europe? Are we prepared for this, and are we having discussions with our European friends on how best to handle such a flood of people seeking safety?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, and I am particularly worried about Lebanon and what is happening there. Yes, we are mindful of the impact that this can have on the movement of people—and yes, of course, we are talking to our partners and friends in the European Union about this.
Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on this Bill. The Bill is UK-wide, and it has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. A legislative consent Motion was received from the Northern Ireland Assembly on 10 February 2025, from the Scottish Parliament on 29 May 2025 and the Senedd on 9 December 2025.
Following further amendments to the Bill on Report, supplementary legislative consent Motions have been sought from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. It has not been possible to complete this process before Third Reading. However, noting the strong support of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, we are hopeful that this process will conclude shortly. The Northern Ireland Executive has confirmed that their current legislative consent Motion is sufficient. I beg to move.
Schedule 16: Advertising etc: audiovisual and radio broadcasting
Amendment 1
Baroness Merron
(a) in paragraph (a),”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a structural change to facilitate my amendment to Schedule 16, page 169, line 40.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 1 to 5 are minor and technical, and stem from the amendments that the Government made on Report on advertising. The amendments ensure consistency across the advertising-related restrictions in the Communications Act 2003. In particular, they will ensure that a business which manufactures or sells more than one type of product, such as vaping products and nicotine products, is in scope of the restrictions on sponsorship of prohibited products. It was always the Government’s intention to capture any business which manufactures or sells prohibited products, no matter how many different types of product they sold or manufactured. The amendments therefore provide consistency across the advertising-related restrictions and prevent the creation of a potential loophole. I beg to move.
Baroness Merron
“(b) in paragraph (b), after “other tobacco products” insert “, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers (or of two or more of those products)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Section 368G(1)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, as amended, will refer to an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of cigarettes or certain other products. The amendment spells out that this covers an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of two or more of those products (for consistency with other amendments).
(a) in paragraph (a),”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a structural change to facilitate my amendment to Schedule 16, page 169, line 42.
“(b) in paragraph (b), for “electronic cigarettes or electronic cigarette refill containers” substitute “vaping products or nicotine products (or both)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Section 368G(1A)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, as amended, will refer to an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of vaping or nicotine products. The amendment spells out that this covers an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of both products (for consistency with other amendments).
(a) in paragraph (b), after “tobacco products” insert “(or both)”;Member’s explanatory statement
Section 368H(4)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, as amended, will refer to an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of cigarettes or other tobacco products. The amendment spells out that this covers an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of both descriptions of product (for consistency with other amendments).
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to take this landmark Bill through your Lordships’ House. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health and tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year. While tobacco remains the greatest threat, this legislation is about protecting future generations from the harms of not only tobacco but nicotine addiction.
I extend my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed from right across the House: in particular, on the Front Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. My thanks go also to the Secretary of State for his leadership and support and to former Minister Ashley Dalton MP, who advanced this Bill to your Lordships’ House.
I also want to pay tribute, as many of us do, to former Prime Minister the right honourable Rishi Sunak for his ambition for a smoke-free generation. I also thank the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, for his expertise and unwavering focus, and all the officials who have played a crucial role, including the Bill team, policy teams, analysts, the Bill’s senior responsible owners, my private office and the Government Legal Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their invaluable contributions.
Finally, I pay tribute to Ministers and officials from the devolved Governments for their collaborative approach. This is genuinely a four-nations Bill which will ensure that we create a smoke-free generation and tackle youth vaping in every corner of our country. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we have now reached the conclusion of what many will see as a landmark Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed throughout the various stages of its journey through your Lordships’ House, which began with its introduction as long ago as March last year. From these and other Benches, we heard a range of views on its various proposals and on the Bill itself. For some, it goes too far. For others, it does not go far enough. However, among all the disagreements, there were three points that I think noble Lords can agree on. First, smoking is bad for your health. Secondly, current evidence shows that vaping is less harmful than smoking tobacco. Thirdly, not vaping is healthier than vaping.
Beyond that, our debates covered a number of issues, from the evidence base to how to make vapes an attractive alternative to adults who wish to quit smoking while not appealing to children, as well as matters of individual liberty. We also debated the illicit sale of tobacco, the treatment of specialist retailers, cigarette filters, the compatibility of the Bill with the Windsor Framework and the enforcement of a regulatory regime of considerable complexity. We also probed the Government on the evidence behind some of the proposals, for example on the relative harm of heated tobacco compared with combustible tobacco for smokers who have tried vapes but did not like them, so reverted to cigarettes.
While we did not always agree, I thank the Minister and her officials for meeting my noble friend Lord Howe and me throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank her for the concessions made: we particularly welcome the amendment permitting vape vending machines in secure mental health settings. These are vulnerable people in restricted environments for whom access to cessation aids is not a luxury but a genuine health need and it was right that the Bill was amended accordingly.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I speak for my Benches, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley is unable to be here today as she is presently chairing a committee. As we reach the final stage of this landmark public health legislation, I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the Minister and her officials for their constructive engagement throughout. This has been challenging and complex legislation, and the collaborative spirit shown across the House in scrutinising it has undoubtedly strengthened it.
I want to thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her outstanding leadership of our team, her diligent negotiation and her clear focus on public health. I also thank my noble friend Lady Northover and the rest of the Bill team. I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his guidance and support throughout.
From the very start, we have been proud to support this Bill and the principle underpinning it: the creation of a smoke-free generation. The generational ban is bold, evidence-based and one of the most significant steps any of us will probably take as parliamentarians to improve the nation’s health and well-being in our lifetimes. It will help ensure that future generations never start on the path to addiction and the devastating consequences that surely follow.
We are pleased that, through our discussions, a number of improvements have been secured. Local authorities will now retain the full proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notices issued for licensing offences, giving trading standards the resources they need for effective enforcement. The Government have also taken new powers to regulate or ban cigarette filters, recognising growing concerns about the false perception of safety they create and their environmental impact.
To support smoking cessation, a new defence will allow public authorities to partner with businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products for public health purposes. The narrow exemption introduced for vape vending machines in adult mental health hospitals is also welcome, ensuring an appropriate balance between safeguarding and supporting cessation in secure settings.
We also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations to upgrade the parliamentary procedure for age-verification regulations to affirmative and the commitment to a formal statutory review within four to seven years of Royal Assent. The recently launched consultation on smoke-free, heated tobacco-free and vape-free places also sends an important signal about the Government’s intention to maintain momentum in this area. However, there is still more to do. We regret that the Government did not accept the cross-party proposals for a levy on big tobacco company profits to fund cessation and related healthcare, and we believe that further action is essential to keep vapes out of the hands of our children and bring forward a proper ban on disposable vapes.
This Bill lays the foundations for a generational shift in public health. It will reach its potential only if implemented with care, attention and continued cross-party resolve. This is landmark legislation, and we are proud to support it.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:31 - Division on Amendment 369 - Ayes: 75 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 369 disagreed.
17:43 - Division on Amendment 369A - Ayes: 88 / Noes: 172 - Amendment 369A disagreed.
19:45 - Division on Amendment 371A - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 162 - Amendment 371A agreed.
“The right to protestBefore section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 (advance notice of public processions), insert—“10A The right to protest(1) Everyone has the right to engage in peaceful protest, both alone and with others.(2) Public authorities have a duty to—(a) respect the right to protest,(b) protect the right to protest, and(c) facilitate the right to protest.(3) A public authority may only interfere with the right to protest, including by placing restrictions upon its exercise, when it is necessary and proportionate to do so to—(a) protect national security or public safety,(b) prevent disorder or crime, or(c) protect public health, or the rights and freedoms of others.(4) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on public authorities while recognising that the right to protest may need to be limited to protect other legitimate public interests.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group, I will speak principally to Amendment 369, which is in my name and the names of my noble friend Baroness Doocey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will also speak to Amendments 369A, 372A, 372B, 372C and 373.
Amendment 369 brings to Report our amendment calling for a strong statement in domestic law of the right to protest. Nothing has been said in Committee or so far on Report that has even started to persuade these Benches that this Bill does not need within it a strong statement of a statutory right to protest, which would both supplement and complement rights of the citizen under the ECHR. Our Amendment 369 is co-signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and others, as I have said, and I accept entirely that the right to protest is, in part at least, enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 10 is on “Freedom of expression” and Article 11 is on “Freedom of assembly and association”. As I mentioned in Committee, the convention rights are circumscribed because they
“may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals”,
or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.
A significant feature of the rights under the convention is that the degree to which the European Court of Human Rights may interpret or enforce those rights is subject to what is known as the “margin of appreciation”, accorded to individual signatory countries to decide how they, as nation states, interpret and enforce those rights. It is only where countries stray beyond that margin of appreciation that the European Court of Human Rights will hold a signatory nation in breach.
What our amendment would do, that is new and not encompassed by the convention, is make it absolutely clear that in this jurisdiction, public authorities have a threefold duty in relation to protest: first, to respect, secondly, to protect, and, thirdly, to facilitate the right to protest. That duty is dynamic and positive. Our amendment is an important and clear statement of what every citizen would have a right to expect and insist upon from government, local and national. Government would have a duty to act, which is far stronger than a duty merely to refrain from interfering. Such a firm statement would be a more powerful protection than the convention rights, precisely because the margin of appreciation of which I spoke would be irrelevant.
I need remind the Government only that it is their own express view that how we determine and apply the limits of Article 8, on the right to respect for private and family life, is open to discussion, as is the proper area for domestic legislation which they propose to introduce, in order to limit the way that Article 8 might act within the margin of appreciation. That is their stated position in the context of immigration law. That is a position the Government are entitled to take under the European convention, in my view. But there is a risk that more extreme Governments might push the boundaries of what is acceptable in the context of other human rights, including the rights under Articles 10 and 11.
Members will no doubt remember that in Committee there was clear agreement around the House that, whether dealing with convention rights or rights under our amendment, we would have to strike a balance between the stated rights and the applications of the limitation—either under the convention, in the case of the ECHR rights, or under domestic legislation, if it were amended as we seek. But there is one specific area where that distinction may be important. The convention in both Articles 10 and 11 permits restrictions for the protection of morals, as was apparent from the passage I quoted. In a society as diverse as ours, with mixed secular and faith-based belief systems and philosophies, that is not an area in which we on these Benches would wish to see, let alone advocate for, a derogation from the convention rights or a restriction of our rights for the protection of morals. Our amendment would not permit a derogation or restriction on that ground alone.
We also discussed the possibility in Committee that future Governments might not be as enlightened as our present Government no doubt are. I fear we can see the possibility that a future Government, more extreme than this one, might wish to introduce restrictions on freedoms of speech or assembly. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, expressed optimism that this would not happen. He more or less said that if a Government were elected, they could do what they liked. I am not so sure. I say in answer to that point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson: let us make it more difficult to change the citizen’s rights for the worse, while we can.
There was also discussion in Committee as to whether there might not be differences between the convention rights and the rights under our amendment. The suggestion was made by some that this would give rise to satellite litigation. For my part, I do not believe that the convention rights would in any sense either clash with or limit the rights of people in this country under the clear rights that would be enshrined in domestic law pursuant to our amendment.
On a practical level, I acknowledged then, and acknowledge now, that policing protests can be an expensive exercise and that it is sometimes difficult for the police to draw a balance—which often has to be drawn in advance—between overpolicing and underpolicing protests. That makes it even more important to spell out in clear terms what the right to protest is, so that the police and local authorities may be accorded the necessary resources for them to carry out that duty to respect, protect and facilitate protest.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord has already accepted that the right to protest has to be balanced against the rights of others. Surely the virtue of the cumulative disruption provision, Clause 140, is that it is totally unacceptable that the rights of others who wish to pray in their synagogue, who wish to get to their synagogue, who wish to get away from their synagogue, should be repeatedly disrupted in the same place every week. The cumulative nature of the disruption pushes the balance in favour of asking the protesters not to cease protesting but to do it somewhere else.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The answer to that is that the cumulative nature of the disruption is not what causes the oppression to worshippers at synagogues or mosques or anywhere else. We have accepted, for the purpose of Report, restrictions on the right to protest near places of worship on condition that it is relevant and that we are talking about the place of worship and worshippers being disrupted. The fact that a legitimate protest is repeated is not a reason for restricting the protests. If the rights and freedoms of others are restricted, that in itself is, under our Amendment 369, a reason for restricting protest, because there is a right to protest. It is not helped by the fact that repeated protests are seen as more difficult. I see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about repeated protests at synagogues and mosques, but they are covered by our condition on restriction at a place of worship. I beg to move.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 369A in my name, which we have just been discussing, and to Amendments 372A, 372B, 372C and 373, to all of which I have added my name. Regarding Amendment 369A, Clause 133 seeks to create a new offence of concealed identity at protests. If this clause were enacted as it stands, the police would be empowered to ban all face coverings at a protest with only some limited exceptions concerning the person’s health, religion or work. Many other categories of perfectly law-abiding citizens may have good reasons to conceal their identities at protests—for example, those protesting against a hostile foreign state who fear retribution for themselves or their families, those who might be criticising their own religious or cultural communities, or survivors of sexual violence or domestic abuse who need to stay below the radar for their own safety. None of those is covered by the limited exemptions in Clause 133.
To solve this problem, Amendment 369A would provide a defence of reasonable excuse for the offence of concealing identity at protests, thereby putting the burden on police officers to justify why they believed that wearing a face covering at a protest made the suspect arrestable. This amendment strikes a careful balance between allowing the police to prevent public disorder and protecting the many law-abiding citizens who have legitimate reasons for wanting to exercise their freedom of expression anonymously.
I have signed Amendments 372A, 372B and 372C in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks. Clause 139 seems to have been drafted to give reassurance to Jews, Muslims and other denominations that they can attend their place of worship without feeling intimidated by protests in the vicinity of their synagogue, mosque, church or whatever. That sounds to me like a laudable objective. What is not to like? The difficulty is a severe unintended consequence caused by the drafting. The sheer number of places of worship in a country as old, religiously diverse and densely populated as Britain that could inadvertently become no-protest zones is enormous. Here in Westminster, Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square are both in the vicinity of one or more churches, and yet they frequently host major demonstrations. They could become off limits. Few if any large spaces in central London or any other city would escape the risk posed by Clause 139 of being ruled too close to a place of worship for a demonstration to be allowed. The Government may well say that this is not the intention of Clause 139, but that is exactly what the clause as drafted permits a senior officer to do.
My Lords, Amendments 372A, 372B and 372C would solve the problem by making a ban on protests near a place of worship possible only when the protest is directed at or connected with a place of worship or persons likely to worship there. Demonstrations that are unconnected with a nearby place of worship or that are in its vicinity purely by coincidence would be unaffected by Clause 139—problem solved.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, before I speak to my amendments in this group, I would like to say that I learned to read a long time ago—more than 70 years ago, before I went to school. This alphabet soup of a Bill is quite confusing, partly because so many people disagree with it. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, should perhaps be aware that it is moderately unusual to have this many amendments; perhaps it would help if he accepted one or two. Obviously, all of my amendments are incredibly reasonable, so I urge him to pick them up. My first amendment in this group would solve the problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, so I expect his strong support on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, moved Amendment 369 on the right to protest. In Committee, we were all reassured that this was not necessary, because the right to peaceful protest is already protected under the Human Rights Act. We were correctly reminded that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect the freedoms of expression and assembly, and that public authorities are already bound by those duties, but that reassurance is based on the assumption that those protections will remain intact. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, we cannot be sure of that; we cannot speak for future Governments, who might cause our right to protest to deteriorate.
Over recent years, under this Government and the previous one, we have seen a steady erosion of our right to protest and an expansion of police powers to restrict those protests. Each time, we are told, “The powers are modest—you will hardly notice them”. Of course, that is not true, because the effect is cumulative, damaging and leads to much greater constraint on people who are campaigning and protesting. The balance is shifting and Parliament continues to widen state power without at the same time reaffirming the underlying right.
I have also cosigned Amendment 369A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. There are many legitimate reasons why people might want to cover their faces at protests. Some noble Lords on this side of the Chamber might benefit from wearing masks sometimes, just to hide their look of derision at other noble Lords who are speaking coherently, cogently and sensibly. People might fear losing their job if their political views were known. They might fear backlash from family or their local community. They might be worried about racial profiling, particularly given the increased use of facial recognition technology. They might be protesting against a foreign regime and be genuinely concerned about repercussions for loved ones overseas. It is not unreasonable to wear masks.
I turn now to my Amendment 372ZA. Clause 139 is very problematic. It gives the police significant new powers to restrict protests near places of worship. I am an atheist, but I absolutely protect the right of people to worship freely, as they want to, and without fear. At a time of rising antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, that duty is paramount for us here in Parliament. All our diverse communities must be supported and defended, and every faith group must have the ability to worship freely. As drafted, Clause 139 risks undermining that balance between rights. If the Government are not prepared to remove it, it must at the very least be clarified and narrowed. My amendments are offered as a compromise and an attempt to introduce clarity where the drafting is currently vague and overly broad.
My amendments, which address the phrases “in the vicinity”, “within 50 metres” and “the purpose of intimidating”, seek to establish clarity on these broad definitions in Clause 139. The clause seeks to restrict the right to protest by giving the police new powers to ban or restrict protest “in the vicinity” of places of religious worship, based on the false premise that these powers are required to protect freedom of religion. “In the vicinity” is a vague definition that could mean 10 metres or 10 miles. At the very least, the clause must be amended to make it more specific and contained, with an eye towards protecting Article 11—the right to freedom of assembly. “In the vicinity” needs to be clarified in terms of a specific distance. Many cities and towns have a large concentration of places of worship. The clause as it stands could make it virtually impossible to protest, as other noble Lords have said, including taking protests to Parliament or other such places on which protesters might wish to focus in order to make their point to people in positions of influence—for example, in government.
The Green Party feels that 50 metres is a sensible compromise that would provide clarity for police on the threshold for imposing conditions on protests while protecting the Article 11 right. Amendment 372ZA would help the police because it is so specific that they could take a tape measure to protests to make sure that protesters were at the designated distance. It would also help protesters, because they would know whether they were legally allowed to protest at that point or not. I urge the Minister to think about this and to clarify what “in the vicinity” means. It is far too vague to bring in in legislation. Surely the Government must see that.
The phrase “may intimidate” again is terribly vague, and I do not understand why anybody would put that in a Bill. This is bad writing—which is why we have so many amendments labelled ZA, ZZ and BZ and so on Report. All our diverse communities have to be supported and defended, but Clause 139, as it stands, will not do that because it is too vague. There are existing powers to address racial and religious hatred and violence. Under the Public Order Act 1986, the police can impose conditions on protests that may compel people not to worship, disrupt the activities of an organisation or intimidate or harass people in the vicinity. My amendment tries to make things clearer. As always, I am just trying to help the Government get things right.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Before she sits down, I put to the noble Baroness that her amendments would not achieve the purpose that I understand the Government to have with Clause 139. If you confer the power in relation only to a protest that takes place within 50 metres then you are not going to achieve the purpose, which is to ensure that people are able to get to and away from their synagogue every Saturday. If there is a march of hundreds or thousands of people that impedes their access, 50 metres is not going to work. As I have already put to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, protest is a balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of other people. The noble Baroness is ignoring the rights of others.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to you all later.
I think the noble Lord is wrong. You cannot have these vague terms. I would have thought the noble Lord would appreciate the fact that you need clarity in legislation. How can the police know what “in the vicinity” means? How can they possibly make good judgments? They already make terrible judgments based on some of the laws that we have already passed; they overstep the mark constantly because they cannot be clear about exactly what it means and what we think it means. I argue that 50 metres is a sensible limit.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 369, which would introduce an express statutory right to protest and impose negative and positive obligations on authorities that recognise the right to protest. We were told in Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has reminded us, and we have been told again that this will not be necessary. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has rightly pointed out, this group of amendments indicates exactly why it is necessary. This whole chapter, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has explained, would undermine the right to protest.
A constant concern that I have with this Bill is that it is just the latest iteration of adding new powers to a veritable arsenal of laws already on the statute books undermining and curtailing protests. The problem is that we keep making new laws that seemingly are then not enforced, or not consistently enforced, leading to a demand that something more should be done, and more and more. Each time, that normalises the chipping away of the right to protest as a democratic norm—not as an unqualified right but as a norm.
I am just back from Manchester where, last week, two masked and arm-banded pro-Ayatollah Khamenei supporters—apologists for the terror-backing Iranian regime—rode horses at Iranian dissidents in the middle of the day on the streets of Manchester. It was terrifying, intimidating and violent in many ways. What struck me was that the Greater Manchester Police officers who were asked why they did not intervene just shrugged and said, “What can we do?” I am not advocating that we have a new law specifically banning the riding of horses by pro-Islamists through the streets. I am suggesting that we need more decisive police action and use of the laws that we have when they are required. I worry about building up more and more laws.
That is one of the reasons why I share with other noble Lords real concerns about the vague phrasing of Clause 139. The absence of a clear definition of “vicinity”, as has been explained, would allow the police to create substantial no-protest zones around places of worship, while giving powers to ban demos that may have the effect of intimidating people so as to deter them from religious activities. That is a very permissive power. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described what he considered Clause 139 to be. He talked about people being intimidated on Saturdays at synagogue. We all recognise that, but that is not what Clause 139 says. I would be more sympathetic if it was, but, in fact, it is a very general clause that might have unintended consequences.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I agree with much of the discussion about this important group, but I remember that this is Report. While I share particularly the concerns about cumulative disruption, because it is Report, not Committee, I will confine my remarks to one speech in this group, with no interventions, and focus on Amendments 369 and 369A as briefly and succinctly as I can.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Pannick and Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about Amendment 369A. These arguments were rehearsed with great precision in Committee. The example was given of an Iranian dissident protesting and being concerned about reprisals—and you could substitute other countries and their embassies for Iran, that was just the one that came up that day.
In the clause, the Government acknowledge that there should be some defences to the offence of wearing a mask on a protest—I have concerns about the offence itself because it presupposes that protest is a slightly dodgy thing to begin with, and I do not agree with that—and included health, religious observance and work as justifications for concealing identity, but fear of reprisals was not included. The reasonable excuse defence proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and his colleagues is a proportionate one, given what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said earlier about balancing rights. I urge my colleagues in government to think seriously about the noble Lord’s amendment because the defences currently to the offence of concealing your identity at a protest do not include the fear of reprisals, whether you are a battered woman, someone who disagrees with their employer or, crucially, a dissident outside the embassy of your homeland. I urge my noble friends in government to think again about that.
Just briefly on Amendment 369—I am still at just over two minutes—and enshrining the right to protest as a free-standing clause, even though it is acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that we have Articles 10 and 11 of the convention incorporated into the Human Rights Act, I say in friendship and gently to him that I think this kind of duplication may be a mistake we would come to regret. He is quite right, of course, as are the Government on other matters to do with Article 8, that you can, and should, be more precise in your domestic legislation when attempting to safeguard rights and freedoms, but this is not that much more precise. In effect, this proposed new clause pretty much replicates Articles 10 and 11 of the convention but for the removal of morals. Frankly, I think that morals is a dead letter these days.
As a fellow human rights person—I have been working with the convention and with some Members of your Lordships’ House for over 30 years—I say that that kind of almost duplication is dangerous in legal terms. I urge the noble Lord not to press that one, just as I urge my colleagues in government to support him and others who have signed up to broaden the defence in Amendment 369A to the offence of wearing a face covering at a peaceful protest.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her gently to explain why she does not accept that the margin of appreciation permits the Government to do things outside what we would want to see? I know that she and I both are great advocates for the ECHR, and she knows that, but the problem is that the margin of appreciation can be taken advantage of to allow restrictions we would not want to see. The first and principal point I might make in relation to the duplication point is that having the right to protest enshrined in domestic statutory law does away with the possibility that the margin of appreciation should allow restrictions that this Parliament would not wish to see.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I was trying to be brief—this is Report—but, with the leave of the House, I will answer, again as briefly as I can. I know that not everyone agrees and not every jurist agrees, but as far I am concerned, the margin of appreciation was always intended to be an international concept for an international court. Once you get to Strasbourg, it is quite right that a margin of appreciation applies so that Strasbourg respects the legislation and the jurisdiction of domestic legislators and judges.
I do not see it as a domestic legal principle at all, so I do not see that it is for even the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to be operating a margin of appreciation when it applies the Human Rights Act domestically. I do not see that as the problem that the noble Lord does. The way that you put meat on the bones of human rights protections is with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, with the detail of the public order statute book; hence I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, about having a proper defence to face concealment. That is the detailed meat on the bones, not drafting a right to protest that pretty much replicates Articles 10 and 11.
If the concern—and I would understand this—is that a future Government will come in and scrap the Human Rights Act and pull out of the ECHR, why then have colleagues piggy-backed on to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act in the way that they drafted the right to protest? That is a mistake. I do not want to give up on the Human Rights Act and the ECHR; I will defend them as long as I have breath in my body. That is the approach because it is a hostage to fortune to have free-standing replication of particular rights in particular statutes, when we have the precious protection of an overarching Human Rights Act that applies to the interpretation of all law.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the right to protest is an interesting concept. We all agree, on all sides of the House, that there is a right to protest. But, as with most rights—the right to free speech or the right to assemble, for example—in English common law it is not part of our law but part of our common law. We have an absence of fundamental liberties; you are free to do things unless the law otherwise prevents them. So it would be slightly odd to have the right to protest, without any of these other rights, simply inserted into our law. How would it work?
The point about public order legislation is that it always has to balance various interests: the right to protest, along with the right of those affected by those protests—third parties—and of course the police, who have to enforce what is often very difficult and complex legislation. It has to respect those various rights. The European convention did not invent these rights, but they are reflected in its Articles 10 and 11, both of which are qualified rights, not absolute rights. As Strasbourg has made clear, it is perfectly acceptable for individual Governments to determine, by reference to the circumstances that obtain in their countries, what limits are reasonable to place on those rights. Strasbourg has said a number of times that it is not likely to interfere with those. So imposing on top of our public order legislation this right to protest would, I respectfully suggest, cause only confusion in our law, making it difficult for courts and the police.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this is indeed Report and I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke to. I also take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: this is a large group, with a large number of amendments. But I will restrict my comments to Amendment 369A.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Chakrabarti, said, it is much simpler to apply the test of “reasonable excuse”, rather than the complicated language used in Clause 133(2), where there is a test of whether the wearing of the clothes of concealment had
“a purpose relating to the health of the person or others”.
That is just asking for a complicated interpretation, and the “reasonable excuse” test is, in my view, sounder.
I will make one comment relating to the entirety of Report on this Bill. I, and I am sure other Members of this House, have extreme concern that we are having to sit every night beyond 11 pm to midnight. I am glad to see a nod from the Liberal Democrat Benches. That places great strain, not only on Ministers—I hasten not to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, how many midnights he has been sitting up in this House for. He would find it difficult to count on his fingers: there are only 10 fingers to count on, so I am afraid he does not have enough fingers to count the number of times. So it imposes a strain on him, and it also imposes a great strain on all of us who need or want to participate in this Bill throughout every debate. There is another problem: with the House sitting so late, some important amendments are not considered. This happened to me on Monday last week. I had a very important amendment down, together with others, which was not reached. Indeed, it was not even spoken to. This goes for the whole of Report.
I am blaming nobody: I am certainly not blaming Ministers or the Government Chief Whip, all of whom I greatly respect. But there is a problem, and I cannot help recalling that, on Wednesday last week, when again the House sat to midnight, I was sitting in a committee room in Portcullis House and the annunciator said that the House of Commons rose at 7 pm. There is a disproportionate burden being placed on this House and I protest about it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in my experience, the later the sitting, the more persuasive the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, gets—but that is just a personal view.
I shall make one general comment and then make my observations on Amendments 369 and 369A. The modest changes—and they are modest—introduced in the Bill by the Government to public order legislation do not justify some of the alarmist comments that we have heard today about the death of the right to protest in this country. Protest is alive and well, as we see constantly, and will continue to be alive and well—and there is nothing in this Bill or in the Government’s proposals that will stop the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others protesting against matters they disapprove of—so let us keep this in perspective, please.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but perhaps I could give him a very small example of something that is completely relevant to what he says. On 5 March this year, the Metropolitan Police raided a Quaker meeting house and arrested a number of young, non-violent activists who were being trained in non-violent protest. How can that happen? They were not even protesting: they were just planning how to be non-violent at protests. The noble Lord must concede that that would have a chilling effect on people.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who makes a forceful point, but my understanding is that that led to no charges. I certainly would not defend what the police did in those circumstances. Perhaps more relevantly, it has nothing whatever to do with the contents of the Bill or the proposals that the Government are putting forward in this proposed legislation.
Amendment 369 is an important amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others, proposing that we should insert into the statute book a right to protest. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that it would be most inappropriate. It cannot be right to introduce a statutory right to protest when we are not introducing into the statute book, and rightly so, any other provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to freedom of speech or to religious freedom. The reason for that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, is that we already have the protection of the Human Rights Act, which is applied by our judges.
With respect, I do not accept the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, when he focused on the European concept, in the European Court of Human Rights, of the “margin of discretion”. But that is an international concept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said. There is something similar here—a discretionary area of judgment—but the European concept is an international concept that is not applied by the domestic courts. Then the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “Well, we need to put a marker down in case future Parliaments interfere with the right to protest”. But nothing that we do today will prevent a future Parliament, should it wish to do so, legislating in a way we may think is inappropriate. That is a matter for the future Parliament, and a matter for debate at the time.
The third point the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made was that the convention allowed for a restriction for the protection of morals. He said that was surely inappropriate. Well, yes, but I cannot think of any case where protest has been limited because of a moral view imposed by the police or any other authority. I would not go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who said—I wrote it down—that morals were a “dead letter” nowadays, which is perhaps a wider proposition than she intended to suggest. But Amendment 369 would be most unfortunate. It would cause confusion and achieve no sensible purpose, if I may respectfully say so.
I take a different view of Amendment 369A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and I have signed it. It deals with Clause 133, which introduces this new offence of concealing your identity at a protest. No defence of reasonable excuse is included, despite the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its fifth report of the Session, proposed that there should be such a defence. The absence of such a defence is very puzzling, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, because in Clause 133(2) there are defences
“relating to the health of the person … religious observance, or … a purpose relating to the person’s work”.
In Committee I gave an example of why a defence of reasonable excuse is required. The example—and it is a very topical example—was of a man or a woman who wishes to protest outside the Iranian embassy or at some other demonstration against the conduct of the Iranian regime. They may well have a very strong reason for concealing their identity, which is that they have relatives in Iran. Are we really to say that they are committing a criminal offence, despite the obvious need for them to conceal their identity in those circumstances?
With great respect to the Minister, I heard no convincing answer to that point in Committee. That is why I have joined the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, in suggesting that a defence of reasonable excuse should be added to this new criminal offence. If the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House—and I hope he does, if the Minister cannot give any comfort on this—I will certainly support him.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise mainly to support the Government. It seems to me that they are broadly taking steps to stop intimidation of the public, not to stop intimidation of the Government, which is what those who support the right to protest seem to be suggesting. The amendments, on the whole, seem to try to restrict that right. For the reasons that many people have already said, I do not think it is necessary.
The job of the police is to ensure that peaceful protesters are able to protest and that they are not intimidated. It is not their job to maximise the impact of the protest, which is what the implications of facilitation seem to suggest. Other people’s rights have to be respected; in the heat of a protest it is very difficult for the police to get that right. It can be a little easier in preparation for the protest, if you are able to plan, but many of these decisions often have to be made during the protest. When there are thousands of people who are emotional and shouting, perhaps outside the Israeli embassy, it can have an intimidating effect on everybody. We have to think seriously about how the police are able to implement these amendments.
I accept that proportionality is a very important part of the ECHR—I would not argue against that—but it is quite hard for the cops to measure this on the ground. In Northern Ireland it became such an issue that we ended up with a Parades Commission, which took the issues away from the police. The way that legislation is going, I suspect it might be wiser to leave someone independent to make these decisions rather than the police. But while it is with the police, it has to be as simple as possible, not because the police are simple—I speak personally—but because it is not easy to get that balance right. This is an acute judgment, not one that is measured in a court.
I want to speak about two other issues. If Parliament decides that it wants face coverings, we have to think carefully about the reasonable excuse. I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but I suspect that everybody will have a reasonable excuse. Imagine, as a police officer, confronting somebody about wearing a mask and trying to determine whether they have a reasonable excuse, together with four or five other people in a crowd. It would be almost impossible. Do they have a cold? That is one of the defences in the Act already. I think it would be almost unenforceable. I am not saying that it is wrong to have a reasonable excuse, but it is difficult to determine it during a protest.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Surely the police will go ahead with the arrest and then the courts will decide whether there was a reasonable excuse.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
By that time they will already be in a cell, facing the fact that they have been arrested. It is best to avoid that prospect and the dispute you might end up in with a crowd when having to make that decision. The police need as smooth a transition as possible when implementing legislation, so I would be really careful if we carried on with that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can the noble Lord answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about Iranians protesting outside the Iranian embassy, scared for their relatives in Iran?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I avoided having that conversation, because it is a good point. I introduced my points by saying that if a decision is made to impose a ban on masks, a reasonable excuse may be difficult to enforce. I am not expressing an opinion on the noble Lord’s very good point about whether it would capture Iranians who might be in fear of their life from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a reasonable point and I am choosing not to express an opinion on it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Can I pick the noble Lord up on one point? It is very interesting to hear him say that the law should be simple, because I have heard that from currently serving senior officers. Can he see that our accumulating more and more bits of law makes things not simpler but more complicated for the police? I have been on protests where the police have definitely been quite confused about the legislation. He ought to be arguing with the Government that we should make things much simpler.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I will finish here because this is Report, but 50 metres is too short, although I think vicinity works. I agree with the noble Baroness on clarity; I am not against that, but you have to leave the police some flexibility given the circumstances they face. I do not think vicinity is an unreasonable suggestion. We can make that work, but 50 metres will never work.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we have started the fourth day on Report with a wide-ranging and interesting debate on the general landscape of public order law. The noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Strasburger, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fox of Buckley, have argued that there are too many statutory limitations on protest in this country. I do not agree, and I suspect I will find myself in much agreement with the Minister on those amendments.
First, I will speak to my Amendments 377C and 377D. Amendment 377C would extend the notification period for public processions from six to 28 days. Currently, Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 requires any person organising a protest to notify the police of their proposal to hold it with six days’ notice. The purpose of this period is to ensure that the police can plan their resource requirements effectively. They need to examine the route, number of attendees and timing, gather intelligence on the groups and people involved and assess the likelihood of violence and disorder. If the procession is likely to be large or the cause highly contentious, or if those involved have a history of causing disorder, they may very well need to make contingencies and possibly bring in more officers.
The short period of six days causes significant problems for the police, the public and the organisers of the protest, and it may take the police a substantial amount of time to gather all the available evidence and set conditions so the organisers can often only be notified of those conditions the day before the protest is due to take place. This does not give them adequate time to ensure that they can comply with those conditions, nor does it allow the public and businesses adequate time to adapt.
Policy Exchange’s polling demonstrated that the medium level of notice that respondents believed protest organisers should have to give to the police is 28 days. In its survey, 51% said organisers should have to give at least three weeks’ notice while 45% said the period should be at least four weeks. The 28-day period is also incidentally the same notice period as exists in Northern Ireland, and while I appreciate the different historical and political context in Northern Ireland, it does not seem unreasonable to extend that to England and Wales—especially given the substantial time and effort that police must pour into planning for large-scale protests.
Amendment 377D concerns the criteria on which the police may prohibit a protest. Currently, Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 permits the police to prohibit protests if there is a likelihood that the protest will result in serious public disorder. However, that is the only criterion included in that section, meaning there is no ability for the police to prohibit a protest if there is a risk of serious disruption to the life of the community, nor does it allow the police to take into account their own resources and ability to maintain public safety when making their assessment. My amendment would extend the criteria for the prohibition of protest to include where the chief officer of police has a reasonable belief that the protest could result in “serious public disorder”, “serious damage to property”,
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
or that it would
“place undue demands on the police”.
Given the Government's commitment to reform of public order law, I would think they should be able to accept these two amendments. Before the Minister says they need to wait for the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, into public order and hate speech to report, I gently remind him that the Government were perfectly happy to pre-empt that review and legislate to extend the legislation aggravators based on characteristics last week. If they were happy to do so for that provision, I do not see why they cannot accept mine. However, if the Minister finds himself unable to do so, I am minded to press them to a Division when called.
I will also briefly comment on the other amendments in this group. Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and others, would create a new statutory right to protest. While the attention behind this is understandable, it is difficult to see what legal gap it is intended to fill. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has already explained, the right to protest is already protected through the common law and currently through Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated domestically through the Human Rights Act.
However, it is important to recognise that we do not derive our rights in Britain from international treaties or even from domestic statute. The right to protest was protected before Parliament passed the Human Rights Act in 1998 and before we joined the ECHR. It is a right derived from ancient English liberty and our common law inheritance, so placing it into the Crime and Policing Bill in 2026 will not change a thing. I dare say if we were to leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, we would still have our ancient freedom to protest intact.
What is more, creating a new declaratory clause risks adding greater complexity without adding meaningful protection. Indeed, by restating rights that are already well established, we may inadvertently create new areas of legal uncertainty rather than clarity for the police, local authorities and the courts, and for those reasons I cannot support that amendment.
A similar concern arises with Amendment 369A, which would introduce a reasonable excuse defence relating to concealing identity at a protest. Clause 133(2) already contains these defences. They include when a person is wearing a face covering for health reasons, religious observance or a purpose relating to their work, and that is a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic list of exceptions.
Amendments 372A and 372AA seek to narrow the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on protests in the vicinity of places of worship. In doing so, they replace the current test by which a protest may intimidate with a requirement to demonstrate a specific purpose to intimidate. That is a significantly higher threshold. The difficulty is obvious. In practice, intimidation often arises from the circumstances and impact of a protest rather than from an explicitly stated intention. Requiring the police to prove purpose before acting risks tying their hands precisely when communities may feel most vulnerable.
On Amendment 373, as I stated in Committee, we on these Benches are supportive of the introduction of police powers to take into consideration cumulative disruption when placing conditions on protests and assemblies. I do not therefore agree with removing Clause 140. After all, the previous Government tried to introduce this in 2023 and it was the Liberal Democrats and Labour who voted it down in this House at the time, so it is good to see the Labour Party finally has come round to the Conservatives’ way of thinking.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Strasburger and Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for affording us this further opportunity to debate the right to protest and public order measures in the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate.
The Government fully recognise the importance of peaceful protest in a democratic society. However, Amendment 369, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would place in statute a right that is already clearly protected in domestic law—and it is not only me saying that, as we have heard from the formidable legal troika of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. As they said, public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act to uphold Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which cover freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These rights are qualified and may only be limited when restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Common law also provides strong recognition of peaceful protest. Introducing an additional statutory provision risks creating overlap and uncertainty, particularly for operational policing, without offering any meaningful new protections.
In their contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the risks of, shall we say, a more extreme Government and this paving the way for further restrictions on the right to protest. I can only agree with comments made by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Faulks: I hope the occasion never arises, but that is democracy, and any incoming Government that have that kind of mandate would not find it hard to overturn not only provisions that the Government are making in this Bill but the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, proposes, should it make its way on to the statute book. I am therefore not sure that argument really washes.
The Government remain firmly committed to safeguarding the right to protest. That is one reason why we have asked the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, to review the current legislative framework. One of the matters being explored as part of the review is—to quote its terms of reference—whether the current legislation
“strikes a fair balance between freedom of expression and the right to protest with the need to prevent disorder and keep communities safe”.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is expected to report later in the spring. I assure noble Lords that we will consider very carefully all his recommendations, including any proposing a strengthening of the right to protest.
Amendment 369A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, would provide a reasonable excuse defence for concealing a person’s identity at a protest in a designated area and shift the burden of proof away from individuals within that designated area on to police. Instead of requiring a person to justify why they had a valid reason for wearing an item to conceal their identity, as set out in the specified defences, it would place the responsibility on the police to assess, during a live protest, whether the explanation provided was reasonable or not. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that is not necessarily always an easy thing to do.
Clause 133 currently provides three statutory defences for concealing identity at a protest within a designated area: relating to the health of the person or others; religious observance; or for a purpose relating to that person’s work. The offence carries a reverse burden of proof, meaning it is for the individual to prove they concealed their identity for one of these reasons. I consider this a proportionate and carefully balanced offence.
It is important to highlight that any decision to designate an area and arrest a person concealing their identity must take into account Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, meaning that all decisions must be necessary and proportionate in relation to the right to peaceful protest. It is important to bear in mind that a locality will be designated only when it is thought that a protest activity is likely to involve or has involved criminality, so it is expedient to do so in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences.
Lord Pannick (CB)
So is the Minister saying to the protestor at the Iranian embassy that he or she has only two choices: not to protest, or to protest not wearing a face mask and thereby run the risk that their relatives in Iran may be killed or tortured?
Lord Katz (Lab)
In that example, I revert to what I said about the locality being designated only if the police suspect that criminality is likely to occur or has occurred on previous occasions. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that a largely peaceful protest outside an embassy and at an appropriate distance would not fall into that category of protest.
As I was going to say, clear operational guidance from the NPCC—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It might well be that that protester is just on a general demonstration. If you are an Iranian or Chinese dissident, you might be on a civil rights demonstration, arguing for the right to protest. That would equally be the target of the ire of your authoritarian, anti-protest, anti-civil liberty regime. Can the Minister explain how this cannot possibly chill their right to go on a protest? It is not just the transnational example—other examples were given. Some people will not go on protests because they will be frightened of the consequences.
Lord Katz (Lab)
On this having a chilling effect, the new offence will cover only people in the locality who are
“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity”.
As I said, the police will use this power only if they can say there is going to be criminality on a particular protest, such as a march. That is not a power they are going to be using lightly.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am sorry to keep pestering the Minister, but the difficulty is that there is absolutely no reason why the criminality has to be connected with the attitudes of those Iranians who are frightened. The criminality simply has to be connected with the protest as a whole. It may be entirely separate from the views, attitudes or desires of the Iranians who, in the example of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are likely to be deterred from attending a protest.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not disagree with the noble Lord. What I am saying is that the police designation of a locality where this offence would apply would be made only in cases where they thought that criminality and an offence would occur. It is not related to the fact that, in this case, there are Iranians protesting. I reflect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, to paraphrase, said that the reasonable defences we list in the clause are common-sense and easily explicable.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I test the patience of the Minister? I am very grateful to him. The defence he is offering—that this applies only if there is criminality—does not explain why Clause 133 recognises the defences of health, religious observance or a person’s work. If the Government recognise those defences, even though they are in the context of criminality, surely the clause should also cover the type of example I have given.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord can never test my patience too far. I simply say that, in terms of the police’s operational use, there are three clear, easy-to-understand, easy-to-interpret defences one could use in this situation. Fear of dissident reprisal does not necessarily fit into that category so easily. Notwithstanding his inability to test my patience, I am going to make some progress, as we have more to discuss.
Under Amendments 372A, 372B and 372C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, Clause 139 would apply only where a protest is directed at or connected with the place of worship, before conditions could be imposed. Additionally, Amendments 372ZA, 372AA, 372AB, 372BA, 372BB and 372D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would raise the threshold for police intervention by requiring proof that a protest has the explicit purpose of intimidating individuals accessing a place of worship and that it would, in fact, intimidate them. The amendments also propose limiting police powers to protests occurring
“within 50 metres from the outer perimeter”
of a place of worship.
As seen with recent demonstrations, protests can have an unintended impact on the lives of a community and those seeking to exercise their freedom of religion without intimidation or fear. I want to be clear that Clause 139 seeks to address a clear legislative gap arising from such protests. Police currently have powers to intervene where there is a serious disruption to the life of the community or intentional intimidation. However, we have already heard consistently from both the police and religious communities that these thresholds are too high to protect worshippers who feel too intimidated to attend their place of worship, even though the protesters do not intend to have such an effect. Requiring officers to demonstrate both the purpose and effect of intimidation would restrict their ability to act at an earlier stage, reducing operational flexibility.
Clause 139 responds directly to that problem. It does not ban protests; it simply gives the police the ability to impose proportionate conditions where a procession, assembly or one-person protest may create an intimidating atmosphere in the vicinity of a place of worship. This will protect the freedom to worship without undermining the fundamental right to protest. Both rights are essential, and the clause is carefully designed to balance them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, herself said, the duty to protect minority communities and their right to go about their lives—whether it is their freedom of worship or any other aspect—is indeed paramount. The clause seeks to do that.
The noble Baroness’s proposal to introduce a rigid 50-metre boundary would further constrain the police, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The noble Baroness calls the proposal in the Bill vague, but I put it to her that the rigidity of a 50-metre boundary goes too far. For example, let us consider the practical example of the proximity of St Margaret’s Church to both this House and Parliament Square. Having this rule in place, notwithstanding any particular provisions on protests in Parliament Square, would make that sort of protest impossible. To use one of the examples promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, any protest outside churches or cathedrals would presumably also be limited in that way.
Activity occurring outside that distance may still create an environment that discourages worshippers from entry, yet the police would be unable to impose conditions unless the protest moved closer. This would undermine the clause’s purpose of enabling proportionate intervention where there is a risk of an intimidatory atmosphere near a place of worship. As noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, that includes the comings and goings—going to and from a place of worship, as well as actually being within the building.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, who, I am afraid, is not in his place, for meeting me and members of Jewish community organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, CST and the Jewish Leadership Council, to discuss the clause. As I reiterated at that meeting, I want to make it clear that the Government will write to police forces and local authorities following Royal Assent to remind them of their existing powers to protect community centres, schools and places of worship. This will ensure that all agencies are fully aware of the tools they already have to respond to intimidatory behaviour in these settings.
Amendment 373, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to remove the cumulative disruption clause from the Bill. I have been clear that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right in this country. However, it should be balanced with the need for individuals and communities to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods. Over the past few years, we have seen the impact of protests on the lives of communities and, of course, the tragic antisemitic terror incident that took place at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation’s synagogue on 2 October, which led to the unfortunate murders of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz. Protests subsequently continued, which highlighted concerns around the protection of specific communities, including Jewish communities, which are affected by the cumulative impact of protests.
There are other examples where communities face serious disruption from protests taking place in the same area week after week. On this, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. On the streets of London over the past couple of years, we have seen protests almost weekly. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is right that the cumulative impact has the effect of forcing home a particular message that those protesters want to make. However, that should not come at the price of other citizens not being allowed to enjoy their regular rights.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I remind my noble friend that in Committee a number of us raised the statement that was issued by a whole range of civic society organisations, whose members often live in the communities in which they carry out protests. He will recall in particular that the TUC supported that civic society statement.
I speak as one of the perhaps few people in this House who has had responsibility for organising mass national demonstrations in central London. Can my noble friend reassure those organisations that this is not, as they fear, in effect, a quota on national demonstrations in London? Can he also give some guidance to the police on how they pick and choose between those different organisations if there is to be a quota?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that and for all the work that she has done in organising those national protests, at least one or two of which I am sure that I have attended.
It is absolutely not a quota. It is simply to say that if you are regularly marching in areas side by side with other communities, that repeated activity should not impede their ability, for example, to come and go to a synagogue. It cannot be right, as I know is the case, that synagogues should have to alter their regular service times on a Saturday morning to allow for protests. There must be a way that police can accommodate the needs of the protesters and of those worshippers. I want to be clear: this is not about imposing a quota on protests. The provision does not allow police to ban a protest but places a duty on senior officers to consider cumulative disruption when deciding whether the serious disruption to the life of the community threshold in Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is met.
Amendment 377C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to extend the notice period required for planned processions from six days to 28 days. As I explained in Committee, six days provides the police with adequate time to work with organisers who are planning protests to ensure that any conditions imposed are necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord’s Amendment 377D seeks to amend Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 to enable a chief officer of police to consider
“serious damage to property, or … serious disruption to the life of the community”
and the demands on police resources when determining whether to apply for an order prohibiting public processions.
Section 13 of the 1986 Act rightly sets out a high threshold for considering whether public processions should be prohibited. Widening the scope of this power, including to take account of police resources, would risk undermining the right to peaceful protest under Articles 10 and 11 and the legislation becoming incompatible with the ECHR. The noble compared this with the measure we discussed last week around aggravated offences. The latter was a clear manifesto commitment announced before the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords who have spoken in this group. They have raised some very legitimate issues about whether existing public order legislation and the measures in Part 9 of the Bill strike the right balance between protecting the right to protest, protecting communities and preventing disorder. As I have said, there is an ongoing review examining just this issue, and I put it to the noble Lord that we should wait for the outcome of that review. Accordingly, this is not the occasion to press any of the amendments to a vote today. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief in explaining why I do not propose to withdraw my amendment. First, our amendment would introduce a dynamic right, with a duty on local authorities and public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. Secondly, of course the margin of appreciation is indeed an international concept, but this Government are planning to legislate on the application of Article 8, and they may be right to do so, but we need to have proper concern about future legislation within the context of the margin of appreciation.
Thirdly, I am not suggesting for a moment that we can entrench legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right to say that Parliament cannot bind its successors. However, we can, by legislation, make it unattractive to reverse a public duty to support the right to protest. Finally, nothing I have said undermines the balancing of rights between the right to protest and the rights and freedoms of others; but the right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. If the Conservatives are not going to support us on this, so be it: that is very disappointing, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Strasburger
“(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they had a reasonable excuse for wearing or otherwise using the item at the material time.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a defence of reasonable excuse to the offence of concealing identity at protests, thereby putting the burden of proof on police officers to justify why they believe that wearing a face covering at a protest made the suspect arrestable.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this very thoughtful debate. I point out that Clause 133 already contains three reasonable excuses for the offence, but I do not understand why it contains those three and no others. For example, we have not had a convincing explanation from the Government on the example of the Iranian dissident. Amendment 369A covers all reasonable excuses: the three already in the Bill; the Iranian dissident, who keeps coming up; all the others mentioned in the debate; and any others that we have not thought of yet. I am not satisfied with the responses that I have heard from the Government and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(d) a war memorial which has been listed under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or scheduled under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the current definition of “specified memorials” to include any listed or scheduled war memorial, not just those which happen to be Grade I listed at present.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as I explained in Committee, I support the aims that the Government are seeking to achieve through Clause 137, which creates a new offence of climbing on memorials. Although there is a long history of statues forming part of peaceful protest and standing in dialogue between past and present, there is something special about war memorials, which stand as sacred monuments to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we now enjoy. It is therefore a particular affront when they are dishonoured or desecrated, especially for the proud comrades, families and descendants left behind by the heroes that they commemorate. So I am glad to see the Government taking action in this area, but I am rather perplexed about the way they are going about it.
The Government have correctly identified a problem of principle—that war memorials are specially cherished parts of our public realm and should not be climbed on in this way. However, in translating that principle into this legislation, they have severely and illogically curtailed it. Rather than applying the power to all war memorials, they say it must only be ones specified by the Home Secretary, and have named just 24 in the initial list included at Schedule 14 to the Bill.
Reading that list, I was pleased to see some very fine memorials indeed, including The Response, Sir William Goscombe John’s splendid memorial to the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, who raised 52 battalions throughout the Great War, more than any other regiment. It stands in the grounds of St Thomas’s church in the heart of Newcastle city centre, by the Haymarket and the civic centre. It was commissioned by a local ship owner and Conservative MP, Sir George Renwick, to commemorate the raising of four of those “pals” battalions and later dedicated in thanks for the safe return of Sir George and Lady Renwick’s five sons from the Great War. Not as many families were as fortunate as they.
Similar stories stand behind each of the two dozen memorials specified in Schedule 14, Part 1, but it is a curious list both for what it does and does not contain. While the Government’s list has an admirable geographic spread, it does not include some of our most well-known national memorials, such as the Battle of Britain Monument or the Royal Air Force Memorial, to give just two examples from very close to here on the Victoria Embankment. Their proximity to Parliament makes them, sadly, a focus for protest and vandalism far more frequently than some of the memorials currently specified in the Bill, but they are not included. In Committee, we found out why. Schedule 14 simply specifies those monuments that are presently listed grade 1 in heritage and planning terms.
Although the listing system is a vital tool for preserving those assets that we most value as a society, applying it in in this way is fraught with problems. First, the Government have restricted themselves to those memorials that are presently given the highest designation, at grade 1. This misses many thousands of memorials that stand proudly in every parish of the kingdom, sacred to the memory of those who laid down their lives in combat and whose memory surely deserves to be honoured just as much as those inscribed on the memorials set out in Schedule 14. The Government have started with a problem of principle but addressed it only in part.
Secondly, the listing system is predicated on specific criteria. As Section 1 of the planning Act 1990 puts it, listing is for
“buildings of special architectural or historic interest”.
This means that a memorial can be given a higher grading for its sculptural accomplishment than for the subject it celebrates. In Committee, I gave an example of this—the Bill will protect Sir George Frampton’s grade 1 listed statue of Edith Cavell at St Martin’s Place but not Arthur Walker’s grade 2 listed memorial to Florence Nightingale round the corner in Waterloo Place. Is one of those wartime nurses really deserving of greater protection than the other because they happen to have been sculpted by different hands?
Thirdly, I worry that this approach will have a chilling effect on the listing system itself. If designating a monument grade 1 is accompanied by new restrictions and criminal sanctions, will that not deter Ministers and their advisers at Historic England from recommending those higher levels of protection? A better approach, I submit, is to follow what I have proposed in my Amendment 370 and specify any war memorial that has been listed, whether at grade 1, grade 2* or grade 2, or any that has been designated as a scheduled monument. This would avoid the practical problems that I have just set out and answer the problem of principle, on which the Government and I agree much more squarely.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I support Amendment 370 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Blencathra. Across this nation, war memorials, often raised by public subscription of pennies here and tuppences there, stand to hold memories of those who gave their lives—sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and parents. They are carved in stone, metal, wood or marble. The Whipsnade Tree Cathedral in Bedfordshire is a living memorial planted by Edmond Blyth, a World War I veteran, to commemorate his friends who were lost. They are physical embodiments of sacrifice, courage and collective memory, often within the curtilage of parish churches, each name both precious to someone and precious in the sight of God—ordinary people called to do the most extraordinary things in very challenging times. When they are damaged, it is a hit in the stomach for the whole of that community. It damages how we build our life together.
In recent years we have seen a great increase in younger generations exploring those names, finding out more about those people and giving their lives texture, colour and story. I have been very moved by going to a number of different exhibitions in parish churches across the diocese of Norwich that have showcased those often very young lives that were snuffed out in their prime in the service of this nation, so it is deeply distressing when memorials are damaged. Sometimes they are stolen for scrap metal and melted down, and the hurt that causes is immense.
I hope that these important memorials across the length and breadth of this nation can continue to serve as places to pause, reflect and think again, “Not again”. They are permanent reminders of the horror, destruction and futility of war. I hope that the Minister will accept the eminently sensible Amendment 370 for all the reasons that were so ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. If the Minister cannot support Amendment 370, I hope that the Government will support Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I think it is very odd that there should be a distinction made by the Government between a memorial to Florence Nightingale and a memorial to Edith Cavell. That is purely an example that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has given us. If that is so, what on earth is the point of the clause?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Parkinson for tabling these amendments that seek to ensure that our memorials of national and historic importance are afforded the respect and protection they deserve under the new offence created in Clause 137. As was noted in Committee, the offence of climbing on specified memorials was introduced to address gaps revealed by recent protests around war memorials, such as the Royal Artillery Memorial and, indeed, around the statue of our great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill just outside this place. It was first introduced as part of the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, and it is welcome that this Government have taken up the mantle.
Under the current drafting, however, only grade 1 listed memorials are specified, together with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, but the list does not capture other memorials of equal national significance. As my noble friend has argued so eloquently, using grade 1 listed memorials does not serve a real practical purpose. It is much more about administrative ease. Why does Sledmere get two specified memorials but the Women of World War II Memorial gets no such protection? Amendment 370 would broaden the definition of “specified memorial” to include any war memorial that has been listed or scheduled, not just those that happen to be grade 1 listed.
That approach aligns with the fact that the significance of a memorial is not solely a function of its listing grade but of the history it commemorates and its role in national remembrance. Expanding the scope in this way provides a more objective and inclusive basis for protection and avoids arbitrary outcomes based on historic listing decisions.
Amendment 372 complements Amendment 370 by adding two memorials of particular national importance: the monument to the women of the Second World War in Whitehall, which honours the immense contributions of millions of women during that conflict, and the Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park, which stands as a poignant reminder of the horrors of genocide. Including those memorials recognises the breadth of sacrifice in the diverse stories that make up our collective history. I hope the Government will concede to this. If they do and my noble friend is content, so will I be.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke in this short but important debate, particularly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who spoke very movingly about the power of memorials in every community and the hurt that communities feel when they are damaged or disrespected. Amendments 370, 372ZZA and 372ZZB, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seek to expand the list of war and other memorials covered by the new offence of climbing on a memorial provided for in Clause 137. I am grateful to him for taking the time to meet with me and officials last week on this issue and for his thoughtful consideration of how best to achieve the Government’s aim, which I think is shared across the House.
As regards Amendment 370, I fully acknowledge that many of the listed and scheduled memorials covered in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 commemorate events and individuals of great national importance. The Bill intentionally sets out a clear and fixed list of memorials which provides certainty for the public, policing and the courts. By contrast, Amendment 370 would link the offence to memorials listed or scheduled under two separate heritage Acts. Those Acts encompass a far wider range of structures than the focused list in this measure and can change over time. Therefore, this would introduce an uncertainty about which memorials were captured at any given point, undermining the clarity and consistency that the measure is intended to achieve. For this reason, I cannot support the amendment.
The noble Lord, and perhaps the House, will be pleased to hear that I am much more disposed towards his Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB, which seek to add the monument to the women of World War II and the Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park to Schedule 14. Our aim is to ensure that memorials that have been deemed at threat in the course of a protest are covered by the offence. As the noble Lord has explained, these two memorials have been targeted in recent years. They are both culturally significant, and I agree with him that we need to protect them under this new offence. I am therefore happy to confirm that the Government support these two amendments.
The Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park is of course designed to be enjoyed as a garden and people are free to walk within it. I have given consideration to the practical issue of whether the police will be able to enforce this offence. The intention of the offence is to capture the action of climbing and I am confident it will not capture walking on an installation such as the Holocaust memorial garden. There are other memorials listed in Schedule 14 which have steps that may be sat on by members of the public, such as the Royal Artillery memorial in Hyde Park. I am content that, in enforcing this offence, police officers will use their discretion to consider whether an offence is committed.
As I have previously stated, the provision includes a power for the Home Secretary to add further memorials by secondary legislation. This might include the statue of Florence Nightingale in Waterloo Place, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. This Government will be able to add to the list of protected memorials should a site be identified that requires inclusion. I remain of the view, however, that not every memorial or every war memorial can be included. To do so would make the measure unenforceable due to the number of memorials and many, by their nature—for example, commemorative plaques—cannot be climbed on. That said, I accept we need a clear process for deciding whether to add further memorials to Schedule 14.
We will commit to setting out the process through which the Government will add to the specified list of memorials through secondary legislation. We will ensure a methodical and structured approach to consider which memorials have a significant public interest in being included. We will set out the process shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As the Home Secretary has already indicated, this will include the national Holocaust memorial when it has finally been built. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that the combination of the addition of the two memorials specified in his Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB and the process I have outlined for considering the case for adding further memorials will persuade him to withdraw Amendment 370.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and I thank him again for the time that he and his officials gave me last week to discuss this in detail. I am grateful too to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for their support. As the right reverend Prelate said, these memorials stand very often on hallowed ground, but they are cherished and sacred to people of all faiths and none and inspire new generations to learn about the sacrifices of the past.
I continue to think that the solution in Amendment 370 is the more logical one, but I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said in support of my other two Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB, which gives an indication that the Home Secretary is willing to use the powers in Clause 137 where needed to make sure that these protections can be afforded to statues that are targeted by protesters and criminals. I will not press my Amendment 370. I look forward to seeing the two additions to the list and the vigilance of the Home Office and police in the years to come to see where others may need to be added, alas, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Katz
“Protests outside public office-holder’s home(1) A person (“P”) commits an offence if—(a) P (alone or with other persons) carries on a protest outside, or in the vicinity of, premises that are used by a public office-holder as a dwelling,(b) P carries on the protest for the purpose of representing to, or persuading, the public office-holder that they—(i) should or should not do something, or(ii) should or should not have done something, and(c) P carries on the protest because of, or in connection with, the public officer-holder being a public officer-holder.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises that are an official residence.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that they did not know the premises were used by the public office-holder as a dwelling.(4) A person is to be taken to have shown the matter referred to in subsection (3) if—(a) sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(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 not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (or both).(6) In subsection (5) “the maximum term for summary offences” means—(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.(7) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section.(8) “Public office-holder” means—(a) a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975);(b) any of the Welsh Ministers;(c) any of the Deputy Welsh Ministers (within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 2006);(d) the Counsel General to the Welsh Government;(e) a member of the House of Lords;(f) a member of the House of Commons;(g) a member of Senedd Cymru;(h) a member of a local authority;(i) an elected mayor of a local authority within the meaning given by section 9H (elected mayors: England) or section 39(4) (elected mayors: Wales) of the Local Government Act 2000;(j) a mayor for the area of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(k) a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;(l) the Mayor of London or an elected member of the London Assembly;(m) a police and crime commissioner;(n) a candidate at an election for an office mentioned in any of paragraphs (f) to (m).(9) “Local authority” means—(a) in England—(i) a county council;(ii) a district council;(iii) a London borough council;(iv) a parish council;(v) the Common Council of the City of London;(vi) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in Wales—(i) a county council;(ii) a county borough council;(iii) a community council.(10) “Dwelling” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Public Order Act 1986.(11) “Official residence” means—(a) 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street, London;(b) Admiralty House, Whitehall, London;(c) 1 Carlton Gardens, London;(d) the Palace of Westminster, London;(e) Chequers, Missenden Road, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire;(f) Dorneywood, Dorneywood Road, Burnham, Buckinghamshire;(g) Chevening House, Chevening, Sevenoaks, Kent.”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence relating to protests outside the homes of public office-holders.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to achieve a similar aim to an earlier amendment tabled in Committee, which the Government withdrew following concerns raised by the Benches opposite. In bringing back these amendments, I hope the revised drafting directly addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords who felt that the initial offence was drawn too widely.
Amendment 371 explicitly requires a protest to be taking place outside a public officeholder’s home for it to be an offence, rather than the broader activity reflected in the Committee amendment. Importantly, a person must be carrying out the protest because of, or in connection with, the public officeholder’s role. Amendment 376 further amends Sections 42 and 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which confer powers to direct protests away from a person’s home, so as to remove the requirement that protest activity must be linked to a specific future action. As I said in Committee, this change ensures that harassing or intimidatory protests outside the homes of individuals are captured, regardless of whether they relate to past or future conduct.
I recognise the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, about whether additional legislation is truly necessary to protect the homes of public officeholders. The Government’s view is that there is an unequivocal need. We are not just talking about providing a feeling of safety to elected representatives; we are talking about the safety of their families too. This principle is foundational to the resilience of the public officeholder and thus to democracy itself. Under the Defending Democracy policing protocol, drafted and agreed by the former Minister for Security and the then Prime Minister, the previous Government set out a clear expectation that any protest outside the homes of elected representatives should be treated as harassment. That intent of the previous Government is what this amendment now achieves.
The role of elected representatives is the backbone of our democracy. Yet the Minister for Security has heard first-hand from colleagues who have tempered what they say or even how they vote because of intimidating behaviour targeted at their homes and their families. We know too that some, particularly women or those from minority backgrounds, are choosing not to stand for office because of the abuse they fear they will face. That is not democracy thriving; that is democracy shrinking. This legislation will give public officeholders and their families an additional layer of protection. It will help ensure that they can carry out their duties without fearing what awaits them at their front door and it will allow their partners, their children and their loved ones to feel safe where safety should be most assured: in their home.
Let me be absolutely clear: protest is a fundamental democratic right, and this Government defend it vigorously. There are proper, powerful places for protest: outside constituency offices, outside Parliament, at town halls, at political events, at rallies. But the home is different. It is where family life happens, where our children sleep, where our partners work, where people retreat from public life. It must not become an area for intimidation or a no-go zone. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, protests outside officeholders’ homes are in a special category. These amendments are plainly directed at harassing or intimidatory behaviour towards public officeholders, and they affect the families as well, so we are happy to accept these two amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wish to add how delighted I am that the Government have done that. It is rather overdue and will give some degree of satisfaction to at least some families of MPs in particular.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee I raised some strong objections to the amendment that the Government were proposing then. We were concerned that the proposals could inadvertently criminalise canvassing and leafleting an officeholder from a rival political party. We were also concerned about the proposed second aspect of the offence, which could criminalise making representations about a matter relating to the officeholder’s private capacity.
I still have reservations about the principle behind Amendment 371. I do not accept the Government’s argument that all protests outside a public officeholder’s dwelling constitute harassment. That is the stated view of the Government, but I think it is demonstrably false. If a protest outside a public officeholder’s home becomes actual harassment within the meaning of the law then that should be prosecuted as such, and if the protest breaches the peace or becomes highly disruptive then there are already laws to deal with that, but simply saying that any person who wishes to make representations to a politician about their actions or policies outside their house is harassment and therefore unlawful seems a disproportionate infringement of liberty.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for taking our comments on board. The amendment that the Government have tabled on Report is much improved and far more tightly drafted, and I welcome that. Could the Minister confirm that the definition of a protest in the amendment will not include canvassing and leafleting or asking someone to sign a petition? I think we would all benefit from that being on the record. Given that the Government have listened to our concerns, while we are not completely content, we will not oppose this amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because I feel that at this Dispatch Box I do not always meet the high bar that she sets for defending the Government’s position, so it is always good to win her praise.
To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the Government are committed to defending democracy. I therefore assure him that Amendment 371 does not restrict political campaigning. It is perfectly legitimate for campaigners during election time to door-knock and speak to their local public officeholders about different political opinion. Where this crosses the line is when these people choose to protest against the public officeholder at their home.
These government amendments are vital to protecting our democracy. As my honourable friend the Security Minister has made clear, harassment and intimidation must never be accepted as part of a public officeholder’s role. This cannot become the new normal, and the scale of the problem cannot be overstated. It is not simply MPs, either. The Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate survey in 2025 found that seven in 10 councillors had experienced abuse or intimidation in the previous year. The Speaker’s Conference reported that an astonishing 96% of MPs who responded to their survey had suffered at least one form of abuse, intimidation or harassment. This demonstrates that it is a real problem. Harassment is not simply confined to online spaces; it is very active in the real world too. We must therefore put protections in place not only to keep public office holders safe but to ensure that they feel safe, and that their families are protected. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Walney
“Designation and restriction of Extreme Criminal Protest Groups(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a group as an Extreme Criminal Protest Group (“ECPG”) where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that—(a) the group has as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of one or more of the following offences—(i) an offence under section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 (riot),(ii) an offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 (violent disorder),(iii) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property), or(iv) an offence under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure),(b) such offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making, or the exercise of democratic functions, and(c) the activities of the group create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others.(2) A designation under subsection (1) does not amount to proscription for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.(3) The following are offences in relation to group designated as an ECPG under subsection (1)—(a) membership of a designated ECPG;(b) promotion of a designated ECPG, including public advocacy, recruitment, or dissemination of the group’s materials;(c) fundraising for a designated ECPG, including soliciting or providing funds or financial benefit;(d) organising, directing or coordinating activities of the group;(e) providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group where the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECPG.(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (3) solely by expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a designated ECPG, where that expression does not amount to encouragement or assistance of criminal conduct.(5) An offence under subsection (3) is punishable on conviction—(a) on indictment, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine, or both;(b) on summary conviction, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both.(6) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of reasons explaining why the designation is considered appropriate.(7) The statement under subsection (6) may exclude material the disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the public interest, including on grounds of national security or the prevention or detection of crime.”
Lord Walney (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to lead off this grouping on counterextremism. My Amendment 371A, tabled with co-sponsors the noble Lords. Lord Pannick and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would create a limited mechanism to give the Government the option to seek parliamentary approval to restrict the activities of an extreme criminal protest group that was dedicated to committing criminal damage for political purposes. It would do so without branding individuals or the group as terrorists, and it would expressly rule out criminalising mere expressions of support that did not encourage illegal conduct. If it were applied instead of terrorist proscription, it would avoid the controversy of people being arrested for holding up signs in the manner that has happened so recently with Palestine Action under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Following concerns in Committee that the original amendment was too broad and risked unduly restricting freedom of speech and association, we have substantially narrowed its scope. The number of offences here has been narrowed to riot, violent disorder, criminal damage or attempts to interfere with key national infrastructure. There is no possibility of widening those criteria without further primary legislation. Subsection (3) has been clarified so that assisting a designated group would be an offence only where the individual was knowingly furthering the group’s aims. Expressions of support for a group that do not amount to encouragement or assistance of criminal activity are expressly not criminalised in this text.
Contrary to what I suspect the Minister may be about to say in response, this proposal is timely now, despite the Government’s ongoing appeal against the High Court judgment that ruled the terrorist proscription of Palestine Action to be disproportionate. In fact, the pending appeal makes it all the more timely. This amendment does not affect that appeal itself. It makes no comment on the wisdom or otherwise of the Government's assessment that Palestine Action had met the terrorism threshold after its five-year-long campaign of criminal damage and occasional use of violence.
If passed, however, this proposal would allow Ministers to seek parliamentary approval through a positive statutory instrument to restrict the activities of a future criminal group that held the purpose, which is the strategic intent, and the practice, which is the track record, of using criminal damage for political purposes like Palestine Action did. That is another way, in specifying purpose and practice, that the amendment has been tightened from the text debated in Committee. Thus, it would allow action in a future scenario to be taken much sooner before the group had met the terrorism threshold. The penalties applied for offences would be lower: up to three years’ imprisonment, rather than up to 14 years under the Terrorism Act. It would not criminalise expressions of support, as I have said, and it would avoid those convicted being saddled with an offence under the Terrorism Act for the rest of their lives.
If the Government’s appeal against the Palestine Action ruling is unsuccessful, this would provide an alternative to deter the group’s malign activities should those activities be resumed once proscription was lifted. That is just one of the reasons why the House should not take the advice, which I suspect the Minister is about to give, not to accept this amendment and wait instead for the outcome of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and then inevitably push this issue down the road for the next crime or public order Bill perhaps years hence. We all look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s views, but the Government themselves are not waiting for his view when they want to take swift action in other areas, such as on the cumulative impact caused by protests.
I hope, by the way, that the Minister will also accept my Amendment 377A to extend the cumulative impact provisions that he has laid applying to Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act to Section 13, thus giving the police the power to recommend that a march does not go ahead on a particular day if the cumulative impact is sufficiently severe.
To go back to Amendment 371A, there have of course been many reviews in this territory, including my own when I served as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. That review made the recommendation on extreme criminal protest groups that is encapsulated in Amendment 371A when it was published in May 2024, nearly two years ago. This is an appropriate time to act. It is an appropriately limited measure that can make a significant difference while completely preserving the right to protest and freedom of expression and association.
Lord Davies of Gower
(a) Condition 2, or(b) Condition 3,has been met.(1A) Condition 1 is that the group has as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of one or more of the following offences—(a) an offence under section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986 (riot),(b) an offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 (violent disorder),(b) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property), or(d) an offence under section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 (interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure).(1B) Condition 2 is that the offences mentioned in Condition 1 are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making or the exercise of democratic functions.(1C) Condition 3 is that the activities of the group create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for bringing forward Amendment 371A and all noble Lords who have added their name to it. I thank the Members of your Lordships’ House who, I hope, will be speaking to it. This amendment is eminently sensible. We have heard several examples already of groups which engage in criminal and intimidating behaviour to further their ideological ends, but which do not necessarily pass the terrorism threshold. There is no justification for their continued lawful existence, but to proscribe them as terrorists obfuscates the meaning of the category and incorporates inactive supporters within the definition. The pertinent example of this is Palestine Action. I will not speculate on whether the behaviour actually amounts to terrorism, but the actions of its supporters following its proscription highlight the necessity for action.
An organisation that damages defence infrastructure and attacks members of the public should cease to exist, but for the police to then have to spend precious time arresting hundreds of protesters with placards is clearly not ideal. It may seem morally dubious on behalf of those protesters, but I think we can all agree that they are a far cry from the archetypal terrorist supporters of, say, ISIS or the Taliban. Most importantly, it is a waste of police time to have to deal with sanctimonious protesters who otherwise peacefully support a general ideological cause. That is why we entirely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Our Amendment 371B introduces a minor change to the drafting that reflects our belief that the proscription of groups in this category should not be contingent on whether they fulfil the criteria of both subsections (1A) and (1B). Individually, the actions in both subsections should merit a protest group being proscribed and prohibited from taking further action.
If a listed crime is committed that creates a serious risk to the safety of the public, then the line is crossed from dissent to danger. I think noble Lords can agree that whether a group is for an ideological end or not, this should merit proscription. The very act of a group entering an arms factory with sledgehammers should preclude its existence, regardless of motive. That said, ideological motive is also a factor that should be considered in its own right: if a group shuns peaceful protest and becomes willing to commit criminal offences to further a political end, that should be grounds to ban it. Take, for example, BASH BACK, the activist group which has consistently engaged in criminal damage, vandalism and intimidation in the name of so-called transgender rights. To take one example—as I am sure my noble friend Lady Cash will highlight—it recently spray-painted the office building of the Equality and Human Rights Commission for simply declaring that biological sex is biological sex.
This vandalism is an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and should result in a group being proscribed. I am, however, wary that spray painting and other forms of vandalism may not be seen to create a risk of serious harm to public safety, and I am not confident that, with the right lawyers, the actions of these groups would result in them being proscribed, because of a technicality. Criminality alone introduces the possibility of restricting the practice of a protest group. Whether this is augmented by either a risk to public safety or by an intention to influence political decision-making should confirm that decision.
That being said, I reaffirm my support for the noble Lord’s original amendment. It is a pertinent time for this debate, and I believe that Amendment 371A finds the right balance between prohibiting criminal activity and permitting peaceful support. I hope all Members of your Lordships’ House can recognise the rationale for moving away from a rigid binary between terrorism and protest and acknowledge that it is a spectrum that will benefit from more nuance. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support this amendment, and I look forward to hearing the closing remarks of the Minister and of the noble Lord, Lord Walney.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. As the noble Lord mentioned, the House will be very familiar with the problems that have arisen from the use of the power that the Secretary of State has to proscribe a terrorist group. The virtue of Amendment 371A is that it avoids any such description. It focuses on the severe mischief that we know certain groups are causing in our society.
Who could object to the Secretary of State having a power, by regulation, to designate a group as an extreme criminal protest group if there is a reasonable belief that its purpose and practice is the deliberate commission of the serious offences set out in this amendment: riot, violent disorder, destroying or damaging property, and interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure? Surely the Secretary of State should have power to take action, particularly when, as the amendment requires, those offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making or the exercise of democratic functions, and they create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others.
We all support the right to protest, but there are limits, and these clearly are breached by deliberate conduct the purpose of which is to act in the way set out in the tightly drawn amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. As he has pointed out, he has avoided in his drafting the real problem that has arisen in the Palestine Action case: that people are criminalised by reason of support for that body. That has caused problems. The Court of Appeal case is pending, but this amendment avoids those difficulties.
So I support this. I hope the Minister will not tell the House that this is not the time and that we should wait in particular for the report of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. I too have the highest regard for him, but we should bear in mind that, with this Bill, the Government have not waited for his report in a number of provisions relating to public order, particularly and rightly on cumulative disruption. So I say to the House: let us deal with this. This is a legislative opportunity; it is a pressing problem, and we should deal with it now.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 419. It is rare for an amendment to succeed before it has even been moved, but so it appears to be in the case of this amendment, which would compel the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy. In Committee, I tabled a similar amendment, to which the Minister gave what was, in essence, a holding reply. I then obtained a Question for Short Debate on the same subject, to which the Minister again gave a holding reply. But it is third time lucky, for today, on the very day of this debate, the Government have published a counterextremism strategy—or rather a cohesion strategy of which counterextremism is a part—which I believe is being announced in the other place as I speak. So the timing appears to show, if nothing else, the power of your Lordships’ House. In saying so, I make no complaint: for the Government to publish a strategy at all is at least a start. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Walney, who co-signed this amendment, as well as the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, our own Front Bench and other noble Lords who spoke in Committee.
The strategy will be carefully studied during the weeks ahead, and it is worth reiterating at the start the point that only part of it concerns counterextremism. It appears to contain, as one might expect, the good, the not quite so good and the indifferent. The good, for example, includes further action to bar preachers from abroad who incite violence in mosques. The not so good includes, to give the same kind of example, no specific action that I can see against preachers in this country who incite violence in mosques—I draw the attention of those who doubt this happens to the evidence regularly published on X by the activist, habibi.
As for the indifferent, there is the proposed special representative for anti-Muslim hostility. Some wanted a fully-fledged definition of “Islamophobia” claiming a basis in racism. Others wanted no definition at all. What we have is a halfway house, and I suspect it will satisfy no one. On the one hand, initiatives with faith communities, such as Inter Faith Week, are welcome—assuming that the Government and others know whom they are engaging with, funding or giving platforms to—and, on the other, plans to crack down on hate crimes, in the strategy’s own words, are problematic. The distinction between inciting violence and defending free speech is difficult to draw, but it is vital.
But on balance I want to, in the words of the old song, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. It is welcome that the strategy confirms the last Government’s definition of “extremism”, which, though not perfect, identifies its core characteristic: ideologies that aim to
“undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.
It is also welcome that the strategy recognises clearly and unequivocally that, although Islamist extremism is very far from being the only challenge of this kind, it is the predominant form, responsible for three-quarters of the workload of Contest and 94% of all terror-related deaths in the past 25 years. The challenges we must confront are terrorism at worst and balkanisation at best, with our United Kingdom divided up in living practice, if not constitutional fact, into ethnic and religious enclaves. The precedent of Northern Ireland during the Troubles is not encouraging, and I am sure that none of us want to see that.
So, if the strategy is to work, much will hinge on a single word: implementation. Can the Government see the best of it through? If the strategy is to be coherent—applied to out-of-school settings, schools, universities, the NHS, prisons, police, charities, civil society and government itself—three essentials are required. The first is clarity, authority, and strength at the centre. The way our governmental system works, for better or worse, is that, until or unless No. 10 wants something to happen, it will not happen, and even then it may not. The strategy proposes a new interministerial working group and regular reporting to the Prime Minister. This is an admirable aim, but I fear it will not cut the mustard. What is required, rather, is a Cabinet Minister—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister—who is charged with responsibility for delivering the strategy and who speaks and acts with the Prime Minister’s authority. I regret, in passing, the apparent non-replacement of Robin Simcox as the Commissioner for Countering Extremism.
Secondly, the strategy needs to work not only at the centre of government but throughout the country, in civil society and local communities. The closer the state is to local communities, the easier it is, in pursuit of a quiet life, to engage with, fund and work with extremists. If noble Lords want an example, they need look no further than the horrifying recent developments in Birmingham, where the West Midlands Police bowed to an extremist mob over a football game, conjured up evidence that does not exist to justify its decision and then, in the words of Nick Timothy, “lied and lied again” about its actions, including to Parliament. Three of the eight mosques that the West Midlands Police consulted over its decision had hosted preachers who promoted conspiracy theories or called for the death of Jews. I am a localist by temperament, but I suspect that Westminster and Whitehall will need strong powers of intervention.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 371A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and I will say a word about it, because it is a bit of an unusual event for me to do that. But I will take also this opportunity to say something about the amendment to that amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
I have, in essence, two reasons for supporting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. Obviously, he did it from a position of great knowledge and experience in these areas, and I therefore take what he says and proposes very seriously. The first reason is that he is suggesting that particular conduct should be illegal—and can it be doubted that it should be? The constituent elements of this would be serious crime being promoted deliberately for the purpose of persuading of a particular political point of view; activities that create a “risk of serious harm” to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others; and that it should be for Parliament, on the application of the Secretary of State, to determine whether a particular group satisfies those requirements. That makes it, in my view, right for it to be unlawful, without having to go through the difficulties—referred to already by noble Lords—of proscribing an organisation as terrorist. I am not expressing any view on that; I actually supported what the Government did, but it is now for the courts to make their determinations, and I do not want to say anything that might suggest otherwise.
This amendment, if it were the law, would make it very clear that, in a limited category of case, where these requirements are met, it would be undoubtedly illegal without having to have issues. There are safeguards there: Parliament has to be involved in that. Secondly, it is clear that it is not proscription as terrorism: that is stated clearly in the amendment. Thirdly, all these elements need to be satisfied. That is why I come back to Amendment 371B from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I do not support that because it would have the effect of diluting the requirements by making it possible for this to be an offence, even though one of the conditions described in his amendment as conditions 2 and 3 was not met. So, for example, it would mean that, even though the activities do not create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions or the rights of others, it would be an offence. That goes too far for me, which is why I would not support his Amendment 371A.
The other issue that will be raised—I am sure that it will be raised by my noble friend the Minister, whom I thank for seeing me, too, to discuss the amendment—is the timing. I, too, have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven; he and I worked very closely together when we were in government, when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I look forward very much to what he has to say. But I am troubled. It will take some time, and there will then have to be a decision by government as to whether it accepts the recommendations. There will then need to be legislative time—and one thing I remember very well from government is the issue of finding legislative time. We have a vehicle here. If this is the right thing to do, this is a moment when it can be done. That is why I regret to say to my noble friend that I support this amendment and I have added my name to it.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 419 in support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the other signatories. It calls for a counterextremism strategy to be published annually. I am also in support of the gist of all the amendments in this group, which are trying to plug the gap in the law exposed by the unwillingness to follow through on the proscription of Palestine Action, in so far as its supporters may be labelled terrorists, but recognises that the activists are carrying out acts of terror, as the court said, that damage the public and our infrastructure.
The Government will no doubt say that they have a strategy, newly issued as Protecting What Matters. At a time of tension, starting long before the current war with Iran but exacerbated by it, the Government have to confront real threats, exemplified, inter alia, by the arrest of four men suspected of working for Iran and being involved in threats to the safety of our community. There have been more than a dozen Iranian-backed attempts at kidnap and murder of our citizens in the last few years, with no doubt more to come. We are talking about matters of life and death.
The Government’s report allegedly identifies Islamist extremism as responsible for most of the terror-related deaths in the past 25 years—and it is good to see the Government saying what is sometimes deemed unspeakable. The Government are also right to resist any attempt to introduce a blasphemy law into Britain. We recall the innocent Batley grammar school teacher still in hiding, simply because he was being a professional teacher. Fortunately, Hamit Coskun was acquitted after burning a Koran: a nasty act, but not one deserving of special punishment. We remain committed to freedom of speech, no matter how rude, and it is not to be silenced by others who find it offensive in their view.
However, I see some blurring of responsibility in the Government’s document, as I saw it reported, when it comes to tackling Islamism. What is the difference between that ideology and Islam in general? Is there not a sliding scale from, at the extreme end, wanting to cover the country with sharia law at the expense of secular law, and at the other going on to be more motivated by what one’s religion might demand, supposedly, than by the law of the land? Continuing on the blurring theme, if the Government’s strategy requires the appointment of an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, this is moving away from equal treatment and leaving the door ajar for unquestioned extremism. The definition of anti-Muslim hatred takes us into the realm of policing offence and dilutes the need to call out extremism and danger if perceived. If divisive content is to be regulated, who determines that, save the noise and outrage from those who feel they are being attacked, again risking muzzling dissent and free speech?
The government report, I fear, is inadequate in protecting the Jewish community. Jews do not count. We number precisely 0.4% of the population. But Jews, young and old, are under threat and confront hatred every day in the streets, in schools, in hospitals, in the arts and online. I welcome the Government’s decision to set up a commission to inquire into antisemitism in schools, but it is slow. Antisemitism today is disguised as anti-Zionism, as the late Lord Sachs pointed out. We see right through that. There is no hatred based on, say, China’s treatment of minorities, or Russia’s, or African states’ treatment of Christians. Jews are singled out. The policing of hate marches and vandalism in the name of politics must be strengthened, and it is not going too far to say that the Jewish community’s trust in the police and the BBC is faltering. The law must set out police powers in this respect, and vandalism, even in the name of politics, must be severely punished. To see the statue of Churchill defaced tells you all you need to know about countering extremism. How much worse it will be if ever there is a start on building a huge, brutal Holocaust memorial next to Parliament.
There is more complication to come. It is reported that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who deserves the utmost admiration of this House in his standing up to terror and extremism and the defence of our values and freedom, is to issue a report, Undue Influence, which blows the Government’s document out of the water. The noble Lord allegedly reports that there are 30 or so charities linked to Iran that maintain influence here and plot attacks against dissidents and the Jewish community. Some of them are already under the too-slow investigation of the Charity Commission, though it is not its fault, which has called for greater powers. Most chillingly, the noble Lord suggests that there is a reluctance to call them out for fear of being labelled Islamophobic, a fear that might only become worse if the Government’s strategy of tackling what they see as Muslim hatred is put into place. That would muffle still further any attempt to expose what might be going on by way of extreme risk.
On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, warns that fear of being labelled racist has stultified the tackling of Iran-linked organisations, while, on the other hand, the Government want the anti-Muslim hatred tsar to protect Muslims from hate and discrimination. The noble Lord calls for more assertive regulation, but the Government want a cohesion strategy that plays down the danger and reassures Muslim communities. The Government’s proposals, as I read them, would increase the fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic. It would make regulators more cautious and be weaponised by hostile activists to deflect attention away from their plans. The Government’s tsar must be completely limited, if it comes about, to hate crime: regulation should disregard religion and focus on criminal behaviour. A line must be drawn between domestic problems and the influence of Iran and other hostile states. Criticism must not be silenced.
In considering its balancing act, the Government must weigh, on the one hand, the atrocities committed by Islamists in, inter alia, the Manchester Arena, London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, the Underground, the Lee Rigby murder, Glasgow Airport, Heaton Park—and there are other incidents—and the risk, on the other hand, of not allowing the identification of further such calamities for fear of Islamophobia. The Government need to draw up a new strategy that protects Muslims at home from discrimination but does not create an atmosphere that allows hostile organisations to cry Islamophobia when their activities are under scrutiny for fear of terrorism. It is a difficult task, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I and the other signatories of this amendment are asking the Government to accept this amendment and move forward.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, because it addresses a difficult area—something that falls short of terrorism and which causes problems for legislators, policing and the courts. Terrorism is fairly well understood. It is the application or the threat of violence for a political purpose; it is easily stated. In this case, it seems to me that there are some indications that there might be a gap. It is not the first time we have been confronted by this problem. Before terrorism was defined—probably by the terrorism which started in Northern Ireland—in the 1930s, we saw that people were parading on the streets for political motives, so legislation had to be introduced on uniforms and various other things that indicated that people were trying to use violence or political aspirations to influence the Government.
It seems that the gap that has evolved is around Palestine Action. There are probably three indicators of a need for a solution to a gap that has developed. First, we have had a criminal case in which a police officer was hit by someone with a hammer, and the people who appeared to have been involved have been found not guilty. That case has been appealed, but that one issue has obviously caused some concern for everybody affected—the police, in part, but mainly the businesses being attacked by this group. The second case is a civil case, which is already—
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I just correct the noble Lord? In that case, what happened was that the jury could not agree and there is a retrial of those serious criminal allegations.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
That is quite right, and thank you for that correction, although, clearly, they were not found guilty.
Secondly, the civil case is about prohibition. The High Court has decided that it does not prefer the Government’s judgment that Palestine Action should be a proscribed group. I find that constitutionally quite odd. I understand that sometimes, the court will come to a different opinion on legislation, but it seems to me that the Government, faced with the best information possible, have concluded that it should be proscribed, and the court has decided that that is not proportionate. Whatever the outcome on appeal—which the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has alluded to and we will hear eventually—this needs to be resolved quickly because it is hard to understand.
Both cases might indicate that there were some doubts about the proscription of this group. Most of the time, terrorist groups are obvious. Terrorism is mass and indiscriminate violence that murders tens of people. We see it and it is very obvious. In this case I did wonder, but sometimes governments have information that the rest of us do not. One of the other signs, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was that, when support began to be expressed for a proscribed group, people then said, “This is quite odd; why are we arresting them?” They did not have the same qualms about Irish terrorism or about ISIS when they were beheading citizens of this country. It indicates that, perhaps, there is something different about this group. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has identified a reasonable solution to that gap. Conspiracy alone is not a sufficient answer. It is possible to charge someone with conspiracy to commit a violent act or conspiracy to riot, but you cannot prosecute people who might fund that conspiracy. This amendment would start to address the protest group and the way it is funded and supported.
My final point—quite narrowly defined in this sense—is that this is about the intent to cause serious harm to public safety or to affect public policy and democracy. Both are substantial bars to pass before somebody could be convicted of this offence. The Government ought seriously to consider filling the gap with this amendment, or, if they do not, with something very much like it.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 371A, 419 and 441B, to which I have added my name. It is clear that attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer or breaking into an RAF base and damaging two planes, causing £7 million-worth of damage, is not a peaceful protest. Amendment 371A rightly targets that grey area between ordinary protest groups and groups that cross the threshold to be proscribed under terrorism law. These are groups whose purpose and practice involves the deliberate commission of criminal damage, riot, violent disorder and interference with national infrastructure.
When groups are legislated against, often, splinter groups form and these groups are left to fester. Amendment 371A would give greater power to the Secretary of State to deal with extremism at its root, rather than waiting for it to grow and meet the terrorist threshold. By this point, it becomes too late and the harms, which are sometimes irreparable, may have already occurred. Responsible governance means intervening before that point is reached. For those reasons, I support this amendment. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for his tenacity and I support his amendment.
Often, our approach has been far too reactive, notwithstanding the announcement being made in the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the Jewish community in this country knows all too well how rhetoric and ideological radicalisation can create a climate of fear. Between 2024 and 2025, at least 10 and probably more terrorism cases against British Jews or UK-based Israeli interests were uncovered. These plots were foiled thanks to the extraordinary work of the counterterrorism police and the Community Security Trust.
We have created an environment where extremism is allowed to grow unchallenged. Are we just going to wait until there is another attack on a synagogue or a credible plot against a Jewish school? At that point, it is too late. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, recognises that extremism rarely appears suddenly; it develops gradually through networks, narratives and campaigns that legitimise hostility. Left unchallenged, these dynamics can become embedded in communities and online spaces, creating an environment where more serious forms of criminality or even terrorism become more likely. Amendment 419 is about ensuring that our response to extremism is enduring, co-ordinated and strategic. Above all, it is about ensuring that the Government are equipped with the tools and the institutional framework necessary to address extremism before it escalates into violence.
Finally, Amendment 441B in this group, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, seeks to ensure that organisations which promote or support criminal conduct or which attempt to subvert the constitutional integrity or democratic institutions of the United Kingdom are prohibited from receiving public funds. Such a safeguard is well overdue. It would ensure that taxpayers’ money cannot, whether deliberately or inadvertently, support organisations whose activities threaten public safety or the foundations of our democracy. Public funds should strengthen society, not subsidise those who seek to destabilise it.
It remains far too difficult to challenge organisations that continue to receive public support despite clear evidence that their leaders promote extremist ideologies, including those who openly aspire to replace democratic governments with a religious caliphate. This loophole allows public money to reach bodies fundamentally at odds with our democratic principles. This amendment would close that unacceptable gap. It would protect public funds from misuse and send an unequivocal message that any attempt to undermine the democratic institutions of the United Kingdom should not and will not be tolerated.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Walney, Lord Pannick and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for listening in Committee. Reservations were raised, and it is refreshing and unusual to have an amendment brought back that tries to take into account some of the issues that were raised in good faith. The fact that the amendment has now been posed as not unduly undermining freedom of speech or association and does not criminalise expressions of support is very useful. That it is so much narrower in scope makes it much more something I support—not that everyone has been waiting for that point, but none the less.
More seriously, the pre-proscription point is really important. My dread is that what has happened with Palestine Action, without getting into the court case, has discredited what proscription is about and watered down what people think terrorism is. These much more granular attempts at making distinctions are so important.
However, we need to acknowledge the dangers in what we mean by “extremism” in relation to this whole group of amendments, especially today, when the Government’s pronouncements on anti-extremism are coming out. We should acknowledge that those who hold the pen on any legal definition of extremism acquire extraordinary powers to curtail free speech, criminalise people and so on. It makes this a difficult issue. In a democratic, pluralist society there is invariably a wide range of beliefs and opinions that can be dubbed extremist. That means we have some potholes to negotiate, as it can lead to partisan, subjective or political labelling of dissenting views that can be dubbed extremist.
I raise that because it is not straightforward. We might think that we all know what we mean by “extremist”. I have agreed with all the examples I have heard today—I have thought, “I don’t like them either—I’ll dub them extremist”. The problem is when it is used a bit more promiscuously. If the definition is “something that completely undermines democratic norms and values”, up until recently I would have thought that anyone attacking the democratic norm of the key legal protection traditionally afforded to due process, which has gone on for hundreds of years, was an extremist, but now we have a Government pushing to abolish jury trials and I am meant to accept it as straightforward.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for recognising what has been done in this amendment, but it does not actually talk about extremism. It talks about “extreme criminal protest groups”. It may reassure her that the definition does not depend on the views being put forward being extremist but the actions and particular conduct—riot and so forth. I offer that to reassure her on the point she is making, which otherwise I am listening to very carefully.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clarity. That is true for that amendment. I was going on to talk about why I am sympathetic to Amendment 419, which calls on the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy, while recognising that, when we do so, we must acknowledge that this is a difficult area. Amendment 371A has carefully avoided being about views and opinions, but not all the amendments in this group do. We have to be very careful when we talk about extremism.
On Amendment 419, one should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on his persistence, as has been said. I like the amendment because it calls for a review to be published annually. The announcement today that there is a strategy does not make this amendment irrelevant, because we need to carry on updating and looking carefully at what we mean by this. Laying that before Parliament seems important. On the pre-emption of the new social cohesion document, Protecting What Matters, it is certainly being posed as an anti-extremism strategy but is likely to get into all sorts of difficulties precisely because of this uncertainty about what we mean by extremism, beyond the controversy over the special representative on anti-Muslim hostility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has talked about the difficulties there. I am very anxious about it. I have been contacted since the announcement by people working on the grooming gangs who are worried that they would not be able to raise the issue with this definition—even though they are not quite sure what it is yet, so fair enough—as well as academics working on cousin marriage and so on. There has been some enthusiasm in certain quarters, saying that we should now name and shame all the media organisations dominated by anti-Muslim hatred. You can already see supporters of this new definition, such as it is, gearing up to start pointing fingers and they have started naming names. It is fair enough, but with this leaked document saying that national symbols such as the union flag can be a tool of hate used to intimidate and exclude, that it is an extremist symbol and so on, you can see why people would be anxious.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goodman and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, but I would also like to see highlighted in any reports coming forward the increasing attacks on Hindu and Sikh communities. They are not being reported widely, but unfortunately they are on the increase, and we are having worrying discussions internally on how to deal with them.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. I too share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the Government’s decision today to publish an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility and to appoint a tsar to ensure that it is observed. There are already adequate protections in the law for people of all faiths; I am thinking in particular of the proscription of the stirring up of religious hatred in the Public Order Act 1986 and the proscription of discrimination by employers on religious grounds of employees, applicants to jobs or service providers.
I am not persuaded that Muslims need particular protections over and above those that all faith groups are granted under the law. I am not convinced that in a city such as Leicester, for instance, publishing a definition of anti-Muslim hostility but not anti-Hindu hostility will allay rather than exacerbate community tensions. I hope there will be an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to opine on the entire action plan unveiled today when the House discusses the Statement in due course.
I do, however, support the amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. There are some extreme criminal protest groups who do not deserve the kind of free speech protections that other groups deserve, precisely because they use their free speech and right to protest to bully, intimidate and threaten those they seek to silence.
The Free Speech Union was itself the victim of an extreme criminal protest group that my noble friend referred to while speaking to this amendment and the supplementary amendment: Bash Back. It stole some data from the Free Speech Union’s website in a cyber attack, including the details of some small donors, some of whom had donated to some extremely sensitive crowdfunding campaigns in the expectation that they were doing so privately. That data, however, was stolen and published on Bash Back’s website. That was designed not only to silence those with whom it disagrees but to intimidate, bully and threaten an organisation that is simply defending the right to speak of those that Bash Back disagrees with.
Therefore, I think there are circumstances in which the Home Secretary should have the power to designate and proscribe certain extreme criminal protest groups. This more nuanced measure, particularly with the supplementary amendment, is a more attractive alternative to the present arrangement. In addition to defending a wide variety of people who have not broken the law, the Free Speech Union is currently engaged in defending a Palestine Action protester who was arrested and has been charged just for expressing support for Palestine Action by holding up a sign saying, “I support Palestine Action”. It is very difficult to defend the prosecution of people who merely express support for what I would think of as an extreme criminal protest group, not a terrorist group.
I therefore urge your Lordships to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as it creates a degree of nuance, and I believe that proscribing groups that deserve to be proscribed without also making it a criminal offence to express support for those groups is a welcome compromise.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, despite having some hesitation about it, we are broadly support of Amendment 371A from the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The concept of the new category of extreme criminal protest groups that are not proscribed has real merit and is plainly an attempt to plug an uncomfortable gap. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that unlawfulness is at the heart of this amendment. The amendment states that the group must have
“as its purpose and practice the deliberate commission of”
one of a series of serious offences, and that
“such offences are carried out with the intention of influencing public policy, parliamentary debate, ministerial decision-making, or the exercise of democratic functions”,
and that,
“the activities … create a risk of serious harm to public safety, democratic institutions, or the rights of others”.
Those provisions make it clear that extreme criminal protest groups are well named. The provisions as a whole would also make it clear, however, that it is not appropriate for proscription of those groups whereby any support for the groups is made a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act.
If the amendment would avoid the prosecution of peaceful protesters for peaceable support of groups that could be branded terrorist under the Terrorist Act, we could support it unconditionally because there would then be a hierarchy of offences. At the top of the tree would be offences under the Terrorism Act, and then the treatment of groups which qualified as extreme criminal protest groups under the Walney amendment. But the Government have not committed and would not commit—and I do not suppose they will at this stage commit—to end prosecutions for peaceable protesters under the Terrorism Act. That may change after the Macdonald review, or it may change if the Government’s appeal against the High Court’s decision in relation to Palestine Action is unsuccessful. However, our position is that it would be helpful to have a middle course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out in very sensible terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, articulated the same point very well, but in a different way.
The problem we see with the amendment is that it does not affect the Terrorism Act, and there would remain the potential for prosecution of peaceful protesters under that Act as the law stands. So we have decided, with some hesitation, that it is probably sensible to await the Macdonald review. I accept that I am making that point in the face of the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we should not be asking for any legislation along the lines of the Walney amendment to wait at all. Of course, there is the problem that not accepting this amendment would leave us with the limited choice of the Terrorism Act or nothing, and that is a very unfortunate position to be in.
We have some concerns about the drafting of the amendment, and they are not minimal. Under proposed subsection (3)(b),
“promotion of a designated ECPG, including public advocacy, recruitment, or dissemination of the group’s materials”
would be an offence. Would subsection (3)(b) cover handing out leaflets or carrying posters or flags in a peaceable way? In proposed subsection (3)(e),
“providing material support, training, funds or equipment to the group where the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the recipient is a designated ECPG”
suggests that the level of knowledge required is very low. What is material support? What would count as equipment? Would posters, flags or banners count as equipment? It would be considerably worrying if the answer to those questions was positive.
In sum, we are broadly supportive and believe that there should be a middle category, but we are concerned about the amendment as it stands. The Government should be seriously considering their position between now and Third Reading; they should listen to the very strong feeling in the House that something is needed in the way of a middle course that would prevent these prosecutions for peaceable protest and support under the Terrorism Act. They should then come back to the House at Third Reading with an amendment that could answer the criticisms and gain widespread support.
Finally, we have considerable sympathy with Amendment 419 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which calls for the publication of a counterextremism strategy.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Noble Lords have spoken of the effects that these groups can have when they go unchecked, and I think that the whole House has benefited from listening to these anecdotes. We cannot stand for a society in which violent, insurrectionary behaviour is normalised. Groups such as Palestine Action or Bash Back should not be allowed to exist given their past actions, and this amendment provides for that. That said, their supporters are not advocates of general terrorist activities and, while they support morally dubious causes, requiring their arrest for standing outside with a placard is a monumental waste of police time.
For similar reasons, I also support Amendment 419, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goodman. His is a very simple amendment, which merely asks the Government to publish a counterextremism strategy, given the ever-increasing extent of political extremism and its encouragement in some quarters. Amendment 371A strikes a balance. It adds nuance to a category of offences that desperately needs it, and we wholly support its intent. I hope that the Minister will agree. I am happy to withdraw my Amendment 371B and, should the noble Lord, Lord Walney, wish to divide the House, we will support him.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
A lot has been discussed this evening, and I will try to respond to the amendments as best I can. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has moved his amendment. I had a chance to talk to him earlier online; he has arrived on time, and I am pleased he is here to move it. He has had support from across the House, including from the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Pannick and, in part, Lord Davies, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, and I thank him for his amendment. Other noble Lords and Baronesses have spoken in favour of the legislation, and I note the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Verma, and, in the context of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I will come to the separate amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, in due course.
The nub of the argument is that Amendment 371A shows that there is an impact of sustained criminal activity, including serious incidents involving damage to property, intimidation and risks to public safety, and it should be dealt with as an interim measure between proscription and criminal damage legislation as a whole. I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in a recent letter that the Public Order Act 1986 grants police powers to manage protests by imposing conditions, and looks at those it is necessary to place on protests, including location, route and date. I also pointed out to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, whom I also met today, that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is currently undertaking an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which will cover whether existing legislation is effective and proportionate. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, acknowledged that the review, which will report later in the spring, will discuss and give some potential framework to the existing legislation. Also, the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, the action we have taken on Palestine Action under the 2000 Act, the work of Prevent and the protest legislation in the Bill are all measures that deal with similar issues to those the noble Lord, Lord Walney, has brought forward.
To come to the nub of the problem, which I hope noble Lords will accept, I understand that there are a range of views on the amendment, and I may find myself in a minority on this if it goes to a Division, which I hope it will not. When I look at the amendment itself, if there was such a tool as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, below the threshold in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would not have stopped the Government proscribing Palestine Action under the 2000 Act. The assessment was made that Palestine Action passed the statutory test for proscription at that time. As noble Lords will be aware, although there is a Court of Appeal hearing on Palestine Action, the High Court agreed in its first consideration that Palestine Action had organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism. A case is pending that will be reviewed and the Government will have to respond to it in due course.
However, I would argue that, at present, we have the tools in existing public order and related legislation to tackle the type of criminality that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned. We are significantly upscaling our efforts on counterextremism as a whole. Groups that meet the Terrorism Act threshold, and individuals acting on their behalf or in support of them, will be dealt with under existing proscription powers. Where groups do not meet the threshold for proscription, we will continue to assess the activities of organisations against our legal frameworks and existing legislation. If there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate action will be taken. I have mentioned already things such as Prevent, the protest legislation and other measures. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will review those matters in due course.
To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, that the Government have brought forward legislation, we have commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to undertake a review, but the amendments we have brought forward are in response to urgent matters that we felt we needed to tackle. I have tabled those in relation to protest legislation to ensure that we manage difficult challenges by putting forward legislation on, for example, protests, marches and giving the police powers. I suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick, that it is something we should take our time to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is bringing forward his review shortly, in the spring. This amendment, whether in its original form or as amended by Amendment 371B put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, effectively seeks to create a parallel regime to that in the Terrorism Act, which the Government believe is not necessary and risks unjustified interference with rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Government must be able to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred but, in doing so, we must strike the right balance between protecting freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.
Amendment 441B, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concerns access to public funds for organisations promoting or supporting criminal conduct. Again, I say to him that the Government provide funding to a huge range of organisations through grant schemes administered by departments and arm’s-length bodies across government. Any grants of public funds are subject to Treasury guidance set out in Managing Public Money, which looks at risk, control and assurances that grant controllers are required to take into account. Is the legislative route required?
Today, and this goes to the heart of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, we have published the social cohesion action plan. A number of comments have been made about the issues in the plan, including by the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. It was put on the website probably less than an hour ago and is many pages long. I simply ask that Members look at what is in it, its context and the things we are trying to challenge so that all communities, whatever their religion, can live their lives in freedom, and so that we have social cohesion in what is, and will remain, a multicultural society. The engagement principles will be updated so that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups.
On Amendment 419, which would require the publication of a counterextremism strategy, the noble Lord said that he has raised it in Questions, in amendments in Committee and in Grand Committee in a special debate. We are looking at the issues he has raised; there will be further updates and reports on the matter, and I advise him to look at the social cohesion strategy—which, as I said, was produced within the past hour—in full.
Extremists often deliberately operate without meeting thresholds for criminal conduct and cannot be prosecuted for their actions. Despite this, this Government still have a responsibility to protect our citizens from the harm of extremism, violence and hatred. But in doing so, we still have to protect the balance between freedom of speech and tackling those who promote violence and hatred in our communities.
We have been very clear in our approach to counterterrorism and counterextremism. We have an overarching counterterrorism strategy, an approach that ensures counterextremism efforts are focused on the highest harm threats, in direct support of our core counterterrorism and wider security mission. The local social cohesion strategy, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in the past hour following a Statement in the House of Commons—which I suspect will be repeated here shortly—is trying to marry those things together to provide social cohesion. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, on those issues.
Finally, with Prevent, Contest and the definitions of extremism we have examined, set out by the previous Government in 2024, we believe there are strong mechanisms to tackle extremism while ensuring we support all members of our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that Jews do not count. I say to her, genuinely, that everybody in society counts; everybody has a right to protection; and everybody has a right to live their lives free from persecution, harassment, terrorist activity and extremism. I felt genuinely sorry when she said that phrase. We are trying to support all members of our community, particularly the Jewish community. If she looks at the measures in the Bill, she will see they have been driven by allowing people to express their religion and for them not to be harassed or put into a box by people on marches and protests on a regular basis. That is what we are trying to do.
I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is coming from, but I wish for him to withdraw and not to push his amendment. We have a framework in place to deal with criminal activity and those organisations that cross the terrorism threshold, and to ensure through the social cohesion strategy that all members of our community have the right to live a free life in the United Kingdom.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and thoughtful debate, and I have been touched by the kind words and expressions of support from nearly all sides of the House. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I hope he knows how much I respect the work that he and the Government do, but on this occasion I am not convinced by his central assertion that the framework exists and is working.
The Minister raised the issue of Palestine Action, as so many have done across the Chamber today. It is indeed looming large over this discussion. Whether or not you take the view that the Government were right in proscribing Palestine Action, the fact that it took five years of this organisation committing criminal damage in a sustained and organised way before it was deemed to have met the terrorism threshold—which is now obviously being challenged, and I hope the Government win on appeal—shows that there is a gap. This gap is not filled by the public order measures which are used to place conditions on marches, which the Minister has cited in response as to why the framework is working. That is a different thing.
I am really pleased—and it is really unusual—to get such a broad expression from, reductively, the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrat Benches on a difficult issue like this. It shows that it is proportionate. I quote in conclusion the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, back at him. He has—reluctantly, I would think—come to the view that he will abstain, but he made the point himself that not supporting this amendment leaves on the table a choice between the status quo of doing nothing, or full terrorism proscription. I really respect his view that he would like to see encouragement of proscribed terrorist organisations taken off. That is a complex question, but if I had opened that up in this amendment, the whole thing would probably have been subsumed.
Therefore, it is right that we push this particular narrow change to the legislation. The Government and the Minister’s concerns can be tightened up after this, when the Bill goes into ping-pong. Then, we can deal with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in the shortest order after that. With that all having been said, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
“24A Monument to the Women of World War II, Whitehall, London.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the Monument to the Women of World War II to the list of war memorials in Part 1 of Schedule 14.
“27 Holocaust Memorial Garden, Hyde Park, London.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the Holocaust Memorial Garden to the list of memorials in Part 3 of Schedule 14.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to break for dinner break business. We will therefore not return to the Bill before 8.38 pm.
Energy Markets
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn.
This Statement comes at a time when the United Kingdom faces major, unparalleled challenges to its energy supply. For 50 years, under successive Conservative and Labour Governments, energy policy has been built on the four pillars of security of supply, diversity of supply to back that security, stronger adherence to ever-improving environmental measures, and, above all, affordability. On all four tests, this Statement fails, and the current war in Iran exposes that the Government’s energy policy is uniquely vulnerable to international supply chains, unaffordable to industry and households alike, glaringly insecure and unashamedly reliant on putting intermittent power before the firm power needed to keep incubators in our hospitals running 24/7, 365.
The Statement argues that there is no point drilling in the North Sea because all our gas is sold on international markets. Does the Minister agree that this is nonsense? Every molecule of gas we extract from the North Sea goes straight into our pipes, making up around half the UK’s supply. Does the Minister agree with the North Sea operators and OEUK that data already submitted to government details 111 named projects, equivalent to £50 billion of investment, that could be unlocked with tax and regulatory reform? On security of supply, we are increasingly vulnerable. Does the Minister accept that we have one pipeline coming to the UK from Norway alone, which is responsible for 30% of our gas supply? As the eminent economist Dieter Helm stated, is this not a sitting duck for a hostile power or an obvious hit for drones in the North Sea?
Does the Minister agree that onshore economically, the UK is facing the highest industrial power prices in the world, crippling our industry and increasing our cost of living? Does he agree that we are failing our energy-dependent industries because we have unaffordable energy prices? Gone is most of the steel industry. Deeply damaged is the fertiliser industry. Through the imposition of additional energy costs this year, the ceramics industry is under threat, as are petrochemicals and refined fuels.
Turning to capacity, does the Minister agree that we already need twice the capacity, twice the grid and all the batteries and storage we can find, plus many more interconnectors, to service a level of power demand of about 45 gigawatts? We used to meet that comfortably with just 60 gigawatts of capacity. Does he not recognise that all this is because we must have therm power available on days like today when the wind does not blow? Only 16% of our electricity was generated from wind today—only double that from the heavily polluting, burning biomass of 7 million tonnes of wood pellets a year in Drax.
Turning to renewables, does the Minister agree that there was good reason for the late publication of the secret MoU between the Secretary of State and the Chinese Government? It demonstrated that not just our renewable energy policy but our overall energy policy is tethered to China, a country which burns more than 55% of the world’s coal and is building another 400 gigawatts of coal generation. Yet our imports of solar panels are nearly 100% imported from China and demonstrate our serious reliance on a foreign state, not least because, as the Minister said from the Dispatch Box recently, he cannot be sure that the solar panels being installed in our schools are not made by slave labour.
Does the Minister agree with me that we need a policy built on renewables and more North Sea gas—not renewables instead of gas? Does he also agree that energy security and affordability depend on a substantial increase in gas from the North Sea, not imported LNG, which has gone up 40% year on year and which, in its total life cycle, emits nearly twice the levels of carbon compared with North Sea gas? The Government need to secure our own gas reserves, first, by a fiscal and regulatory regime which immediately encourages more tiebacks and greater exploitation of existing reserves, then by a licensing regime which ensures that production comes on stream at the same time as new-build nuclear.
None of what I have said this evening is anti-renewable; indeed, when I was Minister for Energy, I launched the first renewables non-fossil fuel obligation and for many years I was president of the British Wind Energy Association. I have set out a direction through which the UK is more energy secure, not less, with more affordable and environmentally acceptable energy; and through which it is more prosperous, with more jobs for working people, greater economic confidence, higher growth and a lower cost of living.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement on the very serious and fast-moving situation in the Middle East. The recent escalation in the Gulf following President Trump’s deeply destabilising actions risks widening the conflict. Fourteen countries are now directly affected, global shipping supply routes are shut, and once again oil and gas prices have skyrocketed because of geopolitical chaos. With tragic inevitability, the same man who denies the existence of climate change has unleashed another conflict for the control of fossil fuels. If this conflict is not urgently contained, it will shut down oil fields and disrupt global markets, and drive up oil and gas prices, food prices, inflation and government debt alike. We need an urgent halt to the targeting of energy and desalination facilities on all sides.
We have been here before. Despite the progress we are making on our energy transition, the UK remains frighteningly exposed to the harsh economic impacts of global events far beyond our shores. The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and E3G estimate that our reliance on fossil fuels has cost this country an additional £183 billion since 2022, because of the increased costs of energy as a result of the war in Ukraine. We cannot afford another lost decade of dependence on global fossil fuels that we neither control nor influence.
While much of the Minister’s Statement is welcome—the co-ordination with allies, reassurance on supply, and commitment to clean power—the real question is whether this Government will now act at the speed and scale the crisis demands. Unlike the last energy crisis, this one includes oil as well as gas. We on these Benches see the Conservatives’ claim that the solution lies in new North Sea licences as the equivalent of trying to fill a swimming pool via a drinking straw. North Sea gas production is down by two-thirds since 2000. It is set to have declined by 97% by 2050, and even with new licences it will decline by 95%.
On oil-related issues, I want to ask about rural constituents who rely on heating oil to heat their homes. Some 1.5 million rural homes and 62% of homes in Northern Ireland depend on it. Prices have rocketed: in some cases, they have nearly doubled. These consumers are the forgotten victims of energy policy, not covered by Ofcom regulation and therefore without price protection and redress. Will the Government now work with the CMA and Ofgem to establish proper oversight, investigate price abuses and ensure that these households are protected?
Disruption to supplies arising from the Gulf crisis has also pushed up the cost of aviation kerosene by more than 80%. What consideration is being given to resilience, as 70% of our kerosene is imported, and how are the Government mitigating escalating costs for consumers and operators alike? On the cost of electricity and gas, we have some stability with the energy price cap, but that is short lived. While our gas supply is more secure than that of oil, gas prices have already reached a 12-month high. There is a very real risk of a renewed cost-of-living squeeze later this year, placing further pressure on families and businesses who are struggling to pay their bills.
The Government must make plans for scenarios where prices stay high and new interventions will be required. Families and businesses deserve reassurance that the Government’s support will not vanish if the crisis endures. I ask the Minister to give that reassurance today. These events bring into sharp relief the deeper issue: the structure of our energy market. Despite our work on renewables, UK consumers remain uninsulated from the global fossil-fuel markets, as our energy market has not been reformed to reflect the increase in renewables uptake. Three years on, we have been told repeatedly that energy market reform is coming. The Government have ruled out the introduction of zonal pricing, but this crisis is a clarion call that urgent action is needed. Why are we still funding crucial decarbonisation and social/environmental levies through household bills rather than general taxation? Moving more of those policy costs into general taxation would help to make the system fairer and more equitable. Will the Government commit to reviewing this balance?
Our gas storage capacity—just 12 days—remains among the lowest in Europe, so will the Minister consider the case for a greater strategic reserve? The price of gas still sets the UK electricity price 97% of the time. Do the Government agree with Greenpeace’s call to bring gas plants into a regulated asset base, creating a strategic reserve administered by NESO to break the link and save customers an estimated £5.2 billion by 2028?
We must double down on the rollout of renewable energy, grid upgrades, long-term storage, diversity of supply and greater energy interconnection with Europe, so that we can gain energy security and price control. Investors need predictability on planning, on grid connection and on the carbon pricing framework. Britain must move to a continuous pipeline of renewable projects: built faster, connected sooner and supported by modernised transmission networks. Every insulated home, every electrified heat pump and every community-scale battery gives us energy independence.
True energy security for Britain will not be won in the North Sea. It will be won on our rooftops, in our grids, in our offshore wind fields and in our insulated homes. If this latest conflict teaches us anything, it is that energy dependence is a choice, and energy independence through clean energy must now become our utmost mission.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their contributions this evening and I will attempt to address the questions that they have put to me. I must say, however, to be absolutely frank, that there appears to have been one sensible contribution and one not-very-sensible contribution. I will attempt to answer them just the same, but what I thought we were talking about—and I think we are talking about—is the really difficult situation everyone finds themselves in now as a result of the Iran war: what that is likely to do to energy prices, what the likely effect will be on supplies for consumers and industry, and what we can reasonably do to make sure that we have indeed the security that noble Lords have talked about tonight, for our own supplies for the future but also in such a way that we have a secure future ahead of us as well.
In that context, I would have thought that the particular lesson we should draw from the events of the last few days is that we cannot get away from, for various reasons, enormous volatility in the fossil fuels and gas markets abroad. That itself, for various reasons, directly leads to volatility and difficulty with energy prices and energy supplies and various other things. The lesson surely has to be that we should ensure that we have secure, homegrown energy that is not subject to international volatility in the way that we are finding right now, but is also secure for our suppliers and for our consumers, and builds an industry on the back of that which actually creates jobs and businesses and energy arrangements that are secure for the long-term future.
That, of course, is to continue with the moves towards renewables and low-carbon energy, getting the role of gas as far as possible out of our markets and securing a future where our homegrown energy is not only not subject to dictators and petro states but is entirely under our own control: not only under our own control but under our own control as far as the sources of that are concerned.
We have a number of worries and concerns right now about what no one in this Chamber knows too much about—exactly how long this war will continue. Obviously, one earnestly hopes that the war comes to an end fairly soon or that, as the UK Government are pushing, we have a negotiated diplomatic settlement on particular issues for the future. However, we know that prices are going up rapidly at the moment and that there is a bit of a differential between different areas of the oil and gas economy. For example, heating oil, which is not subject to the energy price cap, is going up rapidly. We have to deal with a number of such issues on different fronts pretty immediately, regardless of the long-term future that should be in place for our energy economy.
As far as customer security is concerned, we have the energy price cap in place. That means that, for three months at least, customers of electricity and gas will have cheaper prices than they had over the most recent period. That is protected to that extent. Heating oil is not as protected; we have seen considerable spikes in that, which are also associated with jet fuel, because they are essentially the same thing—kerosene—and we have seen considerable spikes in that. The UK has considerable reserves of jet fuel but does not have the same reserves of heating oil. We have taken action just today in writing to the CMA and leaders in the heating oil industry to make sure that they keep a cap on prices, that they are not price gouging and that they are keeping their prices as modest as they can.
However, all this depends on what happens over the next period with the progress of the war and whether the Strait of Hormuz will be opened or we are at least in a position such that oil and gas can get through it, so that we can start talking about a reasonably reliable supply for world energy coming through in a way that it is not at the moment. Mark my words: this crisis is not about supply. The UK has ample supplies of gas of all sorts—50% of which is from UK fields, assuming it stays in the country. We will perhaps touch on that. We also have supplies from Norway and of liquefied petroleum gas; three terminals have been built and a number of LPG vessels are on their way to the UK, as we speak.
It is not so much about supply but about price and what happens to it if the war continues for a long time. For example, we take only about 1% of our gas in the form of LPG from Qatar—very small supplies—as most of it comes from other sources. But other forces in the world are trying, literally, to turn those LPG vessels around, so that they go to their parts of their world to supply them with LPG at an increasingly high price.
We are clear that we need to take firm action to make sure that we have the right prices for the future, the ability to protect our own energy interests and the ability to make sure that supplies, which are reliable at the moment, continue to be reliable in the longer term.
One thing this is not about is the idea that we should suddenly start drilling for gas or oil and translating a lot more gas and oil back to the UK, which the noble Lord opposite appears to think should be the next move. First, that would take a very long time to happen. Secondly, as I have previously mentioned, it is not the case that this gas would just come to the UK; it goes all around the world at a world price. It would make no difference to the world price, as we have only 0.7% of global oil and gas production in the UK, in any event. It would make no difference to the outcome. The outcome on which we need to work is to continue with our low-carbon policies to get us off gas as quickly as we can and to secure renewable, low-carbon and firm energy through renewables policy in the longer term, so that we are not dependent on gas and this kind of situation never happens ever again. That is clearly the task ahead of us, so I therefore commend to the House this Statement and what it says about the future, despite the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is taking part remotely and I invite him to contribute now.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am really sorry that I cannot be there in person this evening, but I am also really grateful that I am being allowed to participate virtually. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that, in the current crisis, it is even more important that we have nuclear-powered generation to ensure that the energy supply is guaranteed? Will he consider what can be done to extend the lives of the current generators and to bring new nuclear generation forward earlier than is currently intended? Perhaps most difficult of all is to work towards finding a Government in Scotland who also agree to have nuclear generation.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I very much welcome my noble friend Lord Foulkes back to his place, as it were. Although he was speaking from a place that is slightly remote, I nevertheless have a real feeling that he is, in essence, in the Chamber with us this evening.
I absolutely endorse what my noble friend had to say on this subject. After all, nuclear is low-carbon, essentially renewable, essentially homegrown and stays with us for a very long time—and, in case anyone had not noticed, this is firm power. Having nuclear in our low-carbon arsenal is very much part of the process of getting ourselves off high-carbon fossil fuels and into a situation where we can control our own energy destiny in this country.
My noble friend will know that work is under way to procure a small modular reactor with Rolls-Royce, which is going very well, and there is the possibility of life extensions to one or more of the existing nuclear power stations, which, again, would be a very good contribution to the energy security of this country for the future.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this is the week in which the well-meaning but naive approach to net zero finally hit the buffers. It is not just oil—I should know, as a 40-year veteran of the fertiliser industry—it is the gas that produces ammonia and the CO₂ that drives our economy forward. There is no domestic production of ammonia or fertilisers any more; we are reliant on the kindness of strangers. A third of the world production of fertilisers is now stranded beyond the Strait of Hormuz at the moment the crops need it the most. The reality is that farmers will pay a quarter more for their fertiliser immediately, driving food price inflation on beer, bread, biscuits and butter, just like in 2022.
But there is worse. I know that the UK’s cement and steel industries need support for the CBAM. But, from 1 January, farmers will see the prospect of fertiliser going up by a further 25%, turning a calamity into a food security catastrophe. Will the Minister urgently review the fundamental basis for the CBAM, to stop this food disaster being visited on our shores?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord talked about the CBAM and ammonia production in one and a half breaths. On the question of the CBAM, it is a very important part of the low-carbon economy in terms of making sure that there is not carbon seepage from our economy elsewhere and that the low-carbon industry that is being developed is not undermined by rogue dumping and various other things in this state from elsewhere. The CBAM is certainly an important part of the green transition, not an impediment to it.
As far as ammonia is concerned, I am sure the noble Lord knows that there are ways to produce it for the UK market other than relying on gas for it. Certainly, low-carbon ammonia can be quite a substantial chemical for the future. That is, of course, not something that will happen overnight but, clearly, as the noble Lord said, we have no ammonia production in this country on a high-carbon basis, so perhaps we should encourage it on a much lower-carbon basis.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, in the context of media reports over the weekend, can the Minister tell us the most recent assessment that has been made of the adequacy of the UK’s current gas storage capacity to meet demand in the event of a prolonged supply disruption and the absence of an imminent return to a negotiated settlement, which all of us would of course like to see but none of us really expects in the near future? What confidence does the Minister have in that assessment? Finally, can he tell us what recent discussions have taken place with operators of the Rough gas storage facility on its future capacity and role in the UK’s energy security strategy?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question, because he alluded to one of the key points about the future of gas storage—the Rough field—and what will happen with that in the future. He will know that there were suggestions that the Rough field should be used for hydrogen storage. That is now not happening, and the Rough field is available for quite a large expansion in overall gas storage.
Having said that, we do not have enormous amounts of gas storage. On the other hand, we do have access to very secure forms of gas, albeit traded on the international markets, with the pipeline interconnectors that we have, the Norwegian gas supply that is freely available to us and, as I mentioned, with the development of LPG terminals in this country, we have the ability to land large amounts of LPG and to store it as well.
My assessment of gas security would be that, although we do not have a huge amount of gas storage, we have, collectively, a pretty secure gas security arrangement. I just drop in the point that we are producing increasing amounts of biogas in the UK, which is beginning to come to a few percentage parts of the gas supply overall. Again, that is a homegrown, secure way of doing it. That I think means that, although we will have a future management issue of declining gas in the system—and there is much less gas going into the system now than a few years ago—we nevertheless have a pretty secure gas arrangement in the UK.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, having been a Minister through six energy crises rather similar to this one, I cannot resist a bit of sympathy with Ministers having to go through it all again and explain the difficulties over which we have very little control.
Is not the simple truth behind all this that Governments, and this Government certainly, have persistently underestimated the amount of clean electricity that we are going to need for any kind of serious green transition? The data centres—I gather 71 of them are planned—are going to drink it all up. We simply need massive new investment at a pace that does not seem to be contemplated or considered at all. At the moment, we are still talking about 10 years until we try out the SMRs that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to. We are still arguing about whether Sizewell C, another giant replica, can possibly be afforded and who is going to pay. We are still facing the fact that we are going to need to draw energy of every kind and every source, including particularly gas, from wherever we can get it through interconnectors, neighbours and LNG—the lot—in order to have a modern economy and recovery and growth. It that not the reality?
Can the Minister assure us that the Department for Energy, which seems so lost in all this, has got a grip on the pace at which we need to accelerate our nuclear decisions, storage, which the Minister has been talking about, and all the rest? We seem to be wandering along, with the next crisis almost looming up while we are standing here.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord, who has great experience in these matters, makes important points about how we have to cope with substantial additional electricity demand, particularly as we electrify the economy as a whole, and for new things such as data centre demand and so on. Certainly, calculations suggest that the UK low-carbon energy economy, and the tremendous steps forward in procuring offshore and onshore wind, floating wind and various other things, is beginning to inform the quantum of energy that is needed. There are a lot of difficulties in that process, such as connections which we need to get on with very rapidly and various other things, to make sure that we can decongest the system and that the energy that we are producing gets to where we want it to be. Overall, the low-carbon energy revolution is up to the task of producing the additional electricity that we are going to use in the system for the future.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the person smiling this evening is President Putin of the Russian Federation, because an economy that was hugely under pressure is going to be relieved when it comes to oil prices. In fact, I read this evening that Putin has offered to help Europe out with its gas shortage. I hope that will not be the case. Will the Minister speak to his Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office counterparts to put much more emphasis, work and pressure on stopping the shadow fleet of the Russian Federation being able to operate, which is its supply line that enables it to continue fighting the war against Ukraine that is a threat to us all?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that Putin may well be smiling a little at the prospect of sky-high energy prices benefiting his beleaguered economy, and that some of the sanctions may be taken off him because people would rather like some of his oil and gas for the future. It is doubly important, therefore, that we keep those sanctions in place, that we sanction the shadow fleet, and that we make sure that the oil from Russia does not get out, by hook or by crook, into various places where it should not go. The UK Government are determined to keep that process under way. It is very important that Putin is not the unwitting beneficiary of this.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Statement that has been made. In supporting the Government’s policy on alternative renewables, I ask that particular attention is given to Northern Ireland, where two-thirds of the population is reliant on fossil fuels, particularly oil, for central heating. I declare an interest in that, along with many other people. Will the Minister, along with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, discuss ways to mitigate the impact on consumers in Northern Ireland, who will face high electricity bills due to the current global market conditions as a result of the war in Iran?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is right that, quite uniquely within the UK, Northern Ireland has a preponderance of oil used for heating, as opposed to the relatively small percentage in England, Wales and Scotland. It is particularly important that we get a grip on heating oil and kerosene in general at an early stage in this process. That is why the Government have undertaken the initiative today to make sure that the industry is very clear about how it manages the price of heating oil for the future and does not engage in price gouging as a result of this particular energy crisis. But prices in general will probably be subject to the duration of this war. Part of the process has to be to make sure that this war comes to an end as soon as it can, that supplies are secured, and that confidence is restored in the fact that energy can pass reasonably unhindered from the site of the war to its destinations. The UK Government are very involved in doing that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, an investigation today by the Guardian finds that a series of government announcements to
“mainline AI into the veins”
of the UK economy are riddled with “phantom investments” and what the Guardian describes as “shaky accounting”. In the light of this Statement on energy markets, is this not perversely a good thing? Does the Minister agree with me that we need to be thinking about the kind of energy use that is truly beneficial and efficient, both environmentally and economically, given that, as Ofgem concluded last month, 140 proposed data centre energy projects could need more power than the current peak demand? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we have to keep powering the incubators for ill babies in hospitals. That is surely more important than generating AI slop of pictures of Jesus Christ made up of shrimps.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting image of what we do not want to happen, as opposed to what we do want to happen. Of course, what we want to happen is real, low-carbon energy projects, and there is an enormous amount of investment—£90 billion is the figure from 2024—going into the low-carbon green economy at the moment, running three times as fast as the general economy. However, that investment has to be in real things. An issue that Ofgem is dealing with at the moment is distinguishing between what you might call tyre-kicker projects that want to come online in order to fund a speculative project, and those that really are necessary for our energy renaissance as a low-carbon energy superpower. The only way to become an energy superpower is to have a super-powered energy economy of real projects with real connections that actually do the business in the way the noble Baroness suggested, rather than being diverted into things that may or may not happen and are largely speculative at the moment in their promotion and origin.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
Can the Minister please tell the House why the Government have delayed publishing their response to last November’s report from the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce? Are they going to act and implement the review’s recommendations, and if so, when? It is hugely regrettable that we have thrown away our former leading position in nuclear power. Why have this Government stopped the AMR competition after phase B? Will there ever be a phase C? No update has been published on the government website since July 2023. We know that small high-temperature gas-cooled reactors could be playing a large part in meeting our electricity and industrial energy needs much sooner than currently envisaged. They also enable the production of hydrogen at scale, which is also a priority for our future energy mix.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I may have to write to the noble Viscount on aspects of that question that I am not fully sighted on. If he is referring to the Fingleton review, for example, then a great deal of work is being undertaken on that. Part of the issue with that review is how it translates itself into legislation for the future, and that is being fully considered. However, I assure the noble Viscount that that is not a particular cause of delays; it is a question of getting it right and making sure that what is in the review can properly inform the debate for the future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can we come back to the North Sea and the Opposition’s obsession with it? Can my noble friend confirm that between 2010 and 2024, production in the North Sea halved? It is a super-mature basin that, even if new licences were to be granted, would have a marginal impact. On the issue of gas being used to substitute for renewables when the wind is not blowing, would we not be in a much better position if the Opposition, when in government over 14 years, had actually managed to open one single nuclear power station?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the North Sea is not just a mature field but a very mature one. Indeed, as we are seeing, one of the opportunities for the North Sea is not so much getting oil out of the ground but putting carbon back into it, in terms of exhausted fields that are presently near their demise or thereabouts.
There is no magic wand that we can wave to suddenly produce lots of new oil and gas in the North Sea; we are talking about small pools, small fields and so on, if at all. The emphasis clearly has to be on making sure that production continues, not on ensuring that exploration—chasing a bit of a will-o’-the-wisp in terms of the field—is under way.
My noble friend is also right that the previous Government did indeed fail to produce a single nuclear power station during the entire time of their regime, whereas now we are on the cusp of making sure that small nuclear modular reactors are a thing of the future and that we have the sort of nuclear economy that is fit for a low-carbon economy—generally dispatchable, smaller, nimble and part of the energy economy.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:57 - Division on Amendment 377 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 377 disagreed.
22:08 - Division on Amendment 377C - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 377C disagreed.
22:20 - Division on Amendment 337D - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 183 - Amendment 337D disagreed.
23:03 - Division on Amendment 380 - Ayes: 40 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 380 disagreed.
Baroness Doocey
“(4) After section 14, insert—“14ZZA Imposition of conditions: live facial recognitionPrior to imposing conditions under either section 12 (imposing conditions on public processions) or 14 (imposing conditions on public assemblies), the senior officer of the police force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new statutory code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales has previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14, unless a new, specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been formally approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is intended to safeguard public privacy and civil liberties by requiring democratic oversight before this surveillance technology is deployed in such contexts.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 374 seeks to place statutory guardrails on the use of live facial recognition, echoing the recent calls from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We recognise that this technology can assist the police in tackling serious crime, but it must be used responsibly. Its rapid spread into everyday policing before essential safeguards or parliamentary scrutiny are in place raises profound constitutional concerns, particularly in the policing of dissent. Amendment 374 addresses the most contentious use of this technology, at protests and public assemblies. It would prohibit live facial recognition when police impose conditions under the Public Order Act unless and until Parliament had approved a new statutory code of practice. These are moments when people exercise their fundamental rights to free expression and peaceful assembly; rights which depend on participants feeling safe from tracking or retrospective profiling.
This Bill already tightens protest offences and curbs anonymity; layering unregulated facial scanning on top of those restrictions risks further shrinking the space for lawful dissent. Many people will have perfectly legitimate reasons to think twice before attending a demonstration if they know their face may be scanned. Without clarity on how watch-lists used at protests are compiled, people have no way of knowing whether they are being flagged for genuine risk or for the views they hold. At a protest, the chilling effect is not just about being scanned; it is the fear of political profiling. If the Government cannot clearly define who is a legitimate target for facial recognition at a peaceful assembly, then such deployments are, by definition, arbitrary and cannot meet the legal test of necessity and proportionality.
Operationally, the emerging concerns around false positives and the significantly increased risk to those from minority-ethnic backgrounds are a real headache for policing large public gatherings. Deployment without a code of practice will likely result in dozens of wrongful stops to verify identities, with confrontations that divert officers from real security threats and de-escalating crowds. We have already seen how damaging these errors can be. Just in the last few weeks, an innocent south Asian man was arrested at his home in Southampton for a burglary 100 miles away in Milton Keynes. He was handcuffed and held for nearly 10 hours because he was wrongly matched to CCTV footage by a Home Office algorithm that its own research shows produces significantly higher false positives for black and Asian faces. Last month, a man was publicly ejected from his local supermarket after staff misinterpreted a facial recognition alert.
These are not minor glitches to be shrugged off. They are serious violations that erode public trust, particularly in communities already wary of state power. The Government’s consultation is welcome, but it is far too slow for the pace of change we see on our streets. Until Parliament has set clear rules, Amendment 374 is both necessary and proportionate. We must ensure that Parliament, not oblique algorithms, decides the limit of state power. I beg to move.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, we are talking today about live facial recognition at protests and why the police must not be allowed to use it until Parliament has agreed a clear and democratic code of practice. At its heart, Amendment 374 is about power and trust. Live facial recognition is not just another camera on a street corner; it is a mass surveillance tool that can scan every face in a crowd, compare people in real time against a watch-list and permanently change what it feels like to stand in the public square. Once you normalise all that at protests, you change the character of protest itself.
If people think that simply turning up at a demonstration means that their face can be scanned, logged and potentially mismatched to a suspect list, some will decide that it is safer to stay at home. That is a direct, chilling effect on the right to protest, to assemble and to speak out against, or for, the Government. We should not let that happen by stealth through a patchwork of local decisions and internal guidance that most citizens will never see. That is what is happening at the moment.
The technology itself is far from neutral. We know that facial recognition systems can and do get things wrong. They perform differently across age groups and ethnicities. A false match in the context of a protest is not a minor inconvenience. It can mean being stopped, questioned, detained or stigmatised in front of your friends, your colleagues or your community, not because of something you did but because an algorithm made a guess. Allowing that at political protests without proper rules and oversight is an invitation to injustice.
It is not enough to say, “Trust the police. We have internal policies”. The question here is not whether any particular chief constable is well-intentioned; it is whether the state should be able to scan and track people at political gatherings without Parliament having debated, defined and limited that power. In a democracy, if the Government want tools that can alter the balance of power between citizen and state, they must come to Parliament, set out the case and accept constraints.
That is why a publicly debated statutory code of practice matters. It is where we answer basic questions that are currently left in the grey zone. In what circumstances, if any, is live facial recognition at a protest justified? Who sets the watch-lists and on what criteria? What happens to images of people who are not of interest? Are they actually deleted? If so, how quickly? Who can access them and for what purposes? What independent oversight exists when things go wrong? Until those questions are answered openly, the use of live facial recognition at protests rests on unpublished risk assessments and technical documents that ordinary citizens cannot challenge and that elected representatives cannot easily amend. That is the opposite of how intrusive powers should be operated in a liberal democracy.
We should also be honest about the precedent. If we accept live facial recognition at protests now, without a code, it will be used more often and for more purposes later. Once the infrastructure is there and the practice is normalised, it will be very hard to row back. The time to set limits is before the rollout, not after the abuses. Police should not have, without parliamentary approval, the ability to quietly turn every protest into a data-harvesting exercise, watching not just the few who pose a risk but the many who are simply exercising their rights.
The principle is simple: if live facial recognition is to be used at all in the context of political protest, it must be under a clear and democratically approved code of practice, debated in Parliament, tested against our human rights obligations and subject to real oversight and redress. Until that is in place, the police should not be allowed to deploy this technology at protests.
Lord Pannick (CB)
This is another context where there has to be a fair balance between competing interests. One can easily see that the use of live facial recognition is a vital policing tool. However, as has been explained, it has an adverse impact on privacy. What concerns me is that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act require not merely that steps taken are necessary and proportionate, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, rightly referred to, but it is a requirement that any restrictions or provisions in such a context must be prescribed by law.
I am very concerned that having police authorities and police officers exercising a pure discretion, without any statutory guidance or code of practice, may well fail that legal test of prescribed by law, because of the uncertainty and the excess of discretion. Therefore, the Government would be well advised in this sensitive context to ensure that there is statutory guidance and a statutory code of practice. The Minister may be unable to accept this amendment, but I hope he will be able to tell the House that steps will be taken to provide clear guidance to police authorities as to the use of this technology.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 374, which I have signed, but also to Amendment 430, which I tabled.
The use of live facial recognition in our public spaces is an extraordinary expansion of state power that currently exists in a legal vacuum. We are not Luddites on these Benches; we recognise the utility of technology, but we must ensure that live facial recognition is a targeted tool used under the rule of law and not a blanket surveillance net that chills the right to move freely and anonymously in our streets. The use of live facial recognition technology in public spaces poses a profound challenge to our civil liberties that cannot be met purely by internal police guidance. We are witnessing a fundamental shift in the nature of British policing—a shift, if you like, from the line-fishing of traditional human observation to the deep ocean trawling of automated mass surveillance.
Amendments 374 and 430 collectively seek to provide the democratic and judicial safeguards currently missing from what the experts have called a regulatory lacuna or legislative void. Amendment 374 prohibits the use of LFR during public assemblies or processions, unless a specific code of practice has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, as my noble friends have explained. In a free society, individuals should not have to pay the price of handing over their sensitive biometric data just to engage in democratic protest. We must safeguard public privacy and civil liberties by requiring democratic oversight before this technology is deployed against those exercising their right to assembly. We cannot have policing by algorithm without democratic oversight.
The current lack of oversight creates a documented chilling effect. Research by the Ada Lovelace Institute indicates that nearly one-third of the public are uncomfortable with police use of LFR, and up to 38% of young Londoners, for instance, have stated they would stay away from protests or public events if they knew that this technology was being used. We cannot allow our public squares to become spaces where citizens are treated as walking barcodes or a nation of suspects.
Critically, Amendment 430 would establish that the use of LFR in public spaces must be limited to narrowly defined serious cases and require judicial approval. It would provide the fundamental safeguards our society requires. It would prohibit the use of LFR by any authority unless it was for the investigation of serious crimes and had received prior judicial authorisation specifying the scope and duration of its use. We must ensure that this technology is used as a targeted tool, not a blanket surveillance net.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments because it is very important that live facial recognition should be subject to legal oversight and judicial oversight; there should be a law. We should see such amendments in the context of an overall parliamentary democracy which believes in lawful freedom of expression, whether it is in Parliament, the newspapers or public places. Live facial recognition without a proper legal framework could be used in an undemocratic fashion. Police, sadly, will find evidence very often for whomever they wish to convict. I know that is not necessarily the case, but if you are under pressure as a police officer to make your case stick, you will trawl whatever evidence you can to get it through to the stage of being investigated. I urge your Lordships to support these amendments because they will strengthen our democracy, and it is important that people should feel that they live in a free country, not in one subject to the sort of powers we see exercised in other countries, such as China.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments returns us to an issue debated at some length in Committee: the use of live facial recognition technology in policing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling these amendments on this important topic.
As set out in Committee, we on these Benches cannot support proposals that would severely restrict or pre-empt the operational use of live facial recognition by law enforcement. Live facial recognition is an increasingly important tool in modern policing. Used lawfully and proportionately, it has already demonstrated its value in identifying serious offenders, locating wanted individuals and preventing violent crime before it occurs. It has been deployed particularly effectively in high-risk environments such as transport hubs and major public events, where rapid identification can make a decisive difference in protecting the public.
That does not mean that safeguards are unnecessary. There must always be a careful balance between the protection of civil liberties and the need to equip police with effective tools to tackle serious crime. The use of new technologies must be proportionate and subject to appropriate oversight, but the amendments before us would go significantly further than that. In different ways, they would either prohibit particular uses of the technology, place rigid statutory barriers in its way or create restrictions that would unnecessarily impede the ability of the police to deploy it where it may be most needed. Amendment 374 would prohibit the deployment of live facial recognition in the context of public assemblies or impose extensive prior authorisation requirements. It risks tying the hands of the police at precisely the moments when rapid and flexible operational decision-making may be required.
We must recognise the points raised in Committee that the Government are currently consulting on the future regulatory framework for live facial recognition. To attempt to settle these questions piecemeal through amendments to this Bill would risk creating an incomplete or inconsistent framework. While the concerns raised by noble Lords are legitimate and deserve careful consideration, we should not default to restricting a technology that has already shown its potential to disrupt serious criminality and protect the public. The challenge is not to prohibit its use but to ensure that it is deployed responsibly, lawfully and proportionately. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments in this group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling these amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for supporting some of the arguments that I will make in response to them. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Strasburger and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, have all put their finger on their concerns around the use of this technology.
I will begin by providing a view of what live facial recognition does. It allows for real-time location of individuals of interest to the police. It scans the faces of those passing a camera in real time, comparing faces against a predetermined, specific watch-list of, potentially, wanted criminals, vulnerable missing persons or individuals posing risks to public safety. If no match is made—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, made—currently, the scanned face is deleted instantly. Every deployment and every specific bespoke watch-list for that deployment must have a defined policing objective, be supported by clear intelligence and ultimately be determined by humans.
Noble Lords will be aware that the use of facial recognition technology in all circumstances, including in live facial recognition, is already subject to safeguards, including those provided in the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. I agree that there needs to be a framework, which is the nub of what I think all noble Lords have said in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will know that the Government had a 10-week consultation for that very purpose—to look at the issues of a legal framework where law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies could be used. The consultation ended on 12 February. I give the House an assurance that the Government intend to respond to it by the summer; we have more or less a 12-week deadline from the end of its closing, but it will be by the summer. The consultation is clear that the Government need to design a new framework and assess how the police use technologies such as facial recognition. It needs to ensure that there are safeguards, as noble Lords have mentioned, around the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, that we protect these rights and that facial recognition technology is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.
We are currently considering the consultation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, said, that should take its course. However, we intend to set out our proposals in due course, which will be subject to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. I hope noble Lords accept that it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation or the proposals that Government will bring forward, which we will ensure have new legal framework for the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies.
While I think that the points made by noble Lords have real merit, I hope that, with the comments I have made and the reassurances I have given, we will save the difficult debate about regulation, how it operates and what the proposals mean for a proper legal framework for another day, which will come very soon. I hope the noble Baroness will—
Lord Strasburger (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, could he give the House some indication of when the day will come when we have a debate on some meaningful proposals? Could he also tell the House whether those proposals will cover the use of this technology by the private sector—which is happening a lot already in retail—as well as the public sector?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have tried to indicate to the noble Lord, we have had a consultation that finished on 12 February, and we intend to respond to it by the summer. Currently, what that response will be is to be formulated, so I will not give him chapter and verse on when and how. However, if legislation is required, we will look at that at the earliest opportunity, as we always do.
I cannot pre-empt the King’s Speech and I cannot give a timetable on that, but I will give a timetable when we respond to the consultation. We should remember that the Government initiated the consultation—we were not forced into it—to get to a position whereby the very issues that noble Lords have mentioned today are considered. With those comments, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken. I have no doubt at all that everything the Minister said, he actually believes. But it reminds me of when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority for the first time and I went round all the police stations in London—I think there were 32 at the time, with 32 borough commanders. The first thing I noticed was that, at the time, if you took samples, they had to be stored in a fridge for X number of days at a particular temperature and then they had to be destroyed within another number of days. In almost 60% of the stations I visited, none of this had happened.
So I understand what the Minister is saying: that unnecessary facial recognition photographs will be destroyed instantly. But I would feel much happier if there was some process for ensuring that that is being done and a way of checking that. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a debate on what guardrails are needed—because they are desperately needed—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Return to unauthorised encampments: prohibited period(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) In section 60C(3) (offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle) for “12” substitute “three”.(3) In section 61 (power to remove trespassers on land)—(a) in subsection (4)(b) for “prohibited period” substitute “period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given”;(b) omit subsection (4ZA).(4) In section 62 (supplementary powers of seizure)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “prohibited period” substitute “period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given”;(b) omit subsection (1A).(5) In section 62B(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences) for “twelve” substitute “three”.(6) In section 62C(2) (failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure) for “twelve” substitute “three”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause changes the period within which a person directed to leave an unauthorised encampment must not return from twelve months to three.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 375 in my name I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for the discussions we had both in Committee and outside it, which resulted in the amendment being brought forward today on Report.
Amendment 375 addresses the no-return period for individuals directed to leave an unauthorised encampment. This new clause restores the previous three-month period, replacing the 12-month prohibitions introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that communities feel safe, public spaces are protected and unauthorised encampments do not cause disproportionate disruption or distress. At the same time, we must ensure that enforcement powers are applied fairly and in a way that respects the rights of all individuals, including those in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her campaigning on this issue, and for meeting with me and representatives from the all-party group for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities earlier this year.
As she knows, and as I hope the House will be aware, in May 2024, the High Court found that setting and extending the no-return period to 12 months was incompatible with ECHR rights. This was because of the limited availability of authorised transit sites, meaning that individuals could be placed at risk of criminal sanction even when no lawful alternative was available. In light of this ruling, on their election in 2024 the new Government examined this, and it is right that we use this Bill to remedy that incompatibility.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare an interest as president of Friends, Families and Travellers and the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers, and co-chair of the relevant APPG. It is in that connection that I applaud these amendments. They right an acknowledged wrong, a breach of the Human Rights Act, the remedy for which was fought for in the courts by a brave Romany Gypsy, Wendy Smith. They will give our few remaining nomadic families some limited means of continuing to live in the way the courts have agreed they are entitled to.
As my noble friend the Minister said in the meeting he called to discuss the amendment, for which I, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who is not in his place, our colleagues in the NGOs, Wendy Smith’s barrister and the few thousand Travellers affected—and it is only a few thousand—are very grateful, it is “a stage in a journey”. That journey is the path to equal treatment and the end of the dwelling discrimination which comes from the lack of permitted sites. The actions to move farther along in the journey through greater provision of sites do not lie with his department, but my noble friend the Minister has helpfully said something more about the future. If he has any details on timing and more precise allocation of responsibility, we should welcome them. As I said, they are not inherently matters for his department, but I would like to hear the whole Government supporting this. I commend these amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the APPG for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, and speak in support of Amendments 375, 466 and 468. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for his introduction to this important group of amendments. As has been said, this is the start of a journey to reach equality of access to services for those currently living a nomadic life.
Several noble Lords across the Chamber made representations against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, brought in under the previous Government in 2022 and subsequently ruled to be a breach of the Human Rights Act. Those who objected listed the effect the new restrictions would have on family life, those with health issues and access to education, et cetera. In a society that purports to uphold the rationale of equality for all, it is unacceptable to discriminate against those who follow a different lifestyle from the majority of us.
I have long campaigned for legislation to require every local authority to provide permitted permanent sites for Gypsies and Travellers alongside permitted temporary stopping sites for those who travel as part of their culture and way of life. This has always been rejected by Governments of different political persuasions, and I welcome the Minister’s comments this evening on the provision of sites in the future.
I am now lucky enough to live in an area that has adequate, decent provision for those identified as Gypsy, Roma or Traveller. Several of those sites are within a short walk of my home. I am delighted that those people are able to be married in the church in which I also worship, and that they are able to grieve the passing of their loved ones in the same environment. Everyone should be able to access education for their children, alongside healthcare for their elderly, even if they are moving from area to area around the country. A stopping place or site which allows this to happen should be a right, and not left to a local landowner to permit for short periods.
This small group of amendments is not a magic wand to ensure that sites appear overnight, but it is a step in the right direction to help families raise their children in a relatively safe environment. I support the Minister’s amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for debate that the Government’s Amendment 375 has afforded us. This is obviously a highly contested issue but, before we start, I put on record the very specific nature of the issue we are debating. In 2024, the High Court declared that a specific section of the Conservative Party’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was incompatible with Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination, and Article 8, the right to private life, of the European Convention on Human Rights. That section extended the prohibition on returning to land covered by requests to leave from three to 12 months. That is why the Government are now attempting to reverse that change. The judgment did not, as claimed in Committee, nullify that no-returns order.
I will make His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s position clear: although we accept that the law as it currently stands renders the continuation of the current offence of returning to or re-entering prohibited land untenable, we would ultimately rather that the human rights law that has caused this incompatibility be repealed and the offence upheld. It is not racial discrimination to uphold one of the fundamental governing systems of our society. As perhaps some noble Lords in the Chamber will want to hear, private property has been a continuous thread throughout our history that has galvanised peace and prosperity in our country. Remove the right to private property and you create a system that favours freeloaders and fraudsters.
In the judgment, the presiding judge spoke of a balanced structure between the property rights of landowners and occupiers and the interests of Travellers. The increase in a no-returns order from three to 12 months would supposedly disproportionately affect the balance in favour of landowners. I do not believe that the interests of trespassers should be equally balanced with those of landowners and occupiers, if at all. That does not pertain to the Gypsy Traveller community; it does not matter who the people are. Declaring that the right to private property should trump the subjective desires of an individual or group does not have a racial element. It is an entirely neutral law and fundamentally liberal, in that it affords the same freedoms to all.
It is true to the latter point that it is disheartening to see the party that was once the vehicle of Manchester liberalism now supporting such a partial and anarchic view of the world. Therefore, if the law posits that upholding the belief in private property and enacting its enforcement in law is considered wrong, the law should be repealed. If the law ascertains that private property undermines an abstract theory of human rights and that the latter should prevail, the law should be repealed. If the law favours the human rights of the infringer over the victim, the law should be repealed. If the law is able to overturn the decision of a sovereign, elected Parliament acting of its own volition, the law should almost certainly be repealed.
Therefore, although we welcome the Government’s attempt to find a compromise between our legal commitments, we are unfortunately of the opinion that they are amending the wrong Act entirely. They are still rather dogmatic in their commitment to this outdated doctrine, but they are simply kicking the can down the road and delaying the inevitable. Whether the courts allow a three-month no-return period is immaterial; there would still exist an extrajudicial doctrine that has the ultimate say over the United Kingdom’s Parliament. There will simply be an appeal to this amendment, and if that is unsuccessful, they will find themselves facing the ECHR in another challenge to another Act.
We are sympathetic to the Government’s attempt at a balancing act, but they are targeting the symptoms over the cause. That cause is the ECHR enshrined in the Human Rights Act. The ECHR has served its purpose, but the fact that it now favours rule-breakers over rule-takers shows that it does so no longer. The Government must recognise this truth, and I suspect that deep down they do. They should follow the advice of the Conservative Party and leave the ECHR. Perhaps the Minister will reply bearing good news.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Before the Minister replies, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the rule-breakers are not those who want to return within three months; they are the local authorities that have statutory obligations to provide proper sites for Travellers but are failing to do so.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me clear up something straight away. There is not going to be a meeting of minds between me and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the abolition of the ECHR. I will leave it at that. There is no common ground between us. Yes, we are generally looking at some reforms, but there is no common ground on abolishing the lot, which is what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. There is blue/red/orange water between us on this; I will leave it at that.
On the question raised, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. We have moved in light of the judgments that were made, and we have instated the three-month period in this legislation. That is the right thing to do in relation to the legislation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, accepted that, while having a wider target. At the moment, I will take his acceptance of that as support. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support, and I am grateful for the constant chivvying of my noble friend Lady Whitaker on this issue.
In my opening remarks, in anticipation of what would be said, I said that the Government agree that planning appropriately for the housing and accommodation needs of our diverse communities is essential in supporting sustainable and inclusive growth. It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, just reminded the House, that the responsibility to set pitch and plot targets for Traveller sites lies with local authorities, and absolutely right that they must identify specific deliverable sites sufficient for five years against targets. As I said in my opening remarks, a revised National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites were published at the end of December 2024, following extensive consultation.
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on a new national planning framework. That consultation runs until 10 March. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker mentioned the need to look at more sites. That is actively being looked at. Despite the wide reservations of the noble Lord, but with the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches and my colleague Lady Whitaker, I hope that my amendments can be accepted by the House tonight.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Harassment of a person in their home(1) The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 is amended as follows.(2) In section 42 (police directions stopping harassment etc of a person in their home), in subsection (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);(b) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—“(iii) that they should not have done something they were entitled or required to do; or(iv) that they should have done something they were not under any obligation to do;”.(3) In section 42A (offence of harassment etc of a person in their home), in subsection (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);(b) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—“(iii) that they should not have done something they were entitled or required to do; or(iv) that they should have done something they were not under any obligation to do;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands sections 42 and 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (protests outside homes) to cover protests about something done in the past.
Lord Faulks
“Lawful or reasonable excuse defence for public order offences(1) This section applies to any offence that makes conduct unlawful unless there is an excuse for it and specifies either that the excuse must be a lawful excuse or that it must be a reasonable one.(2) A person has no excuse for the conduct if—(a) it is intended to intimidate, provoke, inconvenience or otherwise harm members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity, or(b) it is designed to influence the government or public opinion by subjecting any person, or their property, to a risk, or increased risk, of loss or damage.(3) It is immaterial that there are or may be other excuses or reasons for the conduct or that its main purpose may be different.(4) In this section “conduct” includes any act or omission.(5) For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, this section must be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies when a person has a lawful or reasonable excuse to a public order offence.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments was due to be heard last Wednesday. We were sent away just before midnight but reassured that they would be heard first thing on Monday. Well, it is 9.30 pm; I suppose that is first thing.
Amendment 377 is an important amendment, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Godson, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies. It is about lawful or reasonable excuse for public order offences. It is not particularly easy for a legislature to say what could constitute a reasonable excuse. However, the law is currently in a mess. The culprit is the Ziegler case, in which the Supreme Court, by a majority, said that whatever Parliament might say, it was necessary for a court to decide for itself, using the vexed issue of proportionality as a separate assessment, it would seem. Paragraph 59 of the leading judgment describes the process of proportionality as a
“fact-specific inquiry which requires the evaluation of the circumstances in the individual case”.
There has been widespread criticism of the Ziegler case. The courts have been backing away from it—for example, the Colston statue case in the Court of Appeal and last week in two cases, R v ABJ and R v BDN. Policy Exchange, the think tank, has mounted a long-standing campaign against the incoherence that the Ziegler decision has generated. There is absolutely no reason, from Strasbourg’s point of view, why national Governments should not decide on the sensible and appropriate limits on the law in relation to protest. Many noble Lords will remember the 2023 legislation and the provisions concerning tunnelling, major obstruction to transport networks and interfering with key national infrastructure. I was always concerned that superimposing on all these very specific offences the defence of lawful or reasonable excuse without giving any definition was, in effect, simply asking courts, “Do you think that there was a reasonable excuse?” but not saying how they were to approach that issue. I tabled amendments, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, without success, to clarify the issue so that courts could know what questions they should ask of themselves other than whether they liked the protest.
During the debate on this provision in Committee, no noble Lord from any party seemed to agree with the Ziegler decision or seek to defend it. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, seemed to dislike the amendment on one particular ground—that it purported to oust the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. I understand his loyalty towards the European Court of Human Rights, but the amendment does not seek to do that. It seeks to confirm that, in our view—I think that it is pretty uncontroversial—this amendment complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. It respects a balance of the various rights, and the House will know only too well that Articles 10 and 11 are qualified rights. It is clearly important that the law in relation to protests should take into account not only the rights of protesters but those of all those parties whose lives could be completely upset by the exercise of those rights and, of course, the police, who have to interpret the law and administrate the law, so coherence is most important.
I then looked again at what the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, had to say in response to this group. I want to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who has been indefatigable in the course of this Bill, dealing with any number of amendments, and often with large groups. I do not blame him altogether for not seizing on the Ziegler point with any great detail, but I fear that his answer was simply not good enough. He merely said
“the Government are not persuaded that this amendment is needed. Public order offences have been developed to ensure that those reasonable excuse defences apply only when appropriate and respect the need to balance”,—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/26; col. 1634.]
et cetera. It was a perfectly fair statement of what the aims of any Government are but not an answer to the inadequacy of the Ziegler case. Therefore, I ask the Minister directly—sorry, it is not going to be the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, replying, as he is getting a well-earned rest, but the noble Lord, Lord Katz—whether he says, on behalf of the Government, that the Ziegler decision was correct, or does he accept, like almost any other legal commentator, that the decision was unfortunately wrong, as other judges seem now to accept? If that is the case, the law is incoherent, and it must be changed.
I fear I must join my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who is not currently in his place, in saying that it is simply not good enough to say that we must wait until the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, speaks on the subject—if he were to speak on the subject, because, of course, that may be some time in the future. Then there is the vexed question of legislative time.
We need to sort out the law in relation to protest. This amendment, whose drafting has not been criticised in any way, states what could or should constitute a reasonable excuse or lawful excuse. The time has come to clarify the law for everybody’s sake. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Faulks’ amendment and I support it. To repeat a point I made on an earlier amendment, the police generally need simplicity, not complexity. Generally, Ziegler created complexity in what, in that case, was the simplest of offences. It was all about wilful obstruction of the highway. That used to be fairly straightforward. It was on a highway; it got obstructed and it was done wilfully: that was the offence. That is all that had to be proved. Of course, it is used not only in cases of protest, but Ziegler said that, in the case of protesters blocking the highway, that simple test could not be applied; it had to consider further issues. In fact, what it said was that the person could be convicted of obstructing the highway only if the prosecution could persuade the court that a conviction would be a proportionate interference in his or her convention rights, which, in effect, shifted it for the police to prove proportionality when someone was blocking the highway.
My point is that, although we understand the intellectual background to that, it has left the law in such a confused position that the cops do not know whether to enforce it at the moment of the crime. That is never a good position to be in. There is a secondary issue, which is that senior officers often become involved in planning for marches that are to happen in the next week or two weeks. They probably have a little bit more time to consider these issues, but frankly, the police have always used discretion. People block the highway fairly regularly; we all do. If you stop in your car, if you are walking on the highway, you can block it, so they do not arrest everybody who blocks the highway. They do not arrest every protester who is walking on the highway and clearly is obstructing it. That is what marchers do; it happens all the time. Of course, it becomes a bit tricky when a group within the protest decides to sit down in the middle of Oxford Circus and want to stay there for some time. That, I think we might all accept, is unreasonable. The police will try to persuade them. At some point, they might want to intervene and say, “Actually, I think you need to move or, alternatively, you are going to get arrested. There is a consequence to what you are doing. That’s your right, but there will be a consequence”.
I am afraid this judgment has left the police really confused. This is about obstruction of the highway, but it applies to all the different aspects of public order law. I do not think that it is fair to ask the police to start balancing human rights on the street. Of course, there is the issue of reasonableness, which is where discretion comes in—they are not going to arrest everybody and should exercise their powers only if somebody refuses to move or repeatedly causes an aggravation to the simple offence—but the danger of this judgment is that the law is confused and the police are caught in the middle. This amendment is an opportunity to clarify it. I think that is reasonable and I support it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, criticism of the Ziegler decision is well-founded and well-taken, but the law has moved on. For example, in the Supreme Court’s abortion services case, 2022 UKSC 32, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, speaking for a seven-judge Supreme Court, said at paragraph 42:
“The decision in Ziegler was widely understood as having established that every criminal conviction of protesters involved a restriction upon their Convention rights, and must be proved to be justified and proportionate on the basis of an assessment of the particular facts. As explained, that understanding was mistaken”.
The law has moved on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, recognised, there have been a number of more recent cases in which the courts emphasised, in the context of protest, that it is sufficient that Parliament has laid down a particular offence. It is therefore not necessary for the prosecution to prove proportionality on the facts of the individual case. It may well be that more clarity is required in this area, but the House should proceed on the recognition that Ziegler, for all its faults, is not current law.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for the elegant way that he introduced this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for explaining his perspective on it. In effect, it was a police perspective, given that the police find it difficult to apply the law as it was thought to be after Ziegler. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for explaining that the law has moved on since Ziegler.
I do not propose to get into the argument of precisely what the law is in the light of Ziegler as subsequently interpreted. I am concerned with the way that this amendment addresses the question of reasonable excuse. This is achieved by, in effect, spelling it out in proposed new subsection (2), which says:
“A person has no excuse for the conduct if … it is intended to intimidate, provoke, inconvenience or otherwise harm members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity”.
That hides within it an open question about the meaning of intention in that context. It is for that reason that I do not support the amendment as drafted.
It may well be that a person recognises that conduct that is otherwise perfectly lawful, particularly in a context of peaceful protest, may inevitably carry the consequence of provoking or inconveniencing other members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity. That comes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made in the context of obstructing the highway. Any obstruction or interference with traffic or movement or getting to work, or any delay, could all be intended consequences of lawful protest. What worries me is that this amendment, as drafted, would acknowledge that intention and say that there could be no excuse. It is not then a question of weighing up any excuse in the light of what the courts may consider to be an excuse in any particular case; the question is what the intended consequence would be, and the intended consequence may appear to the people charged with the conduct to be entirely reasonable, though intended, and may objectively be entirely reasonable, though intended.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in R v ABJ and R v BDN has thrown the law of public protest into even greater confusion. That case relates to two protesters prosecuted under Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 for expressing public support for Hamas, a proscribed organisation. The appellants claimed that their charges under the Act represented a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously dismissed this appeal and, in doing so, ruled that the Section 12(1A) offence in the Terrorism Act does not represent a disproportionate interference with the convention rights.
I raise this ruling because it highlights the confusion around protest law ever since the Supreme Court delivered a different ruling in the case of DPP v Ziegler in 2021. We have discussed the implications of the Ziegler ruling in this House on a number of occasions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has again reminded us of the details in that case. There is a clear tension between the court’s ruling in Ziegler and its ruling last week.
The court has made it clear that the Ziegler logic does not apply to the Terrorism Act defence but has not yet rectified the damaging consequences of the Ziegler decision. The basis of the court’s reasoning in Ziegler was the lawful excuse defence in Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and I tabled amendments to remove the reasonable excuse defences from a number of Acts that are used to prosecute highly disruptive protesters, including the Highways Act and the Public Order Act 2023, and from this Bill.
When I spoke to those amendments, the Minister said that,
“the reasonable excuse defence is necessary in these instances to ensure an appropriate balance between protecting the wider community and the right to protest”.—[Official Report, 13/1/26; col. 1633.]
It is clear that the balance has not been made. I have not tabled those amendments to remove the reasonable excuse defences again, apart from Amendment 377B, which would remove the reasonable excuse defence from Section 137 of the Highways Act. I can think of no possible excuse for anyone purposefully to block the highway unless they are authorised to do so, such as the police or officers of National Highways. Removing that defence would render the issue in Ziegler null and void since that defence was the issue under consideration by the court.
However, I accept that the problem has now grown. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ziegler case means there is now judicial precedent, and defence lawyers up and down the country have been lining up to utilise that argument so their clients can get off scot free. That is why I will be supporting Amendment 377 from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. While I would prefer to remove those defences entirely, it would be better that the clarity in the law provided by Amendment 377 was made. His amendment would apply more widely than mine and therefore, I am happy to admit, provides a more substantial solution to the problem.
I would like to pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in Committee:
“much of the criticism of Ziegler fails to recognise that the courts themselves have understood that Ziegler went too far, and that what Parliament has determined in relation to the law is the governing law”.—[Official Report, 13/1/26; col. 1623.]
I accept his interpretation that the courts by subsequent decisions have recognised the issue of Ziegler, but the decision in Ziegler still stands as case law. It has not yet been overturned. I think that serves as one of the strongest arguments for Parliament to pass Amendment 377 and rectify the error that the courts have themselves acknowledged.
If the European Convention on Human Rights prevents the application of the law as passed by Parliament or prevents the conviction of those who should be convicted, that demonstrates that we should leave the ECHR, but while we remain within the purview of the Strasbourg court and while the Human Rights Act remains on the statute book, the decision in Ziegler needs to be reversed. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, wishes to divide the House on Amendment 377, he will have our full support.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling these amendments which seek to narrow the existing lawful or reasonable excuse defences that may be used for public order offences.
It may be helpful to set out how a lawful excuse works in practice. A person is automatically treated as having a lawful excuse only under two specific circumstances. The first is if the defendant honestly believes that the person who is entitled to consent to the damage has given consent or would have consented if they knew of the circumstances—for example, an honest belief that the owner of a car in which a child was locked on a hot day consented, or would have consented, to the defendant smashing the window to get the child out. The second is if the defendant acts to protect their own or someone else’s property and they honestly believe both that the property needs immediate protection and that their actions are reasonable—for example, a person damages one person’s property while accessing the property of another to prevent a fire. It does not matter whether a person’s belief in those circumstances is reasonable or justified; it just needs to be honest.
Whatever the failings of, or, indeed, one’s views on, the Ziegler judgment, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in his sagacious contribution, case law has moved on and the Supreme Court has made subsequent rulings which chart a clearer path. It is the case that the right to private property will always need to be balanced with other convention rights, such as the right to protest and freedom of expression. This will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but leading case law has set out the parameters, and the Court of Appeal did not say that the exercise of a person’s convention rights could never form the basis of lawful excuse for criminal damage.
While I acknowledge the concerns of noble Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to decide what may constitute lawful or reasonable excuse in individual cases. Further, the current scope of the defence allows the CPS the necessary flexibility to consider the full circumstances of each case on its merits. The types of behaviour that noble Lords have suggested, such as intimidating or harming members of the public or the risk of damaging property, are unlikely to be considered a reasonable excuse. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to all those who took part in this debate. I think the issues have rather narrowed between those who have taken part in it. For the first time during the course of these debates on this issue, we had some drafting points from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. They have come late, but none the less I will deal with them.
The first point is that the noble Lord did not like my proposed provision that says that it is not an excuse if you intend
“to intimidate, provoke, inconvenience or otherwise harm members of the public by interrupting or disrupting their freedom to carry on a lawful activity”.
That does not seem to be a very reasonable excuse to me, so it seems a very sensible thing to put in the amendment.
Secondly, the noble Lord did not like subsection (3), where it says that it is immaterial that there may be other purposes. If the defendant does not have a good excuse, it is no good saying, “My overall excuse, because I happen to support Just Stop Oil, is a good one”. You cannot rely on that.
In his final point, the noble Lord stuck to his argument that this was an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act 1998. I repeat the point that it is not that. Whatever the future may hold, we are still part of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the convention requires the balancing of rights, including that they have to be treated as necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This provision reflects all those factors in a perfectly appropriate balance. Therefore, it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I come finally to this point. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, quite rightly said, pointing to a recent judgment of the President of the Supreme Court, that the courts are backing away from Ziegler. I am not surprised. It sits very uneasily with the jurisprudence in this area generally. The decision is almost moribund. But it is time to give it a decent burial. It is time to conclude that the law should be clear, that we can understand what it means and that the police can understand what it means, so that the whole business of putting forward spurious excuses will cease and we can have a proper and sensible law in relation to protest. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Extension of notice period for public processions(1) Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 (advance notice of public processions) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5) for “6” substitute “28”.(3) In subsection (6) for “6” substitute “28”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the notice period that is required for public processions to take place from 6 to 28 days.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to extend the notice period for public processions from six days to 28 days. The Government have resisted this; however, the police feel that it is difficult to operate under the current system and would prefer that it was 28 days as opposed to six. On that basis, I think we should be supporting the police, and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Prohibition of protests(1) Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 (prohibiting public processions) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The chief officer of police may apply to the Secretary of State for an order to prohibit the holding of all public processions (or any class of public processions so specified) for a period of not more than 3 months in any district or part of a district if either of the following conditions are met.(1A) The first condition is that the chief officer of police reasonably believes that the powers under section 12 will not be sufficient to prevent a public procession in the district or part of the district from resulting in –(a) serious public disorder,(b) serious damage to property, or(c) serious disruption to the life of the community.(1B) The second condition is that the procession would place undue demands on the police.”(3) In subsection (2)—(a) omit “a council may with the consent of”;(b) after the first “Secretary of State” insert “may”.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this amendment relates to the prohibition of protests, where the chief officer may apply to the Secretary of State for an order to prohibit the holding of all public processions, and where he or she considers there may be serious public disorder, damage to property or, indeed, serious disruption to the life of a community. That is an eminently sensible amendment, and the Government have resisted this again. However, I feel that it would be a great tool in the box for police, so I look to divide the House on it.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1) The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 is amended as follows.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 154, page 205, line 6.
“(5A) The requirement in subsection (5) may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s duty to consult before making regulations under section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (inserted by clause 154) may be satisfied by pre-commencement consultation.
Baroness Doocey
“(7A) Authorised persons listed in section 71A may not use the information referenced in subsection (1) for the purposes of biometric searches using facial recognition technology.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the DVLA database cannot be used for searches using live facial recognition.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 380 erects a vital safeguard. It blocks Clause 154 from handing millions of drivers’ private photos to the police for facial recognition searches without full parliamentary scrutiny and explicit consent. It stops a road traffic database being quietly repurposed for mass biometric surveillance, while still allowing proportionate, tightly regulated data sharing for genuine policing needs.
In Committee, Peers from across the House voiced concerns echoing not just the Liberal Democrats but a wide range of civil society groups, among them Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Justice, StopWatch, Inquest and Privacy International. The Minister still tells us that this is merely a tidying-up exercise with no impact on facial recognition, but the evidence tells a very different story. It points to a plan to funnel photos of over 50 million innocent drivers into a vast facial recognition repository, dismantling vital privacy safeguards.
For anyone who thinks that sounds exaggerated, let me make three points. First, the previous Government explicitly justified an almost identical clause on the basis that it would enable facial recognition searches; they were candid about that intention. If this Government do not share that purpose, they should have no difficulty supporting my amendment.
Secondly, thanks to freedom of information requests, we now know that other civic databases, passports and immigration records are already acting as de facto facial recognition libraries, without public knowledge, consent or a clear parliamentary mandate.
Thirdly, there is a strategic facial match-up project—a joint Home Office and police scheme—to enable facial recognition searches across multiple databases, including non-policing ones. Its existence has yet to be confirmed in public Home Office policy documents, having surfaced only via government tender notices, media reports and oblique spending references. If this project does not exist, I invite the Minister to set the record straight.
Facial recognition turns an ordinary photograph into biometric data, a unique identifier like a fingerprint or DNA, which in law should be retained for criminal justice purposes only under very strict safeguards. The UK does not currently have population-wide biometric databases of innocent citizens. Creating a single, easily accessible policing platform for these civil images runs directly against the European Court of Human Rights’ warning that blanket retention of biometrics is a serious and disproportionate interference with privacy. Plugging the DVLA database into a facial recognition engine also risks creating a honeypot for hostile states and criminals, exposing the lifelong biometric signatures of almost every adult driver.
There are practical problems as well. Driving licence photos are updated only every 10 years, so the database already holds millions of outdated images. Using that kind of so-called “noisy data” for facial recognition inevitably increases the risk of false positives and wrongful stops. We know that this technology is far less precise than DNA and has already contributed to wrongful accusations, yet we are assured that its accuracy is improving. However, there is no timescale for this. The Government are, in effect, asking Parliament to sign a blank cheque for mass access to our biometric data. Amendment 380 simply asks this House not to hand them the pen. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know a young man who has just got his driving licence. He is very excited and sees it as a rite of passage; he is now a grown-up. He has joined the club of drivers and he shows his driving licence with pride. I can assure noble Lords he has no idea that applying for a driving licence means that he is joining a vast biometric police database, a club of police surveillance, and his mugshot will be treated like one of those Most Wanted gallery of rogues images.
This is a corruption of public trust. The public apply for one thing, only for it to be subverted and used for something else. It seems to me to be duplicitous and behind the backs of the public. Currently, police forces can directly access and search DVLA data only in relation to road traffic offences and must phone the DVLA in relation to other offences. I note that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would not prevent police forces accessing DVLA data for law enforcement purposes, but it should not be the default position. It is important to create this safeguard to prevent such data being used to conduct, in effect, phishing exercises of facial recognition. Therefore, we need this amendment to be taken seriously and I will be interested in what the Minister has to say.
This is not some paranoid dystopian vision. In a recent submission to the Home Affairs Committee, the National Police Chiefs’ Council stated that police chiefs were indeed seeking access to the DVLA database for facial recognition. That would be a huge expansion of police surveillance powers, granting them access, as we have heard, to the biometric data of tens of millions of citizens. We cannot overestimate how important it is that we do not just nod this through but take seriously the risk to civil liberties. It is why the noble Baroness’s Amendment 380, which creates a safeguard, is so important: to protect the civil liberties and privacy of innocent driving licence holders.
I conclude with a quote from Big Brother Watch, which says that this represents
“a disproportionate expansion of police powers to track and identify citizens across time and locations for low-level policing needs”.
In a way, it is an abuse of the police to ask them to use these underhand methods, and it is therefore vital that there are safeguards in law to prevent this happening, particularly because it is happening behind the backs of ordinary people.
Lord Pannick (CB)
There is no question, as I understand Clause 154, of a blank cheque, and there is no question here of underhand methods. What the clause requires is that the Secretary of State produces regulations, and the regulations must specify the circumstances in which information may be made available under this section. I am assuming that in due course, the Government are going to bring forward regulations to implement this provision. Those regulations will have to be laid before Parliament, and there will be an opportunity, if any noble Lord wishes to do so, to debate those regulations. I suggest that that is the time to assess whether the regulations contain a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, the DVLA driver database must not be turned into a ready-made line-up for facial recognition systems. This is about more than data protection; it is about the basic relationship between citizen and state. People did not hand over their photographs to the DVLA so that the Government could quietly repurpose them for mass identification; they did so under legal compulsion to get a driving licence.
Using those images to power facial recognition searches fundamentally changes the deal after the fact. It turns a compulsory single-purpose database into an all-purpose surveillance tool, without anyone ever having given meaningful consent. Once you allow the police to run facial recognition matches against the DVLA database, you create the possibility of identifying almost anyone, almost anywhere, from a single image. That goes far beyond investigating named suspects. It enables trawling through the entire driving population to find possible matches, with all the risk of false positives that facial recognition systems already carry. A bad match here is not an abstract error. It is a real person, wrongly flagged, questioned or even arrested, because a machine thought their face looked similar.
The DVLA database is also nearly universal for adults. That makes it uniquely tempting. If we normalise using it for facial recognition in one context, it will not stop there. Today, it might be justified for serious crime. Tomorrow, it could creep into protests, public events or routine inquiries. Once the precedent is set that every licence holder’s image is fair game for search, the barrier to expanding that use becomes paper-thin.
There is also a democratic principle at stake here. When the state wants new investigative powers that are this sweeping, it should come to Parliament and ask for them openly, with clear limits, safeguards and independent oversight. What must not happen is a quiet, technical integration between the facial recognition system and the DVLA database, introduced by secondary legislation and governed mainly by internal policies and obscure memoranda of understanding. This is legislation by the backdoor, not by debate.
If we allow the DVLA database to be searched with facial recognition, we are not just making investigations a little more efficient; we are rebuilding the basic infrastructure of our democracy so that the state can, in principle, put a name to almost any face. We are doing that using images people had no real choice about providing, and for a completely different purpose. So, the line we should draw is simple and firm: the DVLA driver database is for licensing drivers, not for powering facial recognition line-ups. If any Government want to change that, they must come back to Parliament with primary legislation, make their case in public and accept strict statutory constraints. Until then, we should say clearly that turning a compulsory licensing database into a de facto national ID gallery is a step too far for a free society. That is what Amendment 380 does and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I do not support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point that there will obviously be regulations, because people do have fears about accessing the DVLA database.
At the moment, the only database that facial comparisons are made against is that of suspects, which is a substantial database of people the police have arrested in the past. It would be a bizarre outcome if the technology existed to find a serial rapist and the only way we could find them was on the DVLA database, but we buried our head in the sand and said that we were not going to look. This is just the start of an investigation, not a conclusion. No one would get charged as a result of being identified by this process, but it may well start an investigation that might exclude or include them. To not take up the possibility that you could identify them, either through the DVLA or other databases, is the wrong way forward.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the fact that this access is to be authorised by regulations is a saving grace. We know full well that in this House, fatal Motions virtually never succeed. The Conservative Front Bench may take some comfort from the fact that there would be provision for regulations, but the reality is that once the enabling legislation is passed, regulations will be in the hands of the Government, and nobody can do anything about it.
This is an issue of consent. People who apply for driving licences do so and have done so for many years on the basis that their photographs and biometric data are provided for the limited purpose of applying for a driving licence—that goes for all the information they provide. It is not for the purpose of enabling a trawl for suspects. One can envisage a position where, in some circumstances, authorisation to use information in public hands, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested, may be appropriate, but this is not the place for it to be provided for by regulations subsequent to and consequent upon this enabling clause.
It is a question of public trust. The information and photographs are provided by applicants for driving licences based on the trust that they will be used for that purpose and that purpose alone. To misuse that information to enable a trawl of photographs to see if they might be suspected of some offence, with nobody having any real control over that use, is an abuse of trust. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 380 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Strasburger. I am grateful to them for raising an issue that deserves careful consideration. The amendment would prevent authorised persons using information held on the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency database for biometric searches using facial recognition technology. It is right to ensure that Parliament scrutinises these emerging powers thoroughly. Public trust in policing is vital, and it is only through open debate and clear safeguards that such trust can be maintained.
The DVLA database contains photographs and personal information provided by millions of law-abiding citizens for the specific purpose of licensing drivers, and it is therefore entirely understandable that noble Lords should question whether it is appropriate for that information to be used in other contexts, particularly the context of advanced biometric searches. The principle that personal data should not be repurposed without clear justification is one that many of us across the House share.
However, while the concerns behind this amendment are sincere and valid, I fear that it is unnecessary and ultimately misguided. It would risk undermining the ability of our police and law enforcement agencies to prevent and investigate serious crime. First, it is important to recognise the operational value that carefully regulated facial recognition tools can provide to modern policing. The technology, when used responsibly, can assist officers in identifying suspects in serious crime, locating dangerous offenders and protecting the public in situations where time is of the essence. It can be particularly valuable when investigating crimes involving unidentified individuals captured on CCTV or other images.
The police already rely on a range of databases and identification tools to perform these tasks. Photographs from custody suites, passport records and other lawful sources have long assisted the police in identifying suspects and victims alike. Facial recognition technology represents in many ways a technological evolution of that long-standing investigative practice. The amendment before us would place a blanket prohibition on the use of DVLA images for biometric searches involving facial recognition. Such prohibition risks creating an artificial and potentially harmful limitation on investigative capability. If a suspect’s image appears on CCTV and the only high-quality image available for comparison is contained within a DVLA database, the amendment would prevent police even conducting that comparison. We must ask ourselves whether that is a proportionate outcome.
Secondly, it is worth emphasising that the use of facial recognition technology by police forces in the United Kingdom is not taking place in a regulatory vacuum. The deployment of such technologies is already subject to a framework of legal safeguards, oversight and guidance. Police forces must operate within the boundaries of data protection law, including the principles established under the UK general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Their activities are subject to oversight by bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and, where appropriate, the courts. Moreover, the use of live facial recognition by police has already been subject to significant judicial scrutiny. The courts have made it clear that deployments must be proportionate and transparent, and accompanied by appropriate safeguards. That jurisprudence has helped shape operational guidance and policing practice in this area.
Given that context, I question whether it is wise for Parliament to impose a sweeping statutory ban in relation to one database. Doing so risks pre-empting the careful regulatory balance that is already evolving through legislation, oversight and case law. That does not mean that the concerns raised by the amendment should be dismissed—far from it. The growth of biometric technologies demands a clear and robust legislative framework. Many Members across this House have rightly called for greater clarity about how facial recognition should be governed in the future. I feel the same. Questions of transparency, accountability, accuracy and bias must continue to be examined with great care.
However, those broader questions should be addressed through a comprehensive approach to biometric governance rather than through a single amendment targeting one database in isolation. If Parliament concludes that additional statutory safeguards are required for facial recognition technology then we should consider them holistically, ensuring that any rules are consistent, proportionate and grounded in operational reality. A piecemeal prohibition risks creating unintended consequences while failing to resolve the underlying policy debate.
For those reasons, while I commend the spirit in which the amendment has been brought forward, I regret that I cannot support it. Instead, I hope that the House will continue the broader necessary conversation about how facial recognition technologies should be regulated, ensuring that we protect civil liberties and the ability of our police to keep our communities safe.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for speaking in support of it. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, which echo some of the points that I will make. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed to one of the arguments that I will make: that access to the data will be subject to a statutory code of practice to ensure that its use is appropriate.
I remind noble Lords of the purpose of Clause 154: it is simply about bringing legislation up to date, which is what I said in Committee when we debated this matter. As a result of technical changes to the way police and law enforcement access driving licence data, it has become clear that we need to improve the DVLA data access regime by setting out clearly in statute—which is what Clause 154 does—which persons can access DVLA driving licence data. The legislation provides additional clarity on this issue.
The measure will enable us, through secondary legislation made under these new powers—this goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to expand the purposes for which DVLA data may be accessed automatically to include policing or law enforcement purposes. This means that the police will have another tool to cut crime and keep the public safe, in line with the commitment by chief officers to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry when investigating an offence. I emphasise that access to the data will be subject to a statutory code of practice to ensure that its use is appropriate.
We are clear that there will be strong safeguards around the use of DVLA data, which, as I have said, will be introduced via regulations made under the new provisions. We debated earlier government Amendment 382, which ensures that these regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses, in line with a recommendation from the Constitution Committee.
We want to ensure that officers undergo training prior to being able to access information. The police are already legally required to consult with local communities. Extensive audits of who has accessed DVLA driving licence data are maintained. It is already standard practice that each time the DVLA driver database is accessed by a police officer, the details of what information is accessed and for what purpose is logged. This will continue to be the case once the revised measure is implemented.
On the issue of facial recognition technology, I want to make it clear to all noble Lords who have signed this amendment, including the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that police forces do not conduct biometric facial recognition searches against images contained on the DVLA database. Officers use the DVLA database for day-to-day policing matters. Anybody who has watched a police programme on a Monday night—when they get the opportunity in the recess to do so—will have at some point seen a police officer pull over a car and look at an individual who says, “I haven’t got my licence with me”, and tell them they are Jimmy Jones of X address. The police officer then wants to check that they are Jimmy Jones of X address, and so they access the DVLA database. Nine times out of 10, on the police shows that I watch on a Monday night during recess, it is a false name, and therefore there is police action accordingly. That is the purpose for which the police currently use the database.
As I said in our earlier debate on Amendment 374, the use of facial recognition technology in all circumstances is currently subject to safeguards, such as the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. As I have said in previous discussions, any use of facial recognition technology will be subject to the outcome of the consultation that we finished on 10 February. That will be completed in about 12 weeks and, by the summer, we will have government proposals which the noble Baroness, along with both Houses of Parliament, can scrutinise, to achieve some view on whatever the Government propose following the outcome of that consultation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that, if the amendment were agreed by the Government tonight then the police officer who stopped somebody on the street—potentially a drunk driver, an unlicensed driver or a driver with no insurance—would not be able to access the DVLA database. That goes to the very points that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made in his speech.
This is not about mass surveillance. It is about using the DVLA database in an appropriate way—logged, recorded and monitored by the police to ensure that we check that person A is actually the right person who can drive that vehicle at that particular time. It is not, with due respect to noble Lords, mass surveillance. It is proper use of police technology to ensure that the DVLA database helps catch bad actors in the act of doing bad things. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, there is no chance at all that I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I think the Minister knows that. We are not on the same page on this. How on earth can the Government justify taking information that people have given for one purpose and using it for something else? It is totally and utterly disgraceful. People have given their photographs to get a driving licence; it is wrong that they can now be repurposed to be checked by police. Just let me finish the sentence. There is nothing wrong with the Government, in their consultation, saying to people, “We want to repurpose the DVLA driving licence database because it would be really helpful to police. Would you be willing to agree to this?”, but they did not say that. They have just taken it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness think that a police officer, at 11 pm, on a street here in Westminster, should not access the DVLA database to check that the person is who they say they are? If she thinks that, she would really be blowing a hole in every Monday night television programme that I have ever watched.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I suggest that the Minister has been watching too many of these television programmes. There is a complete lack of transparency. The Information Commissioner’s Office had to learn about the use of passport databases through media reports, rather than Home Office disclosure, even though this appears to have been happening since 2019. It is just so completely and utterly wrong. If people had given their information for it be used for those purposes, it would be fair enough and no problem at all, but they did not and the Government have taken it without permission. The whole situation is absolutely appalling.
There is the potential for 50 million drivers to be put on a permanent database and to be checked every single day. Of course, the police want it; I would want it if I were the police. It will make their lives so much easier. It will make it very easy for them to check everything they need to check, but that should not be the purpose of this.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Baroness is very eloquently making her case on the basis of a lack of consent. I suggest to her that the police regularly use material that people have not given their consent for them to use—for example, their fingerprints and saliva.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I do not accept that that is the same as 50 million innocent drivers being put on a database. However, I have given all the arguments and we have had this debate twice. The noble Lord is gesturing. I am sorry; what does that mean?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was simply saying that, as the noble Baroness has already indicated that she is going to divide the House and given the hour, it would probably be quite useful just to go to that stage.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I think that is very unfair, because my speeches are probably shorter than those of anybody in this House. The noble Lord should not pick on me because he does not like what I am saying. I do not like being bullied.
I do not believe that what the Government are doing is right and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(3A) The requirement in subsection (3) may be satisfied by consultation carried out wholly or partly before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s duty to consult in preparing a code of practice under section 71B of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (inserted by clause 154) may be satisfied by pre-commencement consultation.
“(3) In section 76 (subordinate legislation), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 71 may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (inserted by clause 154) to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Code of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidentsIn the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, omit—(a) sections 60 and 61 (code of practice about police processing of personal data relating to hate incidents), and(b) the italic heading before section 60.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Lord Hanson of Flint
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 383, which repeals the statutory code relating to non-crime hate incidents issued under Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Consideration of the review undertaken by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has shown that to be the appropriate policy to take forward. The interim findings of the review commissioned, in conjunction with the College of Policing, by the former Home Secretary were published in October. They were clear that the existing system no longer operates as intended and should be replaced with a clearer, more proportionate model.
Non-crime hate incidents were originally introduced following the landmark Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Their intent—to gather information to prevent crime, support investigations and safeguard the vulnerable—remains as relevant today as it did 30 years ago, and we remain committed to safeguarding against hostility and collecting information to support an effective policing response. However, the environment in which policing operates has evolved significantly since that inquiry and over time non-crime hate incidents have expanded beyond their original intention. The growth of social media in particular and online polarisation has drawn the police into disputes that fall outside their core duties. Police officers must be able to focus on catching criminals, cutting crime and ensuring public safety, and the present statutory code has not provided the clarity needed to support that focus. It must therefore be revoked.
The College of Policing—I am pleased to see its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in his place—and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are clear that the current system is not fit for purpose. They intend to set out a more appropriate framework that ensures that recording is proportionate, clearer and firmly focused on the most serious incidents to ensure the police are not drawn into matters they should not be drawn into. It will do this by tightening the definition of an incident, raising the recording threshold, moving from recording all incidents that are a cause for concern to capturing only those that relate to core policing purposes. These reforms will be supported by robust guidance and training so that the incidents are handled appropriately. The new framework has been developed by police experts in consultation with community representatives. It will, I believe, strike the right balance between safeguarding vulnerable communities and protecting lawful freedom of expression by ensuring that recording is consistent and focused on genuine risk.
The amendment before the House today repeals the statutory framework to facilitate the introduction of a new framework. Commencement will be timed to ensure an orderly transition aligned with the introduction of the replacement framework. As I have indicated to the House previously, further detail will be set out following the publication of the college’s final report, which I expect in very short order in the coming weeks. The report is going to the National Police Chiefs’ Council for consideration next week and I expect it to be published by the College of Policing shortly afterwards.
Amendment 383 will end a system that policing experts agree no longer works. However, the original intention behind non-crime hate incidents to help prevent crime and safeguard the vulnerable remains important. Our commitment to tackling hate remains, as witnessed by the amendments we brought forward last week that were approved by this House, but the mechanism by which the police assess and record information will change, with a higher threshold for police involvement. We will continue to safeguard our communities but through a clearer, more proportionate framework that works. When that is brought forward, I will make sure that the results are published and that noble Lords, as well as Members of the House of Commons, can see the outcome of that final report once the National Police Chiefs’ Council has issued it for clearance. The amendment enables the changes that I have explained.
I will respond to Amendment 387B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, once I have heard noble Lords, but for now I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 387B. I declare my interest as a director of the Free Speech Union.
I am grateful to the Minister for summarising the final report of the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on non-crime hate incidents, for the courtesy he has shown me and the co-sponsors of this amendment in the run-up to this debate, and for arranging for me and others to be briefed by Sir Andy Marsh and his team at the College of Policing about the recommendations in the final report, which I will get to shortly.
As I made clear to the House in Committee, I have long-standing concerns that the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents has been a huge waste of police time and had a chilling effect on free speech. According to a report for Policy Exchange published in November 2024, police in England and Wales are spending an estimated 60,000 hours a year investigating and recording NCHIs—non-crimes. That is time that could be spent solving actual crimes. Based on FoI requests submitted by the Telegraph and others, the Free Speech Union estimates that over a quarter of a million NCHIs have been recorded since they were first introduced in 2014, and that is in England and Wales alone. That is an average of more than 65 a day.
Why so many? Because if a hate incident is reported to the police by a member of the public, they have little choice but to record it as an NCHI. All that is required is that the victim, or indeed any witness, believes that the incident in question was motivated by hostility towards one or more of the victim’s protected characteristics. No additional evidence is required. Examples include a man accused of whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” whenever he saw his neighbour, a woman who said on social media she thought her cat was a Methodist, and two schoolgirls who told another girl in the school playground that she smelled like fish.
It is hard not to laugh, but for the people who have had NCHIs recorded against them it is no laughing matter. If you apply for a position or a voluntary role that requires you to carry out an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, an NCHI can show up on your record. That is why I say that NCHIs have had a chilling effect on free speech. People are rightly concerned that, if they say something that another person takes offence at, it can permanently blot their copybook and may prevent them getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or volunteering at a charity like the Samaritans. There is also the broader concern that the amount of time the police are spending on investigating and recording non-crimes is undermining public confidence in the police.
That is why I welcome the recommendations that the Minister has shared with us. It sounds like we have finally seen the back of NCHIs—something that the Free Speech Union has been campaigning for for six years now. Assuming that the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Secretary of State sign off on these proposals, the kind of incidents that were recorded as NCHIs in the past will in future be recorded, as I understand it, as anti-social behaviour incidents, and only those that meet the higher threshold—that is, that recording the incident is considered necessary for the prevention or detection of a crime or for another policing purpose, and it complies with the new recording guidance.
I am particularly encouraged by what we have heard about the new guidance. We have been assured that it will have due regard to the right to freedom of expression and in that way, we hope, protect the police from being dragged into bad-tempered arguments on social media as well as petty disputes between neighbours. In future, if someone calls a control room to complain about a supposedly offensive remark they have seen on Twitter or overheard across the garden fence, the call handler can say, “I’m sorry, but that’s not a policing matter”. That is all to the good, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on producing such a sensible report. This is a welcome dose of common sense that I hope will go some way to restoring public confidence in the police.
Nevertheless, I do not intend not to press the amendment. Our amendment would not prevent the police recording incidents where doing so served a legitimate policing purpose, even in some circumstances logging those incidents on an intelligent management system. Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised concerns about that during the debate in Committee, and we have adapted our amendment accordingly.
To be clear, this amendment will not prevent the police recording incidents involving a hate element for intelligence-gathering purposes. However, I still have concerns that historic NCHIs could show up in enhanced DBS checks. That is why proposed subsection (5) in this amendment says that the police must not disclose historic NCHIs that would not meet the new higher recording thresholds. I think your Lordships would agree that data entries that would not be made under the new regime, but which are hanging around on police computers, must not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.
I have reluctantly come to accept that asking the police to comb through their databases and delete historic NCHIs that would not meet the new recording threshold would be too resource-intensive because of the sheer number that had been recorded, and that demand no longer appears in our amendment. Nevertheless, proposed subsection (5) says that any NCHIs that police come across that would not be recorded under the new regime must be deleted. I do not think that is a big ask, and it would enable people who believe NCHIs have been recorded against their names—trivial incidents that would not be recorded under the new criteria—to ask the police to delete them.
I welcome the assurance that the new recording guidance will have due regard to the right to freedom of expression, but, in the absence of putting any of these recommendations in statute, what guarantee do we have that the College of Policing, under new leadership, or a different Home Secretary, would not dispense with that requirement? Consequently, proposed subsection (4) in the amendment says:
“Guidance in relation to incident recording must have due regard to … freedom of expression”.
That brings me to a broader point. As I understand it, the Government’s plans for taking forward these recommendations—assuming they are signed off—is to include them in guidance, but not statute. The government amendment in this group will repeal the statutory basis for the current NCHI regime, thereby clearing the ground for a new regime to spring up in its place. But that new regime will be wholly reliant on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister will do what he has said he will do with the full support of my noble friend Lord Herbert, the chair of the College of Policing, Sir Andy Marsh the CEO and the chief constables on the national council. But what about their successors? What happens if a more authoritarian Government replace the current one?
The only way to future-proof these recommendations, to guarantee that this new, more sensible arrangement is not short-lived and that NCHIs do not spring back to life, Freddy Krueger-like, in a few years’ time, is to give the new regime some statutory underpinning. Proposed subsection (1) in this amendment drives a stake through the heart of NCHIs and makes sure they cannot be resurrected in the absence of primary legislation to the contrary. No Parliament can bind its successors. Indeed, if the Home Secretary wants to take up some, but not all, of the report’s recommendations, the Government could amend this amendment at Third Reading. In the meantime, I urge them to support these sensible suggestions and put them on a statutory footing.
In my view, too many of the rules governing how public authorities behave are found in guidance when they should properly be in statute. Indeed, the current NCHI regime, which I think we are all agreed is not fit for purpose, emerged from guidance issued by the College of Policing in 2014 and was not put on a statutory footing until 2022, by which time it was too late for Parliament to wrest control over it. A bureaucratic leviathan had been created in the form of ever more voluminous guidance. Let us not make the same mistake again. Something as important as what incidents reported to the police are investigated and recorded and, in some cases, disclosed in enhanced DBS checks is properly a matter for Parliament, which is why I urge your Lordships’ House to support this amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, as the leader of the local authority, I had to address a public meeting in Wymondham in Norfolk at least 10 years ago, I cannot quite remember. It was about providing accommodation in the local plan for Gypsies and Travellers. I see here in the Chamber this evening at least four former council leaders, and I hope they will sympathise with the dilemma I faced. It is a thorny subject. Not many people have sympathy for Gypsy and Traveller families, but it is one of those hands you are dealt when you become a leader. The meeting was highly charged. I was in the lions’ den, but at least I was able to rely on a briefing from the council solicitor and monitoring officer as to what was the safe ground: the procedure about the local plan, the process about assessing needs, the duty to balance the needs of the settled and travelling communities and the obligations to follow the law. My job was to hold the ring.
I do not think I made any friends that evening, but I was the messenger for a law that not everybody appreciated. But, if the council did not follow the law, who else would? I got out alive and, in the circumstances, I think it probably went as well as it could have. The alternative was probably not to turn up, and that would not have been right at all. So imagine my surprise when I was called to a police interview a few days later to answer for a non-crime hate incident. I was supported by the council’s solicitor, who confirmed that, yes, I had accurately reported the process and the law at the meeting. Right was on my side. But that meant nothing. Perhaps someone in the audience that evening in Wymondham had hurty feelings. Perhaps they had an axe to grind against Gypsies and Travellers. Perhaps they were political opponents. Ironically, perhaps they were prejudiced against me.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak. I spoke in Committee, and I listened to what the Minister put forward and what the noble Lord on the opposite Bench said about the recording of non-crime hate. It depends on how you see non-crime hate and on who is at the receiving end of it. For me, it led to the murder of my son. For individuals who think they have the right to walk around and talk about especially young black men in a certain way, what starts off as just verbal leads to violence. This is what I tried put across in Committee: people see the verbal as a playground, but it is not necessarily that. After the inquiry, when that was put into a recommendation, it was said that, if those who are on the receiving end—or people around them—perceive it to be something, that is what it is.
If you take that away and do not record it, how do you move forward, if it then moves from something verbal into violence and you have no way of tracking back to where it started from? Okay, so within the report here, it could be said in a way so it comes across to make sure that you do not lose that part of it, because some of it leads to violence and that is what happened to my son. Hence, I take offence when people say that it is just playground talk, because it does not necessarily mean that. So noble Lords should please consider what they are saying here and what implications it has outside, and our children.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
Perhaps I could briefly add something to what the noble Baroness has just said. Just to clarify, I think that the kinds of remarks that she is talking about that were made about her son would be recorded and would meet the new criteria under the anti-social behaviour incident regime, which, as I understand it, is going to replace the NCHI regime. They would remain on a police database in a way that could then be used to detect and prevent a crime: they would meet the new recording threshold. I have no objection to that kind of thing being recorded: I think that it would serve a useful policing purpose. So just to be clear, I am not in any way suggesting that those kinds of remarks should not be included in future—I think that they should be—but I want to exclude the more trivial things from being recorded and having the police waste so much time on them.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
But you would not know until it gets to that point: to violence. If you do not start off with where it starts from, you will never get to the end, whether that is from trivial chat or whatever you want to call it, or playground. Later on, if that same individual or whoever carries on, that leads to violence, and if you have no way of going back to check where that started from, how do you know to be able to prosecute that individual for what he said, going back further to where we are now? That is what we need to be very careful about.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, one difficulty that we have had in relation to any discussion such as this is that the police are under an enormous amount of pressure because of the horrible things that happen—understatement of the year—to imagine that all speech can lead to violence. If they see that, obviously they will police all speech and treat everybody’s speech as potentially dangerous and damaging. Once that happens, we no longer live in a free, democratic society. That is quite straightforward.
One thing that I think is very difficult is that the horror of Stephen’s racist murder and the fact that the police did not intervene and there was so much scandal around it means that sometimes people feel very nervous, anxious or worried about saying anything in the name of fighting hate, in case they are somehow implicated in having prejudiced views. I would like to enthusiastically welcome the Government’s Amendment 383, abolishing the statutory basis for non-crime hate incidents, because, over the past few years, when some of us have raised problems with non-crime hate incidents, and with the police policing those incidents—as in attitudes and words—it has felt as though we were banging our heads against a brick wall. So it feels quite good to count this as something of a win, and even to be vindicated, because, to be honest, opposing non-crime hate incidents has meant facing some brickbats, both outside here, in my capacity as the director of the Academy of Ideas, and, to be honest, especially in here. There was a less than subtle inference that opposition to non-crime hate incidents, or indeed a whole range of hate legislation in fact, revealed some lurking bigotry or was proof that we were soft on hate.
Yet here we are, and that is proof of something else that is important: that it is always worth raising issues here and battling on, because sometimes Governments can change their minds and sometimes the College of Policing can change its mind—you can make people look at things again. I also welcome the outbreak of common sense and reasonableness from the College of Policing and the fact that there has been a genuine attempt to get on top of what obviously was not intended from the original non-crime hate incidents—it has got completely out of hand. Despite that, and despite the fact that I am delighted that the notions of freedom of expression and free speech have now been taken seriously by the different bodies, I still have some worries and would like some reassurance and clarification from the Minister.
I am worried about the risk of non-crime hate incidents simply being rebranded. The Government have suggested, as we have heard, that some incidents currently recorded as NCHIs will continue to be recorded as anti-social behaviour incidents. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Young, explained in terms of the higher threshold, I want to check with the Minister whether the behaviour that will be recorded that way will still be based on the subjective premise of a victim perceiving hostility or prejudice towards protected characteristics.
As so much anti-social behaviour regulation, as we discussed earlier on Report, is prosecuted to a lower evidential standard yet treated as a criminal offence and can lead to criminal sanctions, could this lower threshold be used in such incidents? I am worried about repeating the same problems. Can the Minister also rule out that any such anti-social behaviour hate incidents will be added to the national crime database, disclosed in enhanced DBS checks or investigated in much the same way as NCHIs? I am not sure about that.
One reason why I support Amendment 387B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is that it will make it harder to set up an alternative recording system that is NCHIs in all but name. I am also worried about ambiguity and confusion if we leave all this to guidance, as has been mentioned. As I understand it, police forces are not prohibited from continuing to record NCHIs under the Government’s amendment for quite a while, and I am just not sure how this is going to happen.
The statutory basis for NCHIs under Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was simply a way for the Secretary of State to issue guidance. Will repealing the statutory basis alone not simply mean that the police will return to the pre-2023 position where they continue with NCHIs under their own guidance? Maybe I have misunderstood that. Even if that happening only temporarily until the Government worked out exactly what to do, I am concerned about this muddled period.
Amendment 387B would rule out this concerning prospect, offer the police some clarity and guarantee the outcome that we all desire. Clarity, or lack of it, has always been a bugbear in relation to non-crime hate incidents. It is why I am so anxious to hear how the Government’s plans will be communicated, and I hope there will be clarity. On the one hand, we have experience of how a lack of clarity led to the growth of NCHIs without any intention for that to happen. Even the current DPP, Stephen Parkinson, admitted to the Times Crime and Justice Commission that until recently he “had no idea” what an NCHI was, was puzzled by it, and had to look up what on earth the term meant. That was the current DPP, noting that even within the police service there has been some surprise at the level of non-crime hate incidents that were being investigated because they did not know what they were.
The last thing police forces need now is to be left in limbo in any way, while consultation, regulations or guidance is sorted out. We know from An Inspection into Activism and Impartiality in Policing published by His Majesty’s inspectorate in September 2024 that there has been inconsistency in the way forces have responded to NCHI guidance. What happens if some of the more EDI-enthusiastic forces carry on spending thousands of hours sifting through online posts, seeking out so-called hate and so on and investigating common everyday interactions as if they are crimes, which I know is not what the Government or the College of Policing intend?
Limbo in law is never good and any ambiguities can lead to the law being flouted. I will give just one comparison. As of October 2025, the start of the academic year, only one university had complied with the Supreme Court judgment clarifying biological sex in relation to the Equality Act. The rest claimed to be waiting for the EHRC code—waiting for guidance rather than complying with their legal obligations. I do not want the same thing to happen.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests showing that I am the chair of the College of Policing. We are broadly in agreement about the way forward. There is a large measure of agreement that the current system of non-crime hate incidents is no longer fit for purpose. As the Minister said, under the new proposals in the final report into this matter that the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have produced, which goes to the police chiefs’ council next week for ratification, non-crime hate incidents will no longer be recorded. They will go.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this will not be a mere rebranding exercise. The threshold of an incident will be significantly increased. Common-sense professional judgment will guide decisions and only where there is a genuine risk of harm and a clear policing purpose will incidents continue to be recorded. The powerful intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, reminds us of the importance of ensuring that, where there is a risk of harm, we must continue to record the incidents. That was the original reason why, as a result of the recommendation of the Macpherson review, this regime was put in place. However, for all the reasons we have discussed, it does not work properly and there is a better approach that will reduce police time.
So far, so good, and I can therefore agree with most of my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 387. The one problematic area is the requirement that all records must be deleted after three months. The policy on deletion is a matter for the Government, not for the College of Police or the National Police Chiefs’ Council, but the view of those bodies is that it would be disproportionately burdensome to go back and delete all the existing records.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
Just to be clear, one of the differences between the amendment as originally drafted and this new version is that the new version no longer asks the police to go through all their databases and delete all historic NCHIs. It just asks them to delete those they come across. So, if a person who thinks they have an NCHI recorded against them, like my noble friend, writes to the police, fires off an SAR and discovers they have an NCHI still recorded against their name—and it does not meet the new, higher recording threshold—the police will be obliged to delete it. The amendment does not ask the police to go through records. As my noble friend says, that would be too resource-intensive; all it asks is that, when they come across them, they delete them if they do not meet the new threshold.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
Okay; that is helpful. I thank my noble friend, and I am sure the Government will respond to that. But if part of the purpose of this is to ensure that it meets the concern my noble friend set out—that people may, to use his words, be prevented from getting a job because of the release of a non-crime hate incident in an enhanced DBS check—I should point out that the review has not been able to find a single example of a non-crime hate incident being disclosed in an extended DBS check and preventing someone from securing employment. We therefore think the risk of that is very low. The release is a matter for the chief constable’s discretion. Of course, the risk could be made even lower if the new, higher threshold were applied to any future decision, but again, that would be within the Government’s gift to agree. What is already a negligible risk could be made even more negligible, so that would address the concern.
The final question relates to whether non-crime hate incidents will spring back into life, to use my noble friend’s expression. My response is, not so long as I am involved with this, and I am sure I could say the same for the chief executive of the college, Sir Andy Marsh. The serious point, however, is that there clearly has been a change of mood, partly because of the way in which social media has influenced this whole matter. But such action is always within the gift of any future Government, as my noble friend conceded: no Government can bind themselves to changing practice and policy. What matters now is that we put in place a robust regime that works and ensure that the police are focused on the right things.
Therefore, I am very pleased we have this broad agreement about the way forward. I do not think my noble friend’s amendment is necessary, but it is for the Government to respond to that. We must be wary of tying up the police more on this, when we are trying to release their time. We must also be aware of the injunction of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence: that serious incidents must continue to be recorded. We must remember why this regime was set up in the first place. Not every recorded non-crime hate incident has been trivial; they can indicate a building pattern of behaviour and that is what we have to guard against. But the new system will put in place higher thresholds to ensure that the trivial are weeded out, and that, I think, is what we all want.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, given the hour I do not want to detain the House for much longer. In fact, I have deleted the first page of my speech accordingly, and I will address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, in a moment.
First, this amendment insists that all future incident recording guidance must have due regard to freedom of expression—and that matters. In a liberal democracy, the test is not whether we protect only speech we agree with; it is whether we protect the space for robust, sometimes uncomfortable, debate on race, religion, sex, gender, politics and many other issues.
Police guidance should start from the principle that lawful speech is not a policing problem. Further, it deals with the past as well as the future. It should require that historic non-crime hate incident records which do not meet the proper recording threshold must not be disclosed on DBS checks and must be deleted when discovered. That is vital for natural justice. If we accept that this category has been misused and overused, we cannot leave people’s lives quietly marred by data that should never have been held in the first place. I particularly address these remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence.
This is not about turning a blind eye to genuine hate crime. On the contrary, by scrapping a vague, perception-based non-crime category, we free up police time and attention to focus on real offences: threats, harassment, violence and criminal damage. We will make the system clearer for victims and for officers. We will be sending a simple message that if you have been the victim of a crime, the law is there to protect you, and if you have merely heard something you strongly dislike, that is not in itself a matter for the police.
At the moment, too many people are unsure where that line lies. They fear that expressing a lawful view on a controversial subject might bring a knock at the door or a mark on their record. That chilling effect is corrosive. It drives honest disagreement underground and pushes some people out of the public square altogether. We should be defending the right to argue and criticise, and to challenge within the law, not encouraging people to outsource every disagreement to the police.
The amendment would preserve the ability of the police to record information where it is genuinely necessary for crime prevention and public safety. It would hardwire respect for freedom of expression into any future guidance. In doing so, it would strengthen civil liberties and good policing. It says that the police are there to deal with crime, not to catalogue lawful opinions. This is a distinction worth defending and I urge the House to support this amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the contributions from the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on their amendments, and to other speakers around your Lordships’ House. I want to return to the difficult and sensitive issues, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, of where the boundaries are and protecting the vulnerable versus free speech. We have debated that in some detail, with examples in Committee, so I will not rehearse those. I have two questions for the Minister about the new arrangements.
We are losing from the guidance a useful paragraph that sets out exactly that the risk of significant harm may be greater if the individual who has experienced the incident is considered to be vulnerable, and then directs people to the College of Policing as to how the police do that. I mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who said that everything under the regime that is about to disappear was entirely in the view of the individual who felt that that they were being done. That has not been the case. It has been assessed by the police, following the code of practice.
Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that, in deleting Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the police will not lose the balance that we have in the current code that sets out how to determine a vulnerable person from one of the categories covered in the Act, including race, religion, disability and LGBT, and the real risk that a crime may be committed in the future?
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, spoke very eloquently. What she did not say, and everyone has assumed, is that it was absolutely obvious from the start, when the verbal attacks started on Stephen and other young people in his area, that it would not have looked like something that should have been recorded. But there is something called a course of conduct, which is very common in harassment and stalking and a number of anti-social behaviours that start to build up, and the police bring in psychologists to look at that behaviour. One of the problems is that we cannot lose that progression. If things stop being recorded, I do not understand how you can do it. There are certainly rules about not using it in DBS checks, but if you lose that information, I really fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, is right to have concerns. So, can I ask the Minister if the Government—
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
The disagreement is not about whether incidents should be recorded because they could form part of a course of conduct which ends in a serious crime. The argument is about where the recording threshold should be placed. Surely the noble Baroness will accept that, if it is so low that the police are recording 65 non-crime hate incidents every day in England and Wales alone, then the threshold is too low.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The hour is late and I really do not want to get into a debate about that. The point is that the police are going to have to make whatever the new system is work. My worry is that there seems to be a line now that might exclude cases that are important because of the course of conduct which might become a criminal act.
I did not manage to get quite to the end of my speech. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government are confident that such a course of conduct under a number of non-crime hate incidents would be visible to the police if the code of practice is repealed and the police stop recording them.
Lord Lebedev (CB)
My Lords, I will not take much of your time. First, I fully respect and acknowledge the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, which I feel have been addressed very well from the other side of the House. I support Amendment 387B and endorse the arguments made by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in favour of this amendment.
Last July, I was able to raise the widespread concerns so many of us have about non-crime hate incidents—NCHIs—in a short debate in this House. I was encouraged by the widespread support across parties for a robust stance in defence of free speech. Many noble Lords outlined how pernicious NCHIs are. I was grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful engagement on the arguments.
Since that debate, there has been a welcome retreat from the use of NCHIs, with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and others recognising the inappropriateness of using valuable police time to harass individuals for exercising their right to free speech. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I am pleased that police leaders and Ministers now recognise that recording the names of citizens on police databases for actions which are not crimes should be curtailed. That is customary good practice, but it is, in this case, not enough.
We need to ensure that there is appropriate statutory protection for free speech, and we need to ensure that past expressions of opinion, which may have been recorded under a previous regime, cannot be used to blight the future of citizens. Amendment 387B would not only wipe clean the slate but affirm the importance of free speech, the foundational freedom on which all others depend. I commend it to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches from noble Lords across the House who recognise the problems that non-crime hate incidents have caused. I am very pleased to see that there is much agreement on this matter, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, for his update, as it were. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, for her very important intervention.
Like many of my noble friends and many noble Lords around the House, I fully support Amendment 387B tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Acton and the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger and Lord Hogan-Howe. The amendment would bring about the abolition of the category of so-called non-crime hate incidents. If this were to become the law of the land, NCHIs would be permanently dead. Their recording and retention would end, and we could finally put this well-intentioned but ultimately damaging experiment to bed.
We have had many debates during the passage of the Bill about the various tenets of hate crime laws and aggravating factors based on hostility. Indeed, only last Wednesday, the Government were successful in expanding their enormous web of legislation even further, despite our best efforts to stop them. We have lost that battle for now, but I reiterate my opposition to those provisions. While related to the debate we had last Wednesday, the matter before us now is rather different. Non-crime hate incidents are not hate crimes; they are something quite different. They represent the recording by police of incidents that are not crimes at all.
The House will have heard the background to NCHIs from other noble Lords, so I will not repeat that, but their establishment in 2014 via guidance issued by the College of Policing was motivated by sincere intentions. They were supposed to assist police in identifying patterns of hostility in communities that might escalate into criminal behaviour, and that objective was understandable, but in practice, the policy has drifted far beyond that limited purpose. We now find ourselves in a position where individuals can have a police record created about them for conduct that is entirely lawful, simply because another person perceives it to have been motivated by hostility. That is a very serious matter indeed.
The threshold for the recording of these incidents is ridiculously low. A person needs only to be concerned by another’s conduct in order for them to report such conduct to the police for recording as an NCHI.
The matter has quite rightly received serious scrutiny in recent years, and I particularly want to reference the independent review conducted by the College of Policing and led by my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs into the use of non-crime hate incidents. The review acknowledged a number of very significant concerns, and it recognised that the recording of such incidents had in some cases created a chilling effect on free expression. It also identified problems with the threshold for recording and the potential for disproportionate interference in the lives of individuals who had committed no crime.
The review led to revised guidance from the College of Policing intended to raise the threshold for recording NCHIs and better protect freedom of expression. I welcome that effort. It was a step in the right direction.
The review also demonstrated something more fundamental—that the concept itself is deeply problematic. We have seen, over the years, a number of examples where the recording of non-crime hate incidents has been plainly vexatious, trivial or disproportionate. In one widely reported case, a former police officer found himself the subject of a non-crime hate incident after engaging in a debate on social media about gender identity. There are several examples that have been given in the debate, so I shall not provide further evidence. There have been cases where individuals have had police records created simply for sharing satirical material online, expressing controversial opinions or engaging in perfectly lawful political debate. We should pause and consider what this means in practice.
In some circumstances, such records may be disclosed during enhanced background checks conducted by the Disclosure and Barring Service. That means that an allegation about a non-criminal matter could potentially affect a person’s employment prospects, particularly in professions involving children or vulnerable adults. There have been documented cases where individuals have feared precisely that outcome.
I also recall the remarks of Ministers during our Committee debates, in which the Government acknowledged the importance of protecting free speech in this area, and the Home Office has repeatedly recognised the need to strike the right balance. Indeed, the Home Secretary herself has spoken publicly about the importance of ensuring that policing does not stray into the regulation of lawful expression. She has emphasised that police officers must focus on real crime and genuine threats to public safety. I agree with those sentiments, but I suggest that the time has come to move beyond incremental reform. The fundamental difficulty is that the concept of a non-crime hate incident places the police in the position of adjudicating perceived hostility in circumstances where no law has been broken. That is an uncomfortable and inappropriate role for the police service.
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for making the time to meet us and to the College of Policing for the briefing it gave on its plans for the future recording of such incidents. It was helpful of the Minister to set out some of that when we opened.
As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton said, the proposals by the college are certainly welcome. It has been clear that NCHIs will not exist any more and that any incident where hostility is a motivating factor will now be recorded as an ASB incident. Critically, these will not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. The college has also said that it will be providing updated guidance and training to clarify the higher standards of proof required for the recording of such incidents, and a new triaging method.
This is all welcome, but that does not mean that all is perfect. I still have some concerns and will briefly outline them. My first concern is that, if the abolition of NCHIs is not embedded in statute, there is the possibility of them being brought back to life in the future. All it would take is a change in Home Secretary, or a new Prime Minister, who could reintroduce them by the back door. If all we have is guidance, there is no legal safeguard to prevent them returning. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that they are gone for good and will never be resurrected from the dead.
Secondly, it must be explicitly acknowledged that any guidance produced by the College of Policing about the future recording of incidents will have freedom of expression at its heart. If this had been the case when the NCHI regime was created, we might not have seen as many unintended consequences. It is a fairly basic requirement, which is why I am pleased that my noble friend has included that in his amendment.
Thirdly, the issue of historic NCHI recordings needs to be addressed. Given that the Government have now agreed to abolish them, it does not seem right that thousands will still exist and may very well be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks. That is a matter of fairness. Individuals should not carry the burden of a police record relating to conduct that was never a crime in the first place. That has now been acknowledged as a mistake.
However, like my noble friend, I appreciate the point made by the College of Policing: that to require their deletion within a few months, as the original amendment sought, would be a highly labour-intensive process. If our purpose is to prevent the police wasting time and allow them to do their job, requiring them to sit down and trawl through every single file does not make sense. However, where NCHI recordings are discovered, they should be deleted and they most certainly should not be disclosed. It is sensible to have the guarantee in statute.
The college and the Government have made commendable progress and I reiterate that I am genuinely pleased at the direction of travel. However, we still need some guardrails. That is why we on these Benches believe that there must be a provision in legislation to ensure that NCHIs are gone, that they do not return and that the new regime is more transparent, reasonable and respectful of freedom of expression. For that reason, I very much support Amendment 378B and, if my noble friend does press it to a Division, we will follow him into the Content Lobby.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the discussion and, in winding up this debate, I put on record my thanks to Sir Andy Marsh of the College of Policing for the work he has done on this exercise of examining non-crime hate incidents. I remind the House that we are here today with the amendments I have tabled and with the outline that I have given from the College of Policing response, which the chair of the College of Policing has also endorsed. We are here today because the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, commissioned that review and asked for a report to be produced. That is why we are here today: we have taken action.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talking about his experiences. That was not the responsibility of this Government. We are trying to change that regime. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that we are trying to change that regime. I say to all noble Lords who spoke that we are trying to change that regime. However, I say to my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon that, in doing so, we want to ensure that we keep the essence of what that regime was established for: to identify precisely the issues that she mentioned in her very powerful contribution. The intent—to gather information, to prevent crime, to understand tensions, to look at potential areas where tensions could arise, to support investigations and to safeguard the vulnerable—remains as relevant today as it did 30 years ago.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Lebedev, Lord Fuller, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who have spoken on this issue, that we understand the issue. However, I hope that we are making some movement to address the concerns, at the same time as keeping the essence of why those non-crime hate incidents needed to be recorded in the first place, and to have the revisions that the College of Policing have brought forward. Once they are endorsed, we will look at how we put those into practice in due course. I hope that will help both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am struggling to understand what the rationale would be for disclosing in an enhanced DBS check an NCHI which, under the new recording thresholds, would not have been recorded. The Minister elided the issue by suggesting that the police—a chief constable—might think in future it would be sensible to disclose relevant information if someone is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults. But if the police would not have recorded that historic NCHI under the new higher recording threshold—because it would not be considered to have any police or intelligence value, or value in the detection or prevention of a crime—what justification could there be for disclosing it in an enhanced DBS check? If there is not one, what will it cost the Government to put it in statute that it cannot happen?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is asking for the deletion of historic records. That is the important point I am trying to make. If the chief officer determines that that non-conviction information should be disclosed—I go back to the 4,920 disclosures out of 4.1 million, including all matters for an enhanced DBS check—then it is important that we do not fetter the chief officer’s hands and apply a prohibition to disclose information which may be relevant to individuals. That may be a difference between us and, as the noble Lord, Lord David of Gower, said, we may well test that in a Division when the time comes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made the absolutely right point that we need to ensure that we do not repeal Sections 60 and 61 until a replacement framework is in place. We will try to do that. As I said at the start of the debate and in the comments I have just made, it is essential that police and others continue to have the ability to monitor hate and hostility to prevent crime and safeguard the vulnerable. That is also the assurance I give to my noble friend Lady Lawrence.
In summary, the Government’s amendment is designed to repeal the statutory guidance, restore focus and reduce administrative burdens. We have made those changes because of the type of incidents noble Lords referred to. Amendment 387B would risk creating precisely the opposite effect and, for those reasons, the Government cannot support it. I invite the noble Lord not to move his amendment when the time comes, but, in the meantime—tonight—I commend Amendment 383 because, having considered and reviewed the matter, it is the right thing to do. In establishing the new regime, we will make sure that we keep the essence of the important matters from the former regime.